In the “West Wing” episode “Inauguration,” scriptwriter Aaron Sorkin has his characters quoting–I believe–Margaret Mead in saying, “”Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does.”
So now we’re seeing this taking hold in Crawford, Texas, as Cindy Sheehan puts exactly what the White House has never wanted onto the losses in Iraq: A human face.
I have to admit, I think it’s absurd when I read the contention that her son joined the army some years back but never thought he’d actually have to GO anywhere. Ma’am, he joined the ARMY. Did he think it was all Sergeant Bilko or Gomer Pyle? I mean, sure, there were those eight reviled years of peace and prosperity, but there was no guarantee it was going to last.
Nevertheless, when the time came, her son did what he signed up to do. Did what he had to do. And now she’s doing what she has to do–getting in the President’s face. And the President is doing what he has to do–hide in his ranch and wait for this to go away.
She’s demanding accountability from her president.. Now we see just how much building rage there is in this country in terms of others likewise demanding it.
PAD
UPDATE–I really like this notion, as mentioned below: “Wouldn’t it be interesting if some of the other moms who lost their sons in Iraq decided to join that one-woman protest, so that it continued to grow in size…and grow…and grow…”
It’d be like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, except it’s Mothers Opposing Bush. MOB. “Yes, there’s a MOB scene here in Crawford.” “MOB rule has broken out outside the White House…”
Interesting thought.
• 
How about some kind prepackaged fake cheese then, like Velveeta or Cheez-whiz?
I’m just trying to be clear here…
The Republicans, guardians of morals, protectors of the family, are against a mother wanting to know the reason her son died?
So…Bill O’Rielly vs Al Franken.
Uhm…isn’t one a journalist, or at least a news comentator vs the other who’s a commedian? I mean, one has a daily show on a major news channel, the other was Stuart Smalley?
Is this the disconnect that the right has? They’ve been spinning reality in their own twisted way they can no longer tell the difference between Right World and the Real World? When Jon Stewart on Crossfire and he was taking them to task for not actually working to inform people, they tried to reflect the criticism by pointint out his own fluff interview with John Kerry….they didn’t seem to get the difference between a news show and a fake news show on Comedy Central.
No Todd, they’re against a bereaved mother taking the spotlight away from the photo-ops of Bush clearing brush from the most brush-infested ranch in America. Doesn’t she know that the month of August is earmarked for Bush’s “look like a plain ole’ country rancher” event?
For those who say “It’s not what her son would want!”, putting aside that you don’t know her son…would you go up to a member of MADD and tell her to shut up, because clearly their dead child liked beer?
Uhm…isn’t one a journalist, or at least a news comentator vs the other who’s a commedian? I mean, one has a daily show on a major news channel, the other was Stuart Smalley?
No, one is the former host of a tabloid news program and the other helped create the Coneheads. Why should we take the opinions of either of them seriously?
they didn’t seem to get the difference between a news show and a fake news show on Comedy Central.
Waitaminute. Are you saying that Crossfire wasn’t a fake comedy news show?
You know, I have to say that in this thread I’m seeing a lot more instances of generalization on both sides than I’m used to here, maybe because it’s such a sensitive issue. I’m glad such passionate issues only pop up occasionally on here; much like radicalism, it’s important to have a reenergizing debate every so often, but not continuously.
Personally, it’s a crap call to have to make whether to meet with her or not; she’s got President Bush in the classic Catch-22. Meet with her as an individual protester, opening the floodgates to future instances and a veritable gridlock of the office, or don’t meet with her to avoid this and be labeled as uncaring, etc. At this point, would people consider President Bush compassionate for meeting with her, or would they, after calling for him to meet with her and attacking him for not doing so, then promptly reverse and label any such meeting a political act, void of sincerity, if he chose to meet with her?
As an aside I nearly bashed my Republican head into my desk when I read his statement regarding the protest about having to move on with his life. Why do you continue to say such things, Mr. President? Did you go an extra mile or two on the mountain bike and get a little dizzy? “As I told her last summer at the White House, I’m sorry for Mrs. Sheehan’s loss; her son died in honorable service to this country. Thank you.” That’s all you should say about it; otherwise, talk about your shiny bike or what you’re doing to move things forward in Iraq, but don’t get in an emotional battle with a mother of a serviceman killed on duty.
Are you saying that Crossfire wasn’t a fake comedy news show?
I never found it very funny…though the bow-tie was a good laugh. I hear it was supposed to make him look edgy and appeal to the youth market.
Why do you continue to say such things, Mr. President?
Because Ðìçk told me too!
I never found it very funny…though the bow-tie was a good laugh.
Well, it certainly wasn’t a serious news program either.
I hear it was supposed to make him look edgy and appeal to the youth market.
Yeah, because bowties are sooo popular among the 18-24 demographic. I think Tucker is trying to convince people he’s the illegitimate son of George Will.
By the way, I suppose I should be totally honest:
If I’m president, no way in hëll do I meet with this woman.
I understand her plight. I’d feel badly for her. Maybe I have her meet with CJ Cregg. But I just don’t see how the president of the United States can be dictated to by a protestor setting up on his front lawn, no matter how heartfelt her protest and deep her anger. If the president establishes the precedent that he’ll meet with a single protestor who brings her case to the media, then basically he’s setting himself up to have his calendar dictated by every person with an issue and access to a TV camera. Next thing you know, several thousand people are setting up shop outside the White House 24/7, every individual shouting that he or she won’t leave until they get THEIR audience with the president. To quote Leo McGarry, “Government will stop. This will be all we do.”
I just don’t see how he can meet with her, unless he’s prepared to meet with two hundred and fifty million other people, all of whom feel they have as much right as Cindy Sheehan.
PAD
How about some kind prepackaged fake cheese then, like Velveeta or Cheez-whiz?
Perfect. Bush — the voice of the Cheez-Whiz generation.
(Good on pretzels, too.)
TWL
If I’m president, no way in hëll do I meet with this woman. I understand her plight. I’d feel badly for her. Maybe I have her meet with CJ Cregg. But I just don’t see how the president of the United States can be dictated to by a protestor setting up on his front lawn, no matter how heartfelt her protest and deep her anger.
In fact, a couple of staffers went out last week (I’m wanting to say the Deputy CoS – so she got Josh Lemon-Lymon out there). However, that’s not what she wants.
By her own admission, this is what she wants. She said publically that she knows if Bush meets with her, then her momentum is gone and this is over and the media storm ends.
Typical politics, really: perception is more important than reality. In this case, you have an idle press corps in Crawford just dying to cover something, and in she walks.
I have to wonder if President Bush will take his month-long vacation in Crawford after this.
I have to wonder if President Bush will take his month-long vacation in Crawford after this.
That brush ain’t gonna clear itself!
Ðìçk always make sure there’s enough planted there for me to clear.
Thank you PAD, for justifying why the President shouldn’t meet Sheehan again.
There’s always Limburger, which has the additional benefit of making everyone think you’re about to make a Rush reference…
If it weren’t for Warner Bros cartoons, I don’t think 1 person out of 500 would know what Limburger is. Sadly, more and more kids are growing up without exposure to those classics.
By the way, I suppose I should be totally honest:
If I’m president, no way in hëll do I meet with this woman.
PAD comes through with a breath of fresh air. Kudos, sir.
If it weren’t for Warner Bros cartoons, I don’t think 1 person out of 500 would know what Limburger is. Sadly, more and more kids are growing up without exposure to those classics.
There’s also the Python “cheese shop” sketch.
“You haven’t asked me about Limburger, sir.”
“Is it worth it?”
“Could be.”
“All right. Do you have any Limburger, he asked, expecting the answer ‘no.'”
My kid’s gonna get an education in the classics, for sure.
TWL
have either of you actually eaten Limburger? i have. it’s not something a child should be exposed to. if limburger were to make it onto the menu at Gitmo, i think even Alberto Gonzales would consider that to be torture.
it must be popular around here, because they always keep it in stock at the Albertson’s on Crenshaw.
“venezualen beaver cheese?”
As for the “election”, would you call Iran a democracy after their recent presidential election?
I wouldn’t.
Well, neither would I but we are talking about Kyrgyzstan, right. I’m not the impartial international expert that Ted Rall is but I understand that the Organization for the Security and Cooperation of Europe gave the elections a passing grade, the first time a former Soviet central Asian republics got a passing grade from the OSCE.
Here is a Newsweek article that has several firsthand accounts from families who have met with the President (note, none of this came from the White House). Not all wanted to meet with him, some have refused. It provides a bit more information on how the President has handled these meetings.
I have to wonder if President Bush will take his month-long vacation in Crawford after this.
*scoff* What makes you think he won’t just decide to extend the vacation while he’s at it?
but I understand that the Organization for the Security and Cooperation of Europe gave the elections a passing grade
Well, if they approved our last two presidential elections as well, I can’t say I have any faith in them. 😉
I’ve been away for a few days.
Earlier in the thread John wrote (and I’ll reply to in sections):
That’s not true. For one thing, criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic.
Usually the one goes hand-in-hand with the other. Sad but true.
For another, there is an obvious comparison in the situations. (Just like the Irish/English troubles too) Any country which is occupying foreign territories will be attacked by the indiginous peoples. You want to stop the terrorism? Stop getting involved in other peoples countries. Get out, get the army out, and stay out.
Firstly the Irish-English problem has to do more literally with religion than with occupation. Secondly her remark mentioned “Palestine”, which as a whole might indicate that she does not support the existence of Israel as a state, as “Palestine” describes the entirety of the region. Thirdly, although the US has provided support for Israel, that support is not with the presence of American troops. The Israelis are on their own in that department and have done quite well, thank you.
That goes for America in Iraq (and other countries), Israel in Gaza/West Bank, and many other comparable situations.
Israel is withdrawing from Gaza as this is being written. And they are doing it despite huge upheaval among their own population who are at loggerheads with each other over whether it will finally provide the springboard for true peace in their country. And it’s being spearheaded by Ariel Sharon, who I can’t compare to anyone LESS likely to do such a thing from his past experiences, yet who must be viewed as a visionary because he’s the guy who’s willing to really give it a try. We’ll see if a real peace can be achieved there or whether the Palestinians will just continue as usual. (Incidentally, I think it’ll sadly be the latter…..but we’ll see). So your argument is without merit.
You may disagree, fair enough, that’s fine. But don’t try to label her fair comment as somehow anti-semitic.
See refutation to first item.
Apologies if my use of italics did not translate.
Earlier poster I am sorry for her loss
TWL: You’ll have to forgive me if I have extreme difficulty believing that.
No, actually, we don’t have to forgive you for assuming that your opponents lack basic human values and the capacity for sympathy, or for pretending such in order to get in a good rhetorical jab. We have to be disappointed in you for that. Geez, Tim, you’re supposed to be one of the smart ones here; make some effort to raise the level of discourse.
Someone wrote, “George Bush is the legally elected President (spare me the jokes on 2000 – he won again). That deserves some measure of respect no matter your political affiliation.”
Why? Because it shows that their guy sucks less than the alternatives? Come back to me when this country actually has a decent electoral process with a run-off between top vote-getters, so that people actually feel like their vote counts, and maybe then I’ll have some “ok, you beat us” respect for whoever wins an election.
You do realize that when two parties command the allegiance of the vast majority of the population (which wasn’t true about 1992 or 2000, but was in 2004), a run-off between top vote getters looks exactly like the general election, right? Given the new records set for votes cast and the tightness of the races in the “battleground states,” it’s pretty difficult to argue that large numbers of people outside the reddest or bluest states felt their votes didn’t count in 2004; turnout mattered, and 118,000,000 people turned out. Every vote was counted and there was a legitimate winner. You don’t have to like it, but don’t blame the lack of a runoff for 60,693,281 people disagreeing with you. Frankly, I don’t think runoffs are even a good idea; only first choices should be counted. Your complaint that it boils down to “your guy sucks less than the alternative” is precisely what a runoff guarantees; having voted for the candidate of their choice in round 1, and having had him eliminated, round 2 exists for the sole purpose of smaller factions choosing the lesser of the remaining evils. There is no added benefit from a runoff, unless you consider it beneficial to make it explicitly clear that a majority of the population voted against the winner when given a free choice. At least with the current system, there’s an outside chance someone interesting could emerge with a mandate in which a majority of the voters actually feel “their” candidate won.
You may disagree, fair enough, that’s fine. But don’t try to label her fair comment as somehow anti-semitic.
See refutation to first item.
You didn’t really refute that, though. He said that criticism of Israel doesn’t necessarily imply anti-Semitism. You said that they typically overlap. Those statements aren’t logically contradictory; saying that something is “usually” X concedes that it is sometimes !X, which is really all the first post said.
“Two, unless I’ve missed something, Mrs. Sheehan decided to do this on her own.”
You’ve missed something.
Unless all those left-wing political activist groups that send me mail to my mailbox are all lying, she is definitely not doing this on her own. They are supporting her. and gladly take credit.
“Two, unless I’ve missed something, Mrs. Sheehan decided to do this on her own.”
You’ve missed something.
Unless all those left-wing political activist groups that send me mail to my mailbox are all lying, she is definitely not doing this on her own. They are supporting her. and gladly take credit.
David Bjorlin wrote:
You didn’t really refute that, though. He said that criticism of Israel doesn’t necessarily imply anti-Semitism. You said that they typically overlap. Those statements aren’t logically contradictory; saying that something is “usually” X concedes that it is sometimes !X, which is really all the first post said.
Tell me David, how would you characterize a comment like “Get Israel out of Palestine”?
“Israel is withdrawing from Gaza as this is being written.”
but aren’t they still building homes in other parts of the occupied West Bank?
the whole settlement thing sets up a perverse situation. you have the settlers, who are given financial assistance (in some cases up to half a million dollars per family) from the government, plus the millions rolling in from non-government sources. the are a tiny minority living among Palestinians, many of them refugees expelled from their own home villages.
the discrepancy in wealth alone is enough to make the situation a powder-keg.
the uprooting of the settlers is certainly going to be painful. my understanding is that while some are going to a new village being built further north, many will wind up in hotels and there’s not necessarily a good plan for where to put all of them.
however, this move is not necessarily out of the goodness of Sharon’s heart. this area was becoming strategically too difficult to hold. by pulling out in one place, they can better hold onto other parts.
Lincoln would meet with the woman, but while PAD was definitely wrong about what conservatism is, he was correct about why the POTUS shouldn’t meet with citizen Sheehan. If he does then he’s setting a precedent to meet with any 1 out of 250,000,000 people set up something like this in his front yard at any given time.
Aside from that, what, pray tell, is a neocon? It’s been six months since the last time I read or heard anyone define or elaborate or ellucidate or determine precisely what a neoconservative is and how that is different from a so-called paleoconservative.
however, this move is not necessarily out of the goodness of Sharon’s heart. this area was becoming strategically too difficult to hold. by pulling out in one place, they can better hold onto other parts.
I think that’s perhaps a jaded point of view on the situation. The Palestinians have long held Gaza as one of their most important areas for withdrawal. In carrying out this move Sharon is demonstrating a sincere desire to move forward on the peace process.
However, he has also made it clear that if the Palestinians continue their terrorist ways against Israel, or worse use Gaza as a new base of terrorism, Israel will retaliate much more forcefully than anyone could have previously contemplated. So there is the olive branch if you will, tinged with the threat of a severe situation should it not be accepted. This indicates that Israel would have no problem strategically holding the Gaza if it so desired.
Rather, as one of the ministers in Sharon’s government also stated, it would be interesting to see how the Palestinians now handle autonomy in Gaza, pointing out that any failures there would now be their own and that they would no longer have Israel to blame.
If nothing else, this is a golden opportunity for the Palestinians to demonstrate their true intentions.
Unless all those left-wing political activist groups that send me mail to my mailbox are all lying, she is definitely not doing this on her own. They are supporting her. and gladly take credit.
Look again. The claim you are allegedly refuting is that
“Two, unless I’ve missed something, Mrs. Sheehan decided to do this on her own.”
It says nothing about what kind of support she did or didn’t receive after making that decision — it says that the decision was made on her own. You have not said anything that bears on that point.
TWL
Geez, Tim, you’re supposed to be one of the smart ones here; make some effort to raise the level of discourse.
What a lovely quote to see mere seconds after you said something about pretending in order to get in a good rhetorical jab.
You might want to see my response to Mark if you really think I was accusing him of lacking the capacity for compassion. Your choice, of course.
TWL
Aside from that, what, pray tell, is a neocon?
A neocon is a conservative who has tossed the idea of limited government out the window in favor of flexing America’s military might as the strategy of first choice and who thinks diplomacy is a sign of weakness. See: Ðìçk Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, etc.
You do realize that when two parties command the allegiance of the vast majority of the population (which wasn’t true about 1992 or 2000, but was in 2004), a run-off between top vote getters looks exactly like the general election, right?
The better option, imo, is to open up the primaries – to take away the decision from the RNC and DNC about who gets the nomination, and have registered voters choose those candidates in a single election.
But then, we’re still down to the same two-party, “whoever has the most money wins” situation we’ve got now.
Our whole political system sucks ášš.
“You do realize that when two parties command the allegiance of the vast majority of the population (which wasn’t true about 1992 or 2000, but was in 2004), a run-off between top vote getters looks exactly like the general election, right? Given the new records set for votes cast and the tightness of the races in the “battleground states,” it’s pretty difficult to argue that large numbers of people outside the reddest or bluest states felt their votes didn’t count in 2004; turnout mattered, and 118,000,000 people turned out. Every vote was counted and there was a legitimate winner. You don’t have to like it, but don’t blame the lack of a runoff for 60,693,281 people disagreeing with you. Frankly, I don’t think runoffs are even a good idea; only first choices should be counted. Your complaint that it boils down to “your guy sucks less than the alternative” is precisely what a runoff guarantees; having voted for the candidate of their choice in round 1, and having had him eliminated, round 2 exists for the sole purpose of smaller factions choosing the lesser of the remaining evils. There is no added benefit from a runoff, unless you consider it beneficial to make it explicitly clear that a majority of the population voted against the winner when given a free choice. At least with the current system, there’s an outside chance someone interesting could emerge with a mandate in which a majority of the voters actually feel “their” candidate won.”
David, I can’t say that much of what you say is untrue, but there’s also a lot of opinion within it. If I’m doing the math right, your figure of 102 million votes this time around is just 56% of the registered voters. While that is a majority, and an impressive number, I would not call 56% a “vast” majority. Vast to me would be somewhere in the high 70s to 80s%.
And whether you have a run-off or not, there will always be voters that are voting against a candidate as much as they are voting for a candidate. I don’t see what’s so special about first choices that should give them more weight over second choices. Process of elimination is a very valid way to arrive at a consensus. Start with everyone’s ideas, discuss their merits, eliminate those that are unpalatable to many, boil the choices down to a smaller number, and then decide on those. If voters are going to vote petty, they’re going to vote petty whether there’s a single election or a run-off. But I could toss the other argument at you and suggest that with just the top 2 vote getters, voters are more likely to vote based on the real issues, focusing on the only two choices they have.
My response wasn’t meant to be a criticism of our election system, although it clearly became that. The post I was responding to suggested that simply by virtue of winning the election, Bush had proven himself worthy of respect. Bush won with votes from about 29% of all registered voters, with 43% not voting. I fail to see what about that accomplishment demands respect? If Bush had truly won the election by a “vast majority” if all registered voters, that I might actually respect.
“Thank you PAD, for justifying why the President shouldn’t meet Sheehan again.”
Yeah, but the problem is that Bush can’t justify it.
I mean, it’s obvious to ME why Bush can’t have his schedule dictated by Cindy Sheehan. And if Bush explained it in similar terms to what I just did, I think it would be pretty irrefutable.
Instead he talks about feeling her pain buthe’s got to get on with his life? Get ON with his LIFE? WTF?
I was able to explain it. Why the hëll can’t he?
My comprehension of the problem doesn’t make him any less of a putz.
PAD
Thoughts on Instant Runoff Voting, anyone? (Other than “I can’t see how it’ll happen in this country in the next century”, of course?)
TWL
“The post I was responding to suggested that simply by virtue of winning the election, Bush had proven himself worthy of respect. Bush won with votes from about 29% of all registered voters, with 43% not voting. I fail to see what about that accomplishment demands respect? If Bush had truly won the election by a “vast majority” if all registered voters, that I might actually respect.”
Actually, I suppose it all boils down to what’s intended by “respect.”
I mean, I respect Bush right now. I respect his ability to lie. To decieve. To spread fear. To talk out both sides of his mouth. To say “Saddam” and “9/11” enough times together so that 73% of the American public become convinced that Iraq destroyed the Two Towers (instead of Bush’s pals, the Saudis) while retaining deniability of ever specifically saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I respect his ability to rewrite history, turning an unprovoked invasion searching for non-existent WMDs into an alleged exercise in Democracy, and will certainly rewrite it further, like a Presidential Pee Wee Herman standing over his broken bike and claiming, “I meant to do that.”
I respect his ability to take his utter inability to string a coherent sentence together and transform it into self-effacing folksy charm that helps get him elected by people who are more concerned about voting for a guy they feel comfortable watching on TV rather than a man with intellect.
I respect all those things.
They’re just not attributes I value or respect in a president.
PAD
Tell me David, how would you characterize a comment like “Get Israel out of Palestine”?
But that comment is not of itself anti-Semetic (or more accurately, anti-Jewish). Now if the comment was “Get the fithy Zionists out of Palestine” . . . .
“Thoughts on Instant Runoff Voting, anyone? (Other than “I can’t see how it’ll happen in this country in the next century”, of course?)”
i think that Instant Runoff Voting is an excellent idea. the Green Party has been pushing for it at the local level in many places. thanks to their efforts, there are now a few hundred towns around the country that use Instant Runoff Voting for their elections.
it’s not much, but it’s a start. it also shows that third parties really can make a difference.
Instant Runoff Voting and holding Elections on a weekend (or making Election Day a holiday) would be two very positive moves for this country.
Sasha is right. One unfortunate mistake many people make is to confuse the Jewish people with the nation and government of Israel. One can disagree with the policies an actions of Israel and not be anti-semetic.
Interestingly enough, Cindy Sheehan has publicly denied making the “my son died for Israel” statement attributed to her.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/15/acd.01.html
Well, it seems that somebody REALLY hates Cindy Sheehan. She and her supporters had set up crosses alongside the road with the names of fallen soldiers. (Not sure how familiar everyone is with these, but they’re fairly common around my part of the country, usually as a marker of someone who died as the result of a traffic accident near the location of the cross.) Well, apparently, someone who hates the idea of honoring dead soldiers decided to smash through a number of the crosses with his/their pickup truck. What exactly does that say about the mindset of Dubya’s neighbors?
In response to “Blue Spider”s comment Unless all those left-wing political activist groups that send me mail to my mailbox are all lying, she is definitely not doing this on her own. They are supporting her. and gladly take credit., is it not possible that Cindy came up with the idea of this protest on her own, but has received support AFTER deciding to go to Crawford? I mean, I really hate to think that you can’t even consider that as a possibility unless you’ve been so fully propagandized by the right-wing hatemongers and liars that the idea of a single person taking action on their own is inconceivable. (Hint: Rosa Parks acted ON HER OWN when she refused to give up her seat in the “Colored” section of the bus to a white man, and was later supported by the rest of the Colored community of Montgomery. However, there’s no evidence that anyone prompted Mrs Parks to take such an action.) I don’t deny that Ms Sheehan has received support SINCE making her stand, but for you to suggest that there was some conspiracy afoot is beyond rational thought.
Thoughts on Instant Runoff Voting, anyone?
Useful only if a third party (or more) can get more votes than what they’re getting now.
The problem is getting to the point where there’s a viable third party.
And our existing, worthless two parties won’t allow that.
Craig, I’m hopeful that we’ll see the end of the 2 party stranglehold on this country’s government end in my lifetime (that’s hopefully sometime in the next 50 or 60 years). Why? Because what really wins elections? No, not votes….it’s access to voters. And traditionally, access to voters meant you needed money. and lots, and lots, and lots of it. Print, Video, Radio, and in-person tours.
Today, a simple person with a simple blog has access to literally the whole country (or at least that portion that has internet access). Access to voters should quickly become something that everyone will have. And given that, it’s only a matter of time before a non GOP/Dem candidate makes use of this Internet to run a campaign, start a true grass-roots, word of mouth movement, and get an independant into the White House.
but Instant Runoff Voting could help make third parties viable.
how many more people might vote for the Greens or some other party if they weren’t concerned about casting spoiler votes?
i’m not saying the third parties would stand much chance of winning big elections, but this sort of thing might help them gain momentum.
i suspect a lot more people might have voted for Nader or someone like him if they had been able to put Kerry as their second choice.
i’m not saying John Kerry would have won if there were Instant Runoff Voting.
it would be nice if the officials in charge of voting were career civil servants rather than partisan politicians. the last two presidential elections have hinged on states where the official in charge of the voting process were working for the Bush campaign. it’s hard to imagine a clearer example of a conflict of interest.
i’m not saying John Kerry would have won if there were Instant Runoff Voting.
No, but I’ll go ahead and say Gore almost certainly would’ve.
TWL
Okay, no matter what you think about Cindy Sheehan’s vigil, can we all agree that the guy who drove a druck over the crosses she put up is an áššhølë?
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-08-16T191837Z_01_SCH657034_RTRIDST_0_USREPORT-BUSH-PROTESTER-DC.XML
Nice to know Patriotism and supporting the troops only lasts for some until the real costs of this war come and camp out on your doorstep, eh?