Discourse.net

That's about the way I see it (I've told friends I think the popular vote'll be at least 54-46), and that's why the GOP attack machine will be in overdrive. Their only hope is that people just won't vote. To do this, they'll turn again to the tactic they've used most successfully before: overwhelming, coordinated attacks and smears to depress voter turnout by getting ordinary, decent people so disgusted with politics and politicians that they stay home. It worked to perfection in 1994, and it mostly worked in 2000.

Of course they'll try specific voter thinning through little tricks like purging the voter rolls. But I've been convinced for a couple of years now that the major purpose of really vicious attack ads and underground smears in general elections (it's different in primaries) is not to get voters to switch, but to get voters to stay home. It's a deliberate tactic to drive down turnout.

People need to be aware of this and not let it get them to stay home. Remember, it's a tactic that uses decent peoples' sense of fair play against them.

Sadly, I don't think it's that easy. I do agree with the premise that those who voted for Gore will vote for Kerry. In fact, while it will not be easy, I think that Kerry can win all the same states Gore won in 2000, and yes I understand that means PA, NM, Ore., and Wisc. But after the 2000 census, Kerry will end up 6 more electoral votes short with that calculus. Kerry has to win all those same states, which won't be easy, _and_ add either a Florida (not likely given Jeb's chicanery) or Ohio (possible), or a combination of, say, NH, W.Va., and Nevada. Dems now say Virginia is in play but that's a non-starter. My point is that while it's true some Kerry and some Bush supporters will stay home, it won't be enough to overcome the electoral realities. At best, I predict Kerry will win all the Gore states, plus NH and W.Va. That gives each candidate 269 electoral votes. The 12th Amendment kicks in, and the GOP wins the House vote, 31-15 (4 states have an equal number of GOP and Dem House members).

It will be very difficult for Kerry to win all the Gore states. But even if he does, the more daunting task of picking up states will be the problem. Just as Gore voters will vote for Kerry, Bush voters will vote for Bush. The country is so divided, the result is that it seems voters have really dug in and taken an interest in validating their 2000 vote. The number of undecideds in swing states is very small. While there might be some Bush voters who are grossly disappointed in his performance and decide to swtich over, the question is whether that will be enough to make a red state blue.

I just don't see where the electoral math works for the Dems. Virginia, Florida, Ohio, either of the Carolinas--these are possible but, as the British say, not bloody likely. As much as I hate to say it, the best chance of making a red state blue is in Florida. The new Cuba travel restrictions might have an effect. It's going to get ugly in Florida, that's for sure.

I think Floridians will be out in force. I do not believe that Jeb will be able to steal Florida twice. THere is an incredible amount of anger, and determination to make sure our votes are counted.
People never involved before in political campaigns are becoming active -
there is a seething in FLorida that won't stop until it blows up or until they are given a fair election,.
I think Kerry has a chance in Florida . we will be voting by absentee ballot.

Certainly it is a long way until Nov 2 and there is no telling what may happen in the intervening days to shake up the race, but according to Election Projection 2004, Kerry-Edwards have already picked up New Hampshire and Missouri from the states Bush won in 2000 while Bush has not picked up any of the states Gore won in 2000.

I can see Kerry-Edwards carrying all of the Gore/Blue states and picking up NH, WV, OH, FL, MO and possibly AR and TN. Wishful thinking? Perhaps. The key is as always the relative success of the GOTV efforts of both parties and the potential return to the ballot box of the previously disenchanted and the entrance of the new vote to the electorate. There are several factors which could quite possibly turn a predicted close election into a relative rout if Kerry-Edwards (KE04) keep it together and stay on-message.

Karl Rove's strategy has to be to try to have KE04 become reactive to the slime machine rather than proactive in furthering their own message and taking the fight to Bush.

I'm excited by the possibilities and determined to WORK HARD in whatever way I can to assist in the effort to restore trust and credibility to the White House.

I urge everyone to do the same.

Volunteer for Kerry-Edwards

I don't think it is that simple, either. How much will fear be a factor? Fear (of attacks, of disorder, of the Other, of losing what one has) makes people vote for "strong" "conservative" candidates.

Recall that the polls showed Bush a little ahead right up until the last weekend in 2000. Some people apparently broke against him because of the drunk driving thing. Those people are hardly solid Gore voters.

Finally, my pessimistic read of American history is that we only take action to avoid the abyss when we are already falling into it. Bush needs four more years to actually get us to this state.

When Bush was campaigning in Wisconsin a couple of weeks ago, I read a couple of "man on the street" interviews on a local newspaper's website. One guy said he voted for Nader in 2000. Now he is an ardent Bush supporter. I think Michael is correct in a macro sense, but he overestimates other people's ability to think rationally.

I agree, almost instinctively, that barring an October surprise, Senator Kerry should and probably will win by a good margin in the popular and electoral votes. However, I am biased since I honestly feel President Bush is transparently incompetent. In any event, the current polls neither confirm nor contradict the so-called presumed Kerry landslide. According to a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll, only 46% of the electorate currently approve of President Bush's job in office. After four years in office, a majority of the electorate no longer views President Bush favorably. Again, absent an October surprise, those voters are unlikely to be swayed to change their mind by advertising that introduces them to President Bush; those voters already know President Bush and do not like what they know. Thus, unless the swing voters decline to vote or decide to vote for President Bush because they find Senator Kerry less appealing, President Bush should lose by a large margin.

At the same time, however, the latest tracking polls indicate that Senator Kerry has not yet received much of a bounce, if any, from the democratic convention. According to the Rasmussen Reports, Bush and Kerry, respectively, stood at 46% and 48% on July 16 and at 46% and 47% on July 31. I am certainly perplexed by these numbers. The democratic convention was almost perfectly staged, very much on message. If Senator Kerry cannot get any bounce after a nicely staged, nationally broadcast introduction to the nation, perhaps the undecided swing voters do not like what they see. For that reason, this election could indeed follow the conventional wisdom that the election will be too close to call. I hate to admit that I may be wrong about this election, but I cannot deny the evidence of my own eyes.

Remember the turn out variable. Gore had an exceptional turnout in the African-
American demographic, due to a great get out the vote effort run by Donna Brazile, support for Clinton, and support for Gore himself. Kerry has a fine voting record, but he hasn't had to appeal to Blacks in Massachusetts, and it's not certain that Kerry can do as well as Gore did. Voters won't switch to Bush, but they may not show up.

I believe the reapportionment from the 2000 election also helped Bush, moving about 20 electoral votes to the states Gore won to those that Bush won.

AB

Too hard to predict. One part of your premise is incorrect: that everyone who voted for Gore will vote for Kerry. About 80% of Gore's vote was solid, but about 20% of it (the last minute, "swing" voters) was tepid. And 9-11 did change some people's world view, permanently. It may be hard to imagine a Gore voter being a Bush voter in 2004, but there are many former Gore voters who feel strong emotional ties to Israel or a strong emotional reaction against Muslim terrorists and now stand with Bush.

The second challenge is predicting a high turnout. Every 4 years predictions of high turnout based on motivated voters are heard. Every election day there are anecdotes of long lines and quotes from people saying "I've never seen it like this before". But in the end participation rates usually vary no more than a percent from the election before.

Finally, the anecdotes about people who "voted for X 4 years ago and but now will vote against X" are also common in elections with incumbents. Yes, I've heard many such stories of Republicans disgusted with Bush. But the poll numbers don't support a big shift. This too is a normal trend. The Republican and Democratic policies have shifted significantly since 1960, and as a result voters have followed. There are still some stragglers in each party who finally are realizing they are in the wrong party.

I can't remember an election involving an incumbent where the outcome was less foreordained than this. By this time in 1976, 1980 and 1992 everyone knew the incumbent was praying for some kind of miracle. Whereas in 1972, 1984 and 1996 everyone knew the challenger had no real chance. Incumbent elections are ultimately referenda on the incumbent, and normally by now it's clear what Joe and Jill Average's judgement on the incumbent will be. And you'd think the judgement on the Bush administration would be as a resounding failure. But, the media is playing a very interesting role this time around, so all bets are off....

I think the argument does go through, but you need to allow for a lot of small corrections.

Yes, the young voters split for Kerry, but those that died were not necessarily split 50-50.

No. Not all the surviving Gore voters will vote for Kerry. Though it's hard to figure out how many won't.

No. Not all the surviving Bush voters will vote for Bush. Kerry clearly has been trying to pry loose a group that could be called the McCain republicans, to the extent of talking about "John McCain and I" in his acceptance speech. Again, it's very hard to size this group.

Third party voting will be harder to predict this year. Not only will Nader be running as an independent, but the Greens will run David Cobb who'll be on most ballots. We haven't had a Nader-free Green candidacy, so have no good basis for predicting its size (though I suspect they'll do at least as well as the Libertarians). The Nader poll numbers are all over the place (largely because a poll with a 3% margin of error can't easily measure support that's less than 3%).

For what it's worth, electoral-vote.com, which graphs the most recent state polls, shows six states that had voted for Bush as now polling (if marginally) for Kerry: NH, WV, TN, MO, AZ, NV. Two states that had voted for Gore are shown polling a tie: MN, IA. Gore had won Iowa by only a fraction of a percent.

My own guess is that Kerry will actually hold almost all the surviving Gore vote, and hence, by your argument, win. But I'd be hard put to justify the numbers.

Dem is right. At least in the blogosphere, there are a number of Gore voters so desperate for a more aggressive United States, they would support a war on Perú. They’re voting for Bush precisely because he misled them into war.

Keep in mind the historical trends; I've seen more than one site mention that at this point in the year, no incumbent president has had less than 50% approval and won. Many people have already decided to fire Bush, but whether or not they will vote for Kerry (vs. voting another party or just staying home) remains to be seen.

There was also the comment on Washington Monthly that Gore lost a portion of the union vote in 2000, because a lot of the younger people were complacent after eight years of prosperity and decided to vote for Bush on social issues such as gun rights. Many of those younger labor people are the ones who lost jobs under Bush, and know what the stakes really are now.

There is also what I've been reading from Kos and Josh Marshall, that the Bush/Cheney campaign has been focusing exclusively on its very conservative base, holding rallies in safe counties rather than stumping in competitive areas. According to reports, they've decided to regroup, while the Kerry campaign is actively reaching out to moderates. Not a wise strategy, and if they're going to keep places like Ohio B/C are going to need to take a few more risks.

Maybe I'm just overly optimistic because of the slant of the blogs/sites I read... but even some of the moderate news sites are starting to smell fear from the Bush camp. And no wonder: if the Electoral Vote Predictor is entering polls correctly, Kerry has been leading Bush in the electoral college by a significant amount lately (310-217 a week ago, now down to 289-232 with two states tied). Even Fox News polls aren't as sunny as they once were.

If the B/C campaign had an obvious strategy beyond negative ads (which are becoming less and less effective) and preaching to the converted, I'd be worried. It just doesn't seem to me that they have any way to pick up votes, as opposed to driving them away from Kerry -- while Kerry and Edwards are raising their profiles all the time.

Although there may be a non-insubstantial number of Gore voters who will cross over to the Dark Side, I think they will be balanced by those who voted for Bush in 2000 based on the whole "compassionate conservatism" plus big tax cuts for everybody message, and the fact that Clinton made governing look so easy that Presidential competence was not an issue in 2000. These people were fooled once, and they won't get fooled again.

I also think that the polls overrate Bush's actual support by at least 3-5 points. There remains a sense that "not supporting the President" is equivalent to "not supporting the troops" that is reflected in the polls. That is why Kerry won't stray too far from Bush's Iraq policy, and why Kerry is emphasizing his military experience to such a degree. These voters will wind up voting for Kerry in November, despite telling pollsters today that they "support the President".

"the media is playing a very interesting role this time around"

Yes, Dem, they certainly are. High up on the list of "interesting" aspects is their lack of access to Bush, combined with their need to play clips of him speaking to slavish audiences (so many of them in uniform, and therefore actually under compulsion). They can't question any of his non-sequiturs and plain nonsense, but just broadcast them: "We've turned the corner and we're not going back."

Rove has them running a *truly* post-modern campaign, where not only do assertions have absolutely no referent in the real world, but no attempt is even made to link them to it (that's Scott McClellan's job, sort of). At the same time, free and paid media carry these assertions with pictures of cheering crowds, uniforms, and flags. All these visits (to what a related thread over on Kos points out are areas they won by a big margin in 2000, not contestable ones) are photo and video ops for the news and the ads. The bet has to be that images are the only thing that counts, regardless of either verbal commentary or viewers' direct real-life experience. It's an audacious campaign.

This isn't to say that only commercialized idiots will vote for Bush; a lot of people have real reasons to, as many contributors have pointed out. But it will be interesting to try to separate out expressed reasons from subliminable imagizing.

BTW, I think Paul Lukasiak is right that a lot of people don't tell pollsters what they're really planning to do. I think they get a lot of hang-ups and no-responses from anti-Bush people who might actually vote but really don't want to talk to polls.

Altoid: The bet has to be that images are the only thing that counts, regardless of either verbal commentary or viewers' direct real-life experience. It's an audacious campaign.

Amazingly so. There appears to be no concern over factual accuracy. I saw a soundbite on one of the cable news stations from Bush's stump speech. He said that Kerry had no plan to pay for his additional spending and that he'd pay for it by taxing everyone. Flat-out, easily verified lie, but of course the talking heads said nothing.

Now, Bush might have claimed that Kerry's funding plan is inadequate. Or unfair. Or bad economics. I expect arguments could be made to support all those assertions. But Bush said Kerry "had no plan". Saying Kerry "has no plan" when Kerry in fact described it in his acceptance speech in general and has had it in detail on his web site for months is lying.

The Democrats will win in a landslide IF we have free and fair elections, but I very much doubt that we will. I expect Rove will try to duplicate the chaos of Florida 2000. but in multiple states, and then hope that he can win the subsequent slugfest in the courts. I'm expecting a horrific scene at the gates of the White House, as millions of Americans surround the place post-election with slingshots and signs and rocks and vats of boiling oil. I fear we are headed for a very ugly confrontation....

Peter,
I'm afraid you have the right of it there. Everything seems to be signaling a bald manipulation of the election--(1) the use of uninspected voting computers that cannot be audited and are manufactured by committed Bush supporters, (2) the speculation of "postponing" national elections should terrorists strike, (3) the flood of public money purportedly earmarked for "homeland defense" being channeled to states that are dubious targets for terror but happen to be election battleground states (in effect, using funds for the common defense to instead buy votes for the incumbent president). That's just off the top of my head. It looks like the Republicans are applying the same rules to the election that they have in all else: the ends justify the means. But the end may just be civil war.

If the Republicans win, whether by fair means or foul, our noble experiment with a consititonal republic may become a bitter memory.

Chris,

This sounds odd, but I'm very optimistic about Democratic prospects for November, which leads me to the pessimistic conclusion that getting down and dirty is the only option for the GOP. I think we ought to fight like hell to win this election, but also begin to think about the appropriate response if the worst comes to pass and we find ourselves under the heel of an illegitimate regime. A citizen's tax strike might be a useful strategy.....

People love to step into fictional worlds of fantasy and conspiracy. Sci-fi and spy movies are sure-thing box office smashes nowadays. An entire generation grew up on the X-Files.

But eventually, fantasy ceases and it comes time to vote. All the Grisham-like theories of a rigged election, neo-cons and Israel planning 9/11, obl actually a cia agent, bush as hitler and michael moorism won't amount to much when it comes time for America to vote.

There are of course those that have invested so much personally into such nonsense that they'll have no choice to vote for kerry, lest admitting the fact that fantasy got the best of them. But most people, although enjoying a good tale, really aren't going to think about these things come election time.

Terrorism, Taxes, and Abortion.

MP: Cute rhetorical trick, putting concerns about the 2004 election being rigged in the same category as "Israel planning 9/11". That way, without introducing a single fact in support, you attempt to discredit the concern.

Won't work, MP. Elections have been rigged for centuries, probably dating back to the origins of democracy. The US is no stranger to rigged elections, nor to voting machines that are easily riggable. Given the literal $billions being poured into this year's election, and the enormous benefits for supporters of those who win, it would be naive to NOT be concerned about the potential of election fraud.

Furthermore, anyone who has studied computer security in the past 15 years (and there are 10s of thousands of us) knows that the new computers systems are just begging for compromise. Every rule of computer security that has been developed over the past two decades is being ignored.

As I say, EVERYONE should be concerned. However, a funny thing is happening in that this is being portrayed as a partisan issue. Many republicans, like yourself, are pooh-poohing the concerns and labeling anyone who brings it up as a nutcase. This fact, combined with the obvious pro-Republican conflicts of interest by two of the major firms, only reinforces the concern.

It is possible to use paper ballots and to count votes by hand. Accuracy is not lost (whatever accuracy you lose in the counting process is more than compensated for by the increase in accuracy gained in the data entry process ... that is, people are more likely to cast a ballot that reflects' their intent) -- all that is lost is speed. And that in turn can be compensated for by increasing the number of temporary workers who count the votes. Canada tallys results from their national elections in 4 hours ... by hand.

At this point, until a rigorous acceptance process is set up for voting machines, the US should move to pure hand balloting. We use such rigorous processes for all other issues relating to national security. Doesn't the act of voting warrant at least as much protection?

Dem likewise has the right of it here. If the Republicans are so damn unafraid of losing the election, as MP suggests, the rational response would be to do everything possible to promote the legitimacy of their win. So they should not object to efforts to regulate the voting machines in order to ensure accuracy and neither should they contemptuously dismiss the concerns of others about the possibility of rigging the election. The Republicans haven't done this, which tells me that they're scared and are planning for every eventuality.

Oops. I forgot one other means the Republicans use to manipulate the election--the terrorist warnings from the DOJ or Homeland Security that happen to appear whenever Bush's poll numbers are down. By the way, the latest "alarmingly specific" threat to our financial institutions has, surprise, been exposed as wrong, wrong, wrong. Again, the Repubs could demonstrate through actual deeds some of their self-acknowledged integrity by making those responsible for issuing these warnings insulated from political manipulation, but then these warnings wouldn't be timed to work to their advantage. But the Republicans believe in power at any cost, and will not deny themselves access to any tool in their arsenal.

Voting machines:
Republican groups are also advising their supporters to use absentee ballots rather than the electronic machines:

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/29/State/GOP_flier_questions_n.shtml

You have mistaken for conspiracy what those of us in FLA have long known: the tropical heat fries the brain and people here are generally incompetent. Run a Google on Miriam Oliphant, and you'll see why the latest machine debacle is a result of mere stupidity, not a right-wing conspiracy.

Terrorist warnings:
It amazes me how posters here apparently have access to information that others don't, such as the age and accuracy of the information the authorities are acting on. Further, I am amazed at how experienced they are in counter-terrorism, as they are all apparently more qualified than Homeland Security to decide how old information must be to be actionable. They are apparently more experienced about tacticts that might be designed to flush out cells, get them to panic and make mistakes.

It seems to me that regardless of the age of the information, if a cell finds out that one of its members has been compromised there are 2 choices: attack quickly or roll things up. Isn't it better for us to be safe than sorry? Don't we have a right to know regardless? It is statistically unlikely my house will catch on fire. But if my smoke alarm goes off, I should ignore it?

Further, the warnings are election-neutral. Dems can spin spin them ("see how unsafe we are now") just as easily as Republicans. The need for them makes Bush look just as bad to some as the quality of response makes him look good to others.

MP,
I'm not sure the smoke detector analogy works here. A smoke detector is politically neutral. It may make mistakes, but it does not do so to anyone's advantage. The DOJ and Homeland Security, on the other hand, are headed by political appointees who are making warnings based on information that no one without a Republican agenda can verify. Perhaps, as you say, these warnings might make the terrorists panic--but no one has produced any evidence of this. On the other hand, one may observe that these warnings came after the DNC, after Abu Ghraib, or any other Bush setback, and that the media abandons these stories in order to give primacy to the upgraded terror alerts. Too many coincidences here. I'd be happier if the alerts were made by someone not a client of either party and who was budgetarily and organizationally protected from partisan bullying. Until we have that, there is no barrier to using the alerts for political purposes to distract the electorate from bad news.

Chris-
That a warning might have the effect of "distracting" people from Bush "setbacks" is but one theory on how warnings might influence politics.

On the other hand, I will repeat my arguments above and say that the warnings could just as easily amplify Kerry's criticisms of how the Bush administration has "failed" to make us safer.

The political impact of mere warnings are so difficult to predict, it is highly unlikely that they would be used for political motive. They could just as easily backfire on a boy who cries wolf.

No, Chris, as much as you'll hate to admit it, warnings are issued for tactical and strategic reasons related to our safety.

Back on topic, here's an article that talks about crossover voting. It's got lots of anecdotes of Reps who will vote for Kerry, but at the end the one statistical fact indicates that (for the states mentioned) both parties have people who intend to cross over to vote for the other, and in similar amounts (more for Kerry, but only slightly).

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0730-08.htm

I came to the same conclusion--a Kerry landslide--by equivalent logic. As many republicans are concerned for the environment, voters cross over. The same is true of white collar, engineering, science and medical professionals--whose wages are bartered down--and jobs endangered by outsourcing and a battered economy. Deficit spending does not earn republican fans, nor does a policy of intervention in the Middle East. The nice thing about secret ballots is that GOP voters can say one thing, and do something else, without disturbing the social ecology or networks they depend upon. Polls about US policy direction are especially revealing.

Great numbers of GOP voters are left out in the cold by conservatives who dominate the party. I think they are likely to send an unequivocal message to GOP leadership that minority rule is dog that don't hunt. It's a huge embarassment!

for the love of god! america wake up and smell the coffee. it is our duty to
go out on november 2 2004 and vote these two con men and scaliwags george w bush and dick cheney out of the white house! this current administration is nothing but a sham and disgrace!
please people!!!!! if you really want to save america then put a decent man in the white house!
john kerry and john edwards! take back your country which has been stolen from you!!!

I think the interesting thing is if you've been watching the polls over the summer, you see a slow steady trending of states towards Kerry. States that Bush was supposed to have locked up (Arkansas, Tennessee, and Nevada first, then Arizona, most recently Virginia and North Carolina) are all coming into play. As noted by Charlie Cook and other political analysts, incumbents usually get *at best* 1/3 of the undecided vote, and this year's undecideds are polled as being very anti-Bush. It's speculated that Bush will be lucky to get 1/4th of the undecideds.

What this means when you look at the states is that Kerry will likely carry the red states where he's tied with or 2-3% down from Bush. If the current poll numbers were in place on election day, I'd say Kerry would win the Gore states and pick up West Virginia, New Hampshire, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas and have a shot at Arizona, Virginia and North Carolina.

I'm curious to see if any more red states will start to poll showing Bush losing his lead in that state. I'm hoping Louisiana, Kentucky and Colorado can be peeled away. The only poll from Indiana I've seen has Bush getting only 46% of the vote there, but Kerry only gets 24% and the Undecided vote is 26% (!). I don't know exactly what that means, but it can't be good for Bush to be getting only 46% in a state as Republican as Indiana.

The dynamics of this race are 1) It's initially a referendum on the incumbent and 2) If the public decides it doesn't want the incumbent then the next question is does the challenger clear the bar of acceptability for being elected. I think it's clear by now that Bush lost the initially referendum and Kerry's convention, in spite of the crows by Republicans that there was no "bounce", served to solidify his standing as an acceptable alternative. IF the economy suddenly rebounds big time and Iraw suddenly quiets down then it will be a close finish. IF both stay a mess I think Kerry will definitely win. However, I wouldn't necessarily count on any states where GOP efforts to committ voter fraud could pan out (Florida is still suspect, I think, and I don't trust Diebold's election machines so I'd be wary of Ohio too).

BUSH IS GOD!!!
Do you really think that they are not going to keep him on the throne?

Votes don't really count! Sure, they are trying to get low voter turnout by making a mockery of the election process but it's all part of the big plan.

Bush is as incompetent as a dumb blonde that has testosterone driven men buying her stuff.
He will leave the White House richer than any other president in history.

Let's talk of threats and fan the flames of racial prejudices, I mean, American Patriotism. Nothing like fear to keep people from seeing what's really going on.

Bush talks about the high gas prices but won't tap the oil reserves to keep the cost of gas down so that his oil tycoon buddies can get rich just like his buddies got rich off the California power fiasco.

And we won't mention that Bush Sr. was making money with the Bin Laden family while 9-11 was going on. What's that? We had no homeland security before 9-11? Remember Pearl Harbor?

I hope Bush does win for the following reasons:
1) If he loses, they will use the excuse that 'had GW been able to finish what he started, we'd all be better off now' for the next elections to put a Republican back into office
2) If he loses, he will not be held accountable for anything and will still leave the office very wealthy
3) If he loses, there will be no chance, however slim, that the public might finally wake up and see what a mess we are in...push the red button...America needs a wake up call.

They have the same issue with the voter list in 2004 as they did in 2000. The list which has been opened to the public, by order of the court, has shown that a large demographic Democrate voting section is on the list, while a large demographic Republician voting setion is not on the list. In other words, a large number of blacks are on the "Cannot vote list" while a large number of Cubans (whom have criminal records), and mostly vote Republician, are not on the list. It smells like 2k again. I gues this was the real Y2K problem.

thought i would see some serious thought here,was sadly mistaken with your jibberish

Well, either the Kerry convention bounce has faded or Karl Rove's Swift Boat Veterans smear campaign is reigning Kerry's surge in. The unfortunate thing about smear campaigns is that they *work*, at least to some extent. Sure it's getting out in the media now that the group is actually funded by major Republican donors that are very connected to the White House. It's also getting out that the charges the group makes are lies, contradicted by the official Navy record, by the vets who actually DID serve with Kerry, and by Swift Boat Veterans' own statements. Unfortunately though I'm sure all Rove was hoping for was simply to blunt Kerry's advances by planting seeds of doubt in the minds of some independents. Also when the campaign is about what Kerry did in Viet Nam, its not about what Bush did (or didn't do) in Texas, or the economy, or Iraq, or the budget deficit, or the environment.

I think it's sort of a tight box for the Kerry campaign. He has to respond to the bullshit, but he also needs to move on. Voters will eventually want to move on *anyway*, but he has to reverse the effects of this smear. If you want Bush out of the White House, like I do, its tempting to get discouraged or put one's head in the sand or whatever when election trends seem to be not going your way. However, I've been watching the election play out since May and I prefer to acknowledge when Kerry is doing well and when he isn't.

The question that can play out here is will the smear campaign (which is continuing) slow Kerry's advance or will it reverse the trends of this election? As some pundits have noted there's been a gradual "sea change" in the electorate over the summer which was leading towards a Kerry win if not an actual landslide. I'm sure what Rove is hoping is that the smear campaign evened up the the race again, and that Bush will get a 9/11 anniversary bounce from the Republican convention. Maybe that will happen. That won't mean the race is over by a long shot and Kerry is a fighter and a good political closer so I still think that unless Bush is ahead by *at least* 3% in the polls going into election day then Kerry will win. However as someone posted on a blog somewhere else, "now we're in the scary part of the ride".

These polls and predictions may yet not matter. A memo has recently appeared describing how the executive branch can assume the authority to postpone the election and even disenfranchise voters (but with the election results--from those permitted to cast ballots--still binding). That's right, folks! Bush might get a slight lead in the electoral college, call a red alert, and win the election.

See http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32471.pdf

You can find further analysis on antiwar.com. Fortunately, this is just a plan...for now. But that talk has even gotten this far should be cause for alarm.

Wow. It's yet another bastion of American Liberalism. What's funny is that you're STILL talking about the 2000 elections. What about all of the conservative Republicans that were disenfranchised in the Florida panhandle. They didn't go out to the polls after ABC, CBS, NBC, etal all called Florida for Gore /BEFORE/ the polls were closed.

What about military personnel stationed overseas who the Gore campaign tried very hard to get disenfranchised from their votes while they were overseas defending your "Right" to belly ache and moan about how evil this nation is. You also apparently ignore the media consortium's indpendent investigation into the 2000 election recounts. Bush won EVERY count where legal methods of counting the votes were used. Gore only won half of the methods not considered legal. Half is good enough for a Liberal, I guess...

What I don't see here is any serious discussion of the issues, such as what Kerry did in the Senate. I can't find anything about his Senate record in any media. Now, if his record was defensible, you'd think he'd shift the debate from his Vietnam record to his Senate record. Probably would have done it a long time ago... I'm sure you guys would be frothing at the mouth from yelling about his strong voting record and accomplisments while he was in Congress. Yet neither has happened. I guess the problem is his Senate record isn't defensible.

You hate Bush so much that you're just going to give your vote to Kerry/Edwards for free. Why? His Vietnam record? He carries a piece of shrapnel in his leg? This qualifies him for the office of President of the United States? Dole lost the use of his right arm while fighting Axis tyranny in World War II, and yet this was a point of derision and mockery by liberal cartoonists.

A piece of metal "lodged in his leg" is a mark of heroism? I haven't ever seen Kerry limp. Maybe this piece of shrapnel is what caused him to fall down while skiing and curse out the secret service agent who wasn't even near him when he fell, I guess.

MISDIRECTION is just a wonderful example of the ilk of wild-eyed, left-wing, liberal nutjobs shouting down the "walls between the common man and real democracy"... You guys want to talk about a few people that got stuck on "criminal roles" and got "disenfranchised". Is this really that unusual? How about we talk about liberal organizations such as the so called "foster care system", which leaves thousands of children lost, beaten, and violated by a mismanaged, incompetent government organization which can't even keep track of the children in their so-called "care". That's progress to you people?

And you libs want the government to run health care? Here's a story for you. There were TWO women who had miscarriages while in the waiting room waiting to see a doctor, where they had been for over 12 hours. This is good health care? Yeah, I guess. It's free, though, right? Not really, because the tax rates in Canada average.. what.. 20% higher than in the U.S.? Can you really call that free when the government is taking YOUR money away from you before you can ever right the check, regardless of whether or not you ever use the medical services.

Give me a break. If Kerry/Edwards wins this election, it will be only one more undeniable piece of evidence that the majority of Americans are morons who will believe anything they see on television, just because some talking head with "nice hair" said it.

My prediction for the election is this:

John Kerry will win the Predidency by a comfortable margin but by no means a landslide. Bush will once again take many of the same states he did in 2000 but 2 states he will lose BIG TIME will be Florida and Ohio. Both the Northeast and West Coast will be dominated by Kerry. The key states that come in to play for Bush are Florida and Ohio, if he can somehow manage to win those states he can get re-elected but its my prediction that he will lose both those states by larger margins than what the polls indicate. I predict this election will have the highest vote turnout in over 30 years. Both sides will come out in droves and it is very much up to the independent, middle of the road voter in this election who is most likely leaning toward John Kerry. I can't forsee Bush doing something to this election that prevents people to vote. I just don't think his guys are competent eneough to ever pull something like that off.

Why is it people like WESLEY always assume that anybody who doesn't blindly follow the Republican agenda is a Liberal? And why is it 'unpatriotic' to question the motives of the President? Wasn't this country built on the principles of 'democracy' maintained by a system of checks and balances?

Didn't Ben Franklin say "the government that governs least governs best"? What ever happened to "For the people, by the people ..."? Do you even know that your civil liberties are being violated? Do you care?

I fought in Desert Storm on the front lines, and I've been to places where soldiers were there like it was a huge beach party, shirts off, volleyball nets up, boom boxes blaring...stuff you wouldn't see in the news, but I wasn't lucky enough for that cause I kept getting sent to the lines were they were shooting at us and throwing who knows what at us ...

And let's not forget how they used us as lab rats and gave us orders to take pills, untested and unapproved by the Food & Drug Association, so that we could become better killers ...

Believe it or not, I've voted Republican up to the point that my civil liberties were violated and my benefits were taken away from me not to mention any chance at a normal healthy life ...

What I had posted earlier was a feeble attempt at best to be sarcastic as this election will more than likely turn out to be a joke. But maybe I'm just a little jaded ... can you blame me? Yeah, you probably could. But that's okay, nothing worse than what's already been perpetrated on me.

So WESLEY, I present to you with this challenge: you ask us to defend Kerry/Edwards, let's see how well you can defend Bush/Cheney on the things mentioned at the site below:

http://home.earthlink.net/%7Emojo-hand/GeorgeBushResume.html

Show us your superior Republican intellect by disputing any/or all of what is posted at that site above ...

Well, look... I can't imagine anyone who is REALLY sitting there trying to make up his/her mind at this point in time... it's just two guys...

Guy One: Daddy gets him into National Guard, then he goes AWOL for upteen years, then lands heroically on the deck of a carrier. Never, ever would have risked a pinky for his country. Demonstrably believes that that's for the middle and lower economic classes.

Guy Two: VOLUNTEERS for service in Vietnam, is decorated for bravery. (anyone who says that he wasn't injured severely enough or wasn't in enough danger has NEVER been shot at by someone truly intent on killing you. I know this because I have. If you can do anything besides fall down and quiver... much less increase your own peril by doubling back to save a buddy... you SHOULD be decorated. If you haven't been there, shut up about this.)

Guy One: Lies about intelligence indicating WMD in order to get support for a well-documented desire to invade Iraq.

Guy Two: Voted to give President war power, believing the above lie to be true. (along with most others... including Republicans).
------------------
(ethical hint for those who are ethically challenged... if a cop hates a local resident for personal reasons, then creates some evidence that that person is a drug kingpin, presents it to a judge who issues a search warrent, the cops break into the guy's house, a fight breaks out and two people are killed .. IS THE JUDGE AT FAULT? OR IS IT THE COP? ... extra credit ... What will happen to the cop when the falseness of his "evidence" is discovered?)
-------------------

Guy One: wants to be commander-in-chief (of the MILITARY... he is not YOUR or MY commander-in-chief... this term goes back to the Romans who had the emporer as commander-in-chief of the military in order to rule out military coup) when he sits, unmoving, for 10 minutes after learning that we were under full-on attack by foreign enemies of democracy.

Guy Two: wants to be commander-in-chief (again, of the MILITARY) when he is cited for decisive action in the face of enemy fire. (I can just see GW hugging the deck begging someone to get him out of there... B'GAWK!!! B'GAWK!!!

Current and upcoming factors that are going to swing the election toward a narrow margin for a Bush victory:

1) Kerry's comments regarding fellow Vietnam veterans
2) Kerry and Edwards' abysmal voting records in the Senate increasingly highlighted
3) health care debates and Edwards' role in crippling malpractice suits and Kerry's unrealistic and expensive universal coverage
4) Kerry's lack of any personal appeal
5) a possible terrorist attack before the election
6) Arnold, Rudi and McCain's public support
7) Republican convention (protests are going to back-fire) and 9/11 anniversary
8) ever-increasing Iraqi stability (example recent Nadjaf settlement) and US troop reduction
9) a happy American business community
10) disgusted voters turning to the fringe parties
11) low dem voter turn-out
12) falling oil prices

I could be wrong, but these and other variables are going to time just about right for Bush.

Chuckie,

I've repeated your reasons for Bush victory, followed by a "-", followed by my prediction of an event that SHOULD, were it to happen, guarantee a Kerry victory...

1) Kerry's comments regarding fellow Vietnam veterans - Bush will sign a document stating that all Vietnam Veterans are pussys.
2) Kerry and Edwards' abysmal voting records in the Senate increasingly highlighted- Bush's record will be highlighted making Kerry and Edwards look like legislative gods.
3) health care debates and Edwards' role in crippling malpractice suits and Kerry's unrealistic and expensive universal coverage- Bush's inability to put two connected thoughts together cause him to self destruct during debate question on health care..
4) Kerry's lack of any personal appeal - Bush and Chaney's demonic personalities flair forth. They develop curious red marks on their foreheads which look oddly like a couple of "666"s.
5) a possible terrorist attack before the election - Said attack is tracked to Bush memo to Rummy encouraging him to arrange it. Brings forth proof of Bush family connection to 9/11 attacks.
6) Arnold, Rudi and McCain's public support - Arnold takes to wearing swastikas, Rudi recants and McCain's neck, unable to handle the unbearable repression, explodes.
7) Republican convention (protests are going to back-fire) and 9/11 anniversary - 1000 protesters publicly executed by John Ashcroft personally in Central Park.
8) ever-increasing Iraqi stability (example recent Nadjaf settlement) and US troop reduction - uh... business as usual, as for the last 15,000 years.
9) a happy American business community - Bush repeals tax cuts and increases business tax 200 pct.
10) disgusted voters turning to the fringe parties - 99 pct. of voters cast votes for Kerry/Edwards.
11) low dem voter turn-out - All Rep. voters, except those voting for Nader, stay home.
12) falling oil prices - Saudi family raises oil prices to $100 per bbl. citing the hardships it creates for the Bush's and other wealthy friends.

Chuckie sez >

You are very wrong, but right about the outcome... you failed to mention one factor, ... well, two..., that guarantee a Bush victory.

13) Diebold software is hard-coded to cast ballots for Bush/Cheney regardless of user input. And...
14) Supreme Court stalks the land, proactively searching out challenges to the vote count and declaring that anyone who questions the vote is offensive and violates the standards of decency of the locality in which they live, and should therefore be sent back to Africa without regard to race, color or creed.

lamo, I'm sorry about your condition buddy. You need to put down the bowl, swipe away the spittle, and go to the ER. I was trying to make some reasonable observations of the political reality, not step on my own partisan tounge in the process. God bless you man.

Visitors are reminded to consult the comments policy version 1.0.

Attention is drawn to point 1, regarding civility.

I personally think it's a travesty to use 9-11 to try and boost the Republican popularity in the polls by scheduling the Republican convention during that time but that's politics for you...why not capitalize on the mob mentality of most U.S. citizens who are too ignorant to think that our government is capable and more than willing to do what we accuse other countries of doing?

Here's some interesting reading for all of you who might be interested in questioning the "truth" about 9-11 or those who believe that we are fighting a war on terrorism rather than Bush and his buddies getting rich off the blood of our son's and daughters:

http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=28

I personally think it's a travesty to use 9-11 to try and boost the Republican popularity in the polls by scheduling the Republican convention during that time but that's politics for you...why not capitalize on the mob mentality of most U.S. citizens who are too ignorant to think that our government is capable and more than willing to do what we accuse other countries of doing?

Here's some interesting reading for all of you who might be interested in questioning the "truth" about 9-11 or those who believe that we are fighting a war on terrorism rather than Bush and his buddies getting rich off the blood of our sons and daughters:

http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=28

I personally think it's a travesty to use 9-11 to try and boost the Republican popularity in the polls by scheduling the Republican convention during that time but that's politics for you...why not capitalize on the mob mentality of most U.S. citizens who are too ignorant to think that our government is capable and more than willing to do what we accuse other countries of doing?

Here's some interesting reading for all of you who might be interested in questioning the "truth" about 9-11 or those who believe that we are fighting a war on terrorism rather than Bush and his buddies getting rich off the blood of our sons and daughters:

http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=28

I am Bushes nightmare. I haven't voted in 3 elections (I voted for Perot...ok you can stop laughing now). I am an independent. I am christian. I am in Pennsylvania. I am in Montgomery county. I haven't registered yet. I am a male. I am 30. I am voting for Kerry.

And there are alot more like me.

My predection.

Kerry gets over 300 electoral votes.

Thanks, Michael. I didn't mean anything personal in my response to Chuck. I was just making the point that regardless of whatever made-up or real points are working in favor of Bush, they won't matter if Diebold has an impact. In case anyone doesn't know, Diebold manufactures a large number of the electronic voting machines. Their software is emminently vulnerable to hacking by anyone who knows their stuff. (GOOGLE : "Diebold Election Fraud") Diebold engineers know the Diebold software. Diebold, Inc. is a HUGE financial supporter of the Republican right, generally, and Bush specifically. Diebold has it within their power to miscount the election in favor of the Republicans. There is no doubt they will do this if they can, as there is no audit trail once the button is pushed. A recount becomes meaningless.

I just thought that to take Chuck's points and generously assume he was serious about them, counter them with blatantly ridiculous ones , swinging the real vote count all the way around, then adding Diebold into the mix supported by the Supremes, might call attention to this dangerous situation. I had no idea Chuck was looking though my window as I was (insert whatever you think he was getting at with "bowl", "spittle", etc.), otherwise I wouldn't have done it !?!?!!!

My apologies to both of you. I love "reasoned" political debate, and was a bit stunned at the reply I got. I promise I am not a peeping Tom and am sorry for my equally hyperbolic reply.

It's NOT that simple.
I've carefully kept up with *key states* and looked up Gore/Bush from 2000 numbers.
Strategies can and likely will change in the final run but here is what I view now.
the *swing states* as of yesterday C0,FL,MI,NV,OH,PA,TN. Others may become much closer but using many different polls to calculate those are the only ones to close to call right now. *Notice I used multiple polls(5 or more)*.
Kerry will have to take FL or OH to stand a chance and still hang onto Gore states. If bush takes PA or MI it's like over right then and there. Do not expect the west states to make up for such a defeat. Just as calling Florida early for Gore in 2000 prevented many going to the polls. That is why I give NM to Bush because I think he'll take either MI or PA causing the election to appear done for Kerry. If I were Kerry I'd spend more time in PA and MI because he's very vulnerable in those and absolutely cannot afford to lose 1. Being in the AR/MO area I can promise you polls are skewed. I've never seen either state more decided thatn i do now for replublicans. I predict republicans score landslides in both states governments which will carry over for Bush as well. Do not count on those states Kerry supporters. Focus on taking FL or OH if you want a real shot.

my 2 cents, susndeca

Well, I wouldn't go as far to say that this election is simple...by no means am I saying that...

However, I too am following all the major polls.
the problem is that many of them are based on "likely" voters. "likely" voters are defined as those who are both registered and voted in the previous election. There are many people my age and younger who did not vote in the last election (or have never voted) who are now very motivated to vote, if only to get bush "out" of office. Also, I think that the last election's close race will have a major effect on those xer's (like me) who now realize that their vote "does matter". Not only do we have a sense of empowerment that has never been felt before, but many of us feel that facism is creeping into the GOP and we will not stand for it. (i've heard the term "goldberg republican" a couple of times from interviewee's at the convention on MSNBC...for those of you who don't know...Golberg was a forefather of the extreme right wing movement who was infamous for proposing using nukes in Vietnam and was against the civl rights movement in the 60's)

Of course, being true to my x-er roots...I haven't gotten around to registering to vote yet although I plan to next week along with my wife, who has never voted either. From those people who are in my cohort that I know, all but one have never voted, aren't registered yet, and will be voting for Kerry.

In any event, I am very concerned not only the future of our country, but about the future of our relationship with the rest of the world, for I realized something the other day which eriely was mentioned by a protest organizer on c-span that night (although he said it much more eloquently than I can)

Since after WWII and the development of the Military Industrial Complex and it's resulting "actions", the U.S. has not had the greatest of international support and goodwill. However, since the INVASION of Iraq, it has gotten much worse. As of this moment, the world blames Bush for the U.S.'s fundamental change in its military engagement policy and directive (from passive/reactive to aggressive/proactive).
However, if we as U.S. voting citizens decide to reelect Bush, then the world will shift blame from Bush to us. If as a country we decide to reelect Bush, we are, in essence, approving of his policy decisions.

Forget about the economy.
Forget about terrorism.
(compared to the rest of the industrialized world, we've still gotten off pretty lucky statistically)
Forget about Kerry's shortcomings.

If we reelect Bush...then the blood of innocent people will be on our hands.

I think there is one thing that many of you are overlooking: Safety. When it comes to who will work hard to protect us, Bush outshines Kerry without question. Sure, Kerry went to Vietnam and Bush didn't. But Kerry has always voted against every measure to make our military stronger. Kerry voted against every measure put forth by Ronald Reagan to ensure that our military is superior to the Soviet's. Kerry's record shows that he is not going to do what needs to be done to protect us. Bush's record, post 9/11, shows that he will take steps to secure our country. You may not like the war in Iraq, but Bush's stern resolve shows that he is willing to do what is necessary to protect us.

9/11 changed everything. I think this will be reflected in the election.

-Sidenote: On the Iraq issue - My opinion - Justified and the right thing to do. It has become bad, however. Facts: Italian, British and American intelligence all stated that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake from Niger and that has recently been backed up by each country. Pres. Putin has publicly stated that he told Bush that Saddam was actively planning terrorist attacks against US. Russia has been one of Saddam's friends for a LONG time. If all of that is put on the table in front of you along with 12 years of defiance and unwillingness to cooperate and live up to his agreements (read up on conditions of ending the first Gulf War), what would you have done??? Would you have sat there and waited for Saddam to attack us and kill thousands of Americans? (I know, "where are the WMDs?" We haven't found them. But remember, it only takes one bomb to take out NYC. Better to try to find the bomb than to let the bomb find us) Or would you have gone in there and taken him out of power? 15 Nations agreed that he should unconditionally surrender either all wmds OR all proof of their destruction or suffer the consequences. He did neither. I believe that Kerry would have sat around. Bush took action. There is no longer any question that Saddam is or is not a threat to the US.

uh... safety? how does Bush outshine Kerry when his administration went out of its way to avoid addressing intelligence (real intelligence) about Bin Laden, and then, after the intelligence that they could have acted upon proved true on Sept. 11, 2001, responded by going after Sadaam Hussein on intelligence that was know to the intelligence community to be false??? Is it 'cause he talks like John Wayne? (well, a considerably dumbed-down John Wayne, anyway). We are in far more danger as a nation after 4 years of Bush. As far as the Iraq situation goes... No. We shouldn't have gone to war against Iraq at that time. We should have captured Osama Bin Laden. The intelligence on yellow-cake was trumped up and disavowed not confirmed as you incorrectly state.

On and on and on... to drive the point home, a tree gives fruit according to it's nature. This is, in Zell's words, a meta-fir. I'm not talking about fruit trees, I'm just pointing out how a policy of violence will beget violence (see.. uh.. o.k., all recorded history)... it has always, and will always, be thus. I always feel frustrated after writing one of these things. I think Americans have, in general, lost the ability to think critically. If you don't see the writing on the wall by now, you won't. Vote for Bush. As someone in a previous thread said, it'll hasten the end and give them the opportunity to fully discredit this worst administration in our history.

What really happened on September 11, 2001? Who was responsible? Were there warnings in advance or foreknowledge? Why was the military response to events delayed? Does the official story of 19 men on a suicide mission plotted by Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qa’ida from Afghanistan hold up under intense scrutiny? Has the administration deceived the American people about what they knew prior to the attacks? Why have no U.S officials or Agency heads been held accountable?

The Taliban opposed a proposed gas and oil pipeline that was planned by U.S. oil and gas companies to bring cheap energy sources to the sea from the countries around the Caspian Basin. Oil company executives complained in Congressional hearings that the Taliban were blocking US access to a source that would soon yield 85% of the world’s oil reserves. American plans for a military intervention into Afghanistan were finalized well in advance of 9/11. Divisions of US and British forces stood ready for the operation a full month in advance and surrounding countries were notified in July by Colin Powell of a pending invasion in mid-October.

After 9/11, the Taliban made repeated offers to turn over Osama bin Laden to US authorities for trial, but the US balked at the offers.

Were there specific forewarnings or foreknowledge of the event? There was reportedly a very high level of alert and concern about an impending attack inside the United States in 2000 and 2001 based on NSA and CIA intercepts and intelligence data. In addition, at least 11 countries sent warnings of an attack prior to the event to various intelligence agencies in the US. Some of these were more specific than others, but collectively they warned of the time, the targets and the method of attack on 9/11. In addition, the press reported several specific warnings about flying that day. According to Newsweek and MSNBC, Pentagon brass were told not to fly on September 11. Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco was reportedly told by his “security people” in advance not to fly that day. Attorney General Ashcroft stopped flying commercially in July and both Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made public announcements in the weeks prior to 9/11 that they would stop taking any commercial flights. These reports are not covered in the Joint Inquiry investigation, and it would be very useful to know exactly who got each warning and when, as well as what they did in response.

Of the 185 deaths at the Pentagon site, the vast majority were on the plane or doing construction work outside. Similarly, the timing of the attacks on the Twin Towers happened before most people arrived for work, and all the flights involved were delayed in departure. Had the planes struck an hour later in New York City, the death toll might have been in the tens of thousands instead. Commercial flights that leave early on weekdays are also less crowded than at other times. All these factors suggest planning to minimize the numbers of deaths that day, which suggests an agenda beyond the goals of most terrorists.

Uncovering the truth about 9/11 may well compromise a network of deeper political connections between US and foreign intelligence agencies, secret regional agreements, drug traffic and organized crime, and foreign investments that include corporations and oil interests of the Bush family.

http://911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=28&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

http://911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=33&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Think you know the answers? Then read the questions presented at the site below:
http://veritas.20m.com/

Hey Truth, are those web sites your sources? If so, its mostly unsubstantiated junk, as is most of lamo's bogus points. If you are going to make outrageous claims guys, back it up with refernces to the appropriate sources. That way we can all see (as you would by going to the websites posted by "Truth"), that most of these claims are unsupported by any facts, but merely partisan speculations.
This is the same kind of thinking that denies the lunar landings, believes Johnson killed Kennedy, etc. Although it may be true, you gotta have PROOF.

Hey Chuck. Please use my full name... "lamo_gop". It's more polite that way. I wouldn't call you "Chu" or "uck". I'll let Truth speak for itself, but which of my points are unsubstatiated? The one about intelligence on Bin Laden being ignored? Here y' go... all this one takes is the ablity to read... and maybe digest some crow.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

Or perhaps it's the one about fruit trees bearing according to their nature. Sit and watch an apple tree go thru the seasons for a few years. You will be wiser for it and won't be taking up so much valuable bandwidth offering knee-jerk reactions to everything.

BTW, I wonder why you would let Dave get away with his assertion that all countries recently substantiated the assertion that Sadaam tried to buy yellowcake from Niger? The only documents corroborating that intelligence turned out to be forgeries. I won't take the 30 seconds required to document this, since everyone knows about it already. Everyone but you. And Dave. Tsk.

Thank you all for some good belly laughs! With only a few exceptions you all need a reality check! Really folks what planet are you living on anyway?

Thank you all for some good belly laughs! With only a few exceptions you all need a reality check! Really folks what planet are you living on anyway?

Call me what you like lamo (I'll stick with the abbreviation)...I'll sit back now and revel at the rising shrill of your voice as the election tilts ever more to Bush. I grow apples btw, and have watched many seasons come and go. Yours is fading for now, thank God. Wendy, the planet is Earth, welcome aboard!

Hey Chuck I believe you just might occupy earth with me, not so sure about lamo- does this guy really believe his own hot air?

Well, chuck and wendy, since you live on earth...you should know that the love of money is the root of all evil.

And I don't think it's not a consipiracy theory being spouted...it boils down to human nature.

greed.

And we currently have the richest cabinet in the histroy of the country. Dr. Rice even has an oil tanker named after her!

And as far as watching "as the election tilts ever more to Bush" ...

Here's the latest polling data...If I'm not mistaken it's measure by "registered voters" and not cnn/gallup's "likely voters"

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

Ed

oh yeah.

one more thing.

You might have seen many seasons...but just how old are you?

what's with the name calling? Last time I checked, name calling was reserved for 8 year olds and people who don't have an organized or intelligent response to a post or an issue. Hence I guess why most of the GOP convention was spent shooting tasteless spitballs at the dems....

and i quote...."Don't be economic girlie-men" -The Governator

Ed

So Kerry and Edwards are a couple of po boys? In fact, when was the last time we had a genuine poor President? And honestly Ed, does that really matter? Rasmussen is wishful polling (didn't they predict Dean in Iowa?)...we will see in November. I am 50 hard lived years (had my 18th birthday in Vietnam)) and I apologized for losing my cool earlier, if that's what you are talking about. I looked back at my original post and it seemed organized and reasonable to me, right down to this one. Anyway lamo started it with the Chuckie business, so nah nah nha boo boo. LOL (that's 8 year-old).
Wendy, you my kind of lady!What a great country that we can debate this stuff, eh? I love you all, even you Ed and Lamo...

You know Chuck, there's one nice thing about being an "elephant", we have thick skin and yes it's wonderful to live in a country where we can debate the issues. That's what I'll be trying to perserve in this next election!

You know Chuck, the nice thing about being an "elephant" is we have thick skin, and yes it's great to live in a country where we can debate the issues! That's what I'll be voting to perserve in this upcoming election.

Didn't say they weren't...
But you also have to compare HOW they got wealthy....

Kerry...mostly by marriage...
Edwards...by representing ordinary americans in class action lawsuits.

Bush...Oil, family ....can you say....Carlyle Group, one of the largest investment firms in the world...which just so happens to be run by his daddy?
Cheney. CEO of Halliburton, the world’s largest oil field services company.

And among his cabinet...his best friend,
Don Evans: Commerce Secretary: former CEO of Tom Brown Inc, Denver based oil and gas drilling Co.
Donald Rumsfeld: Director of Gulfstream Aerospace before it was aquired by defense contractor General Dynamics (thus owns stock in GD)
Colin Powell: same as Donald
Norman Mineta: Consultant at Lockheed Martin
Dr. Rice...mentioned before...Chevron Director

Of course I could easily go on...those are just the ones that play into this whole oil/war thing...
The defense and oil industry aren't the only ones represented in the cabinet and among his top advisors. In fact, just about ever sector is represented...from AOL to Phillip Morris.

I'll leave that with a quote from Eisenhower, which comes from his last speech before leaving office.

"We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. "

For me, and from my heart...this is why Bush has got to go. If you can't see the connections, then it's because you either don't want to see them, or are so blinded by partisan politics that you can't.

BTW, I'm not a democrat, I'm an independent...and an Evangelical Christian to boot.

Ed

In the words of Voltaire/Tallentyre: "I disapprove of what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Ed, a reasoned and good argument. Nader is your best choice based upon your arguments. You surely know that the Democrats are not terribly different in this regard. Personally, I'm not much bothered by it all. After seeing how most of the world lives, from rank poverty in most of it to state totalitarinaism in the rest, this country can't be beat. There are those who would only be satisfied if we lived like Amish folk. So what if the cabinet is connected with cooperate America? Have the last 3 years been that terrible because of it? Seriously, compare your own personal life to most people living in the world. Edwards has contributed to the gutting of health care in NC. As in many states, doctors are fleeing specialized medicine because of outrageous malpractice ins. costs and settlements. And don't think Heinz just makes ketchup. It is a large multinational coporation. Lastly, although I don't like mixing relgion (I am a Christian as well) and politics, partial-birth abortion (research it Ed) is outright murder and Kerry supports it. Nuf said there. Thanks for participating in the process Ed, keeping an open mind and having the guts to reasonably debate and defend your beliefs. You have my respects sir.

This one is for Chuckie:

Someone posted this before but thought Chuckie might need to read this:
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Emojo-hand/GeorgeBushResume.html

Why not prove what is unsubstantiated there? Read his resume and find what is not true or substantiated and post all the unsubstantiated facts here for all to see. There are links there that substantiate the facts. I bet Chucky won't be able to find much on there that is not true. Ofcourse, he can say "it's not true" but won't be able to prove it...so why do we need to prove it is true?

Oh, that's right...because we're "liberals", "democrats", or whatever else you wish to label us as to make us seem less credible than "republicans". We have to substiante our facts, republicans only have to say it for it to be true.

NEWFLASH: Republicans LIE

Oh, and Chuckie, I believe in GOD but where's the proof to substantiate He exists?

Wendy, what hot air are you talking about? I substantiate what I say after your buddy speak irresponsibly with no substantiation and you call that hot air? People like you make it seem like Republicans aren't real people, that they just have knee-jerk reactions and standard talking points for everything that's said. And when they find another to bounce their catch-phrases off of, well that's when you really hear the hot air blast. It's like listening to Rush. No wonder he calls you his ditto-heads. Sad.

Wendy, what hot air are you talking about? I substantiate what I say after your buddy speaks irresponsibly with no substantiation and you call that hot air? People like you make it seem like Republicans aren't real people, that they just have knee-jerk reactions and standard talking points for everything that's said. And when they find another to bounce their catch-phrases off of, well that's when you really hear the hot air blast. It's like listening to Rush. No wonder he calls you his ditto-heads. Sad.

And, uck... was that your response to my request for substantiation? My voice is shrill? Man! I'll bet it's at least an octave below yours, little girl. Because it's clear you have no balls as well as no brains.

photo ops

Bush's Latest Campaign Video

Bush Video 2

The proof of God is all around us to see Truth, as well as the proof of evil. There are those who see what they believe and those who believe what they see. This is a solemn day in our history (9/11) and I pray for those who were lost and their families. No more response from me to foolish arguments (as I predicted lamo is losing it). These are serious times and I trust our leadership and our people. Good weekend to all!

POW, thanks for the comic strip. Its impressive on its surface, but if anybody takes a closer look at it panel by panel, its easy to see it for what it for is. For example, the whole issue of Bush's support for ethanol research is summed up in an AP report about a particular ethanol plant closing. Because of this the implication is he does not want to support such research at all (which is hogwash of course). Someone like Truth (who sees only what he believes) would of course extrapolate further that this is solid evidence that Bush means to profit further in oil at the expense of ethanol. In fact, Bush might even launch an attack on same place and blame it on AlQuieda. After all, everything Republicans say are LIES and thus apparently everything said by Democrats is true! And this guy calls himself Truth? Oh Lordy...
It would be interesting to research and debate each assertion made in POW's comics, because it would show the fairly shallow skill needed to take facts out-of-context and manipulate them into something with more meaning than they have. But alas I don't have the time and fortunately most Americans are able to see this stuff for what it is. I labelled it earlier...partisan junk.

but has killed our reputation overseas, i know because thats where I have been for over 2 years of the last 4, one in brazil and another in russia. they really hate us folks, no kidding. but, myself, i am too concerned with the professionalism of the us supreme court to go for kerry. so, texas here you go again.

Compare Candidates

In Bush's Own Words

Fear Factor

Would Bush kill an assault weapons ban just to get votes from NRA members? Would allowing assault weapons in our neighborhoods make for a safer America?

If the US is safer now, why do they warn about the impending threat if we do not give them 4 more years?

Why do they avoid the real issues and trying to intimidate the public with fear?

Why is nobody in the Bush administration being held accountable for the failures of the last 4 years?

At what cost is your vote being bought?

Chuck,

I find it ironic that anyone who is not supporting the current administration has to "prove" anything but those that stand by the record of this administration's failures can just chalk it up to bipartisanship or liberalism. You accuse us of seeing what we believe but are you so blind that you do not believe what you see? Or do you just believe the words you hear? Are you forgetting about the US Constitution and Bill of Rights on which this great country was founded? Are you forgetting that we gained our independence by Revolution? That our civil rights are better due to Americans fighting for what they believe in? People like you would fare better in a monarchy or dictatorship where your life and welfare is controlled by people in power. Some of us, however, choose not to give into fear and empower ourselves with the right to choose.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"...that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

POW, you sound just like me, only from a different voting perspective! I admire your points, its just that we see things a bit differently. That's the beauty of this democracy. I celebrate your opposition! God help us all if we all start thinking the same.
I merely argue the factors that are going to lead to a Bush victory, ask for reasoned debate, and the nutcases come out...not meaning you (Truth's arguments that Bush is behind the WTC attack etc.).
I certainly need no guidance on defending the Constitution or supporting it. I served in Vietnam; my father did two tours there as a marine; my uncle was killed there in '67; both served in Korea together; their father served in WWI in France; his grandfather served in Lee's army in the Civil War: and his grandfather served as a continental soldier. He had a cousin who signed the Declaration. And that's just on my father's side!
Some people either cannot accept any opposition (on both sides), while others can't make reasoned arguments to support thir points. Note that most of my origianl predictions are panning out to be true. Take a closer look at your own talking points (not for my benefit). You will see the distortions for yourself.

POW, you sound just like me, only from a different voting perspective! I admire your points, its just that we see things a bit differently. That's the beauty of this democracy. I celebrate your opposition! God help us all if we all start thinking the same.
I merely argue the factors that are going to lead to a Bush victory, ask for reasoned debate, and the nutcases come out...not meaning you (Truth's arguments that Bush is behind the WTC attack etc.).
I certainly need no guidance on defending the Constitution or supporting it. I served in Vietnam; my father did two tours there as a marine; my uncle was killed there in '67; both served in Korea together; their father served in WWI in France; his grandfather served in Lee's army in the Civil War: and his grandfather served as a continental soldier. He had a cousin who signed the Declaration. And that's just on my father's side!
Some people either cannot accept any opposition (on both sides), while others can't make reasoned arguments to support thir points. Note that most of my origianl predictions are panning out to be true. Take a closer look at your own talking points (not for my benefit). You will see the distortions for yourself.

back from vacaction :) lot's of discussion here :)

Let me peel back to my 2nd post and respond to chuck about Nader.

Yes, you are right...I'm more of a green than anything (big solar nut). I'm also an entrepenuer (and thus by definition a capitalist) which puts me in a complex position (thus why I'm an independent). However, I'm also a realist, and a vote for Nader is a wasted vote. (I already wasted a vote on Perot back in the day). Even so, Kerry is an environmentalist...and despite Heinz being a multinational, you have to realize that most of Theresea's life has been spent giving away money through the Heniz foundation with a good amount to environmental causes (good article about her in Reader's Digest a couple of months ago)....which leads me to probably my biggest point that I think is really dividing the nation.

I think the really divisive point is where a person stands on what you believe in regards to WHY we are in Iraq and WHY we are in Afganistan.

For me....I just look at the facts...never mind the bush resume..never mind the partisan spin machines on both sides.

Bush: from oil
Cabinet: from oil, defense industry, and corporate america.
Advisors: mostly from oil, and defense
Carlyle Group: Bush Senior, buddies, Bin Ladens, etc etc etc...

Afganistan: A major oil pipeline across the country is designed long ago...but talks for getting it put in place are stalled...after defeating the taliban a new government is put in place...a month later the pipeline is approved.

Iraq: hmmm let's see...just yesterday the major pipe was bombed and oil prices went up again...I wonder what that means?

9/11: a very very awful thing. Death, destruction, mayhem...and all of it happens LIVE ON TV. (which is a very very important piece in all of this) 80 percent of the terrorists are discovered to be from Saudi Arabia

Bin Laden: bad guy...mastermind, hates america...etc, etc... probably been in Pakistan since he was wounded back in March.

The U.S.: we are a nation extremely dependent on foreign energy. I mean MASSIVELY DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN ENERGY, especially gas for our automobiles which we take great care in collectively commuting independently to work, which is, on average, 35 miles a way. We also have the largest interestate transportation system which also keeps our massive economy moving. (Just this morming I was 300 miles away down at the beach) All this means is that

FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE (F.O.D.) IS OUR SINGLE GREATEST WEAKNESS IN THE WELL BEING OF OUR NATION: ECONOMICALLY, SOCIALLY AND GEOGRAPHICALLY.

If we were to pay what most of the rest of the world pays for oil...our economy would positively tank.

So what does all this mean in regards to the upcoming election?

For me, it boils down to how each of the candidates treat/will treat F.O.D.

1. Bush: considering background, business connections, and the past four years...it's quite obvious...his position is MARKET DOMINANCE.
2. Kerry: considering his environmental record, voting record, his own personal complexity as a human being, his connections, etc... is a combination of MARKET EVOLUTION (altnerative renewables, green energy, etc) and POLITICAL NEGOTATION (clinton-omics, back scratching etc)

How many more people have to die before we decide to change our consuming habits?

Personally, I can't even fathom voting for bush. But I probably would have at least had to think about it for more than a minute if he hadn't invaded Iraq.

Ed

Good points Ed...
I agree that we do need to reduce both our consumption habits and our dependence on oil.
But I don't think the war is about oil. The leading suppliers (over 70%) of oil to this country are Mexico, Canada, Venezuala, and a host of non-opec suppliers (pretty much in that order). The Persian Gulf actually only supplies less that 25% of our imports (this is Dept. of Energy data...see their website). Of the Persian Gulf suppliers, most is from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, most of these supplies are predicted to be stable over the next 30 years (same source). And even if I grant that Bush went to war for oil supplies in the region (which I don't), so what? Did you just say you took a trip to the beach? Would you be the first to step up and make a sacrifice to lower consumption? How many of the things can you look at in your room that did not involve petroleum in some way? Do you honestly believe that Kerry is going to make an iota of difference in this regard? Did Clinton or most Democratic leaders? If this is a genuine problem for you, and you want to see real change in your own life in this regard, vote green and buy a buggy. Otherwise its truly tweedle-dum tweedle-dee 'tween the two, and there must be some other more salient reason for your politics.

I hear alot of anti-business tone in your argument. I wonder if you might have paid too much attention to your sociolgy professors, etc. I know I did. I remember at one time honestly believing conflict theory (neo-Marxism) as gospel. But somewhere along the line I grew up and learned it wasn't all so simple. And that maybe capitalism is not the all encompassing evil that it has been portrayed for the last 30-40 years in leftist academia (not without its evils however). Try to become familiar with the benefits of our economic system as well as its flaws. It could be a real eye-opener.

If you mean political negotiation, you must mean with our so-called "friends" such as France, Germany, Russia and China. Ed, understand that these countries are our competitors. It is in their interest to oppose us. I would be horrified to see our national security dependent upon negotiation with people whose interests rests with our failures.

To which dead people do you refer? Those who were murdered by the terrorists? Do you know the stated motives of these people? They are religious fanatics...Our closest domestic equivalent is Eric Rudolph. They hate only partly because of our support for Israel. They hate us more simply because of who we are...infidels. The troops who died believing that we support them? Most are like my nephew who served over there. They believe in and love their country. They perceive they are defending it and that we love and support them. Are we going to let them die in vain and just walk out?

I in turn could not possibly vote for Kerry. I think he is weak and vascillatiing and morally repugnant. He crapped on his comrades and is unable to spell out any clear agenda other than massive burgeoning of socialist government. His model for America is Europe. I say no thanks to that!

Welcome back from the beach Ed. It looks as if your native state has come to its senses lol. The hurricane will send all the snowbird yankees home from Florida, and with those two states, Bush has it in the bag. Ahh politics, I love it man...

Back on topic for a bit, here's an interesting news story regarding GOP attempts to intimidate election pollsters who report results that they don't like:

http://www.startribune.com/viewers/story.php?template=print_a&story=4974443

Back to the thread of discussion, there is much that baffles in me in Chuck's post that I don't feel inclined to address. For instance, I haven't heard anything from Kerry where he would adopt European socialism (apparently, any attempt by government to look after the welfare of its citizens falls under this stigma). As far as I can tell, much of the criticisms of Kerry are speculative, generic attacks on liberals. I happen to be suspicious of liberals too, as a Libertarian, but the today's GOP is positively terrifying. Bush has worked hard to undermine the Constitution, which was designed to place a check on the ability of government to become totalitarian. Rather than a "massively burgeoning of socialist government," we've seen a similar growth of a police state where government is now the master, rather than the servant, of the people. There is ample evidence of this throughout Michael's blog--look for yourself. Bush's model for America is clearly Oceania ala Orwell's 1984--a nation perpetually at war, engulfed by propaganda that contradicts itself ever few days, under surveillance, where the elites amuse themselves by breaking thoughtcriminals through torture. I'd risk a European socialist administration for a few years in order to get rid of a fascist, malevolent administration. Even the terrorists are minor league killers compared to a totalitarian regime.

Interesting.

Another person who has associated facism with the current administration.

I think your stat quoting is a bit misleading...here are the actual june 2004 numbers ranked by country. (In millions of barrels)
1. Canada 51.2
2. mexico 50.0
3. venezuela 43.2
4. saudi arabia 43.5
5. Nigeria 35.7
6. Iraq 19.1
7. Russia 9.6
8. UK 9.1
9. Algeria 6.5
10. Kuwait 6.7
And as far as iraq historically....
In November 2002 we imported 9.6 million barrels. This increased steadily through
February 2003 where 25.8 million barrels was imported. Then, we invaded and after we controlled the pipeline, we imported almost 20 million barrels that April.

So, as far as percentages are concerned, the top 10 import countries accounted for 87 percent of all crude oil imports, and Iraq accounted for 6 percent of the total.

So I think it's a bit of a stretch for you to say..."Of the Persian Gulf suppliers, most is from Saudi Arabia".

As far as being anti business...I just don't see me being that way. What I am being is very zealous about trading blood for oil.

As far as the deaths that I refer to are concerned....

We have now lost over 1000 US Troops...that's just on our side.
according to iraqbodycount.net there are between 12,721 to 14,751 CIVILIANS that have died in this war. It doesn't matter whether we killed them or some suicide bomber killed them. They are dead because we are there.

Their blood is on Bush's hands. If we reelect him. then their blood is on our hands.

Ed

Chris I won't argue that government has become the master of the people rather than the other way around. But that was fought against and lost in the 1860's. There's nothing new there...I did look at the site you mentioned, but other than, alas, the same old weary and unsubstantiated junk, there's nothing to be gleaned from it. That is, Republican America bad, Democratic good, etc. And more of the old mean old America stuff. Puhlease. The rest of your assertions are simply ridiculous. There have been far worse times for freedom in our own history (Civil War; WWI and II), and much better examples of Orwell than the U.S (see history of the USSR or pre WWII Japan, for example). Is there a Libertarian candidate running in your state? Then vote your conscience or you don't have one is my humble opinion. Fortunately you probably will have to wait another 4 years at least to see your socialist alternative dream come true.

Ed, other than an insignificant increase then decrease in Iraqi contribution, I see absolutley no difference in your numbers from mine! Bottom line is the same. We get nearly all of our oil from the same stable suppliers we have been for years, in spite of the war. Where was I misleading? The only person misled is probably you, but only by your own nitpicking of very minor amounts. My goodness son, you'll have to do better than that. And after all that you revert right back to the blood for oil assertion, in spite of the numbers you typed with your very own fingers!

Look up how many deaths were a result of Saddam's wars with Iraq and Kuwait; his own internal murders; Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and those killed in Iraq by terrorists and Bathists, they pale to the numbers we are responsible for over there. How many died to end slavery here? How many died to end REAL fascism in the mid-20th century? Got news for you bud, war means fighting, and fighting means killing (Nathan B. Forrest). What is a crime is WASTED blood. If you don't agree with the very premise of the war or the vision of hope for a democratic Middle East, then none of it is ever going to make any sense to you. So no point in beating a dead horse here.

Again I commend your courage and good points (except the oil thing). Believe it or not I am open-minded, but like a good catcher, I await the good pitches.

Speaking of the blood of innocents, did you research partial-birth abortion? Did you read that a recordable moment of great anxiety passess through the child when it realizes its dying? As a self-professed Christian, how can you possibly vote for a man who voted against ending that nightmare?

Have a good day friend!

I see Chuck...so what you are trying to tell me is...if there was no oil in Iraq...we would still have invaded because Sadam is such a bad guy.

I don't buy it....not for a millisecond. The reason I don't buy that argument is because any disruption in the supply chain from the top 10 suppliers results in a major crisis in America. The reason is because we are using up the oil just about as fast as we are importing it. And 20 million barrels of oil is certainly nothing to sneeze at.

Also, considering the fact that the BUshes are so "tight" with the Saudi's, I'm sure that plays into this as well.

As far as partial birth abortions are concerned....I am pro life...but I'm also pro life after you get out of the womb...including capital punishment, of which W has set records. I'm also pro life even when it comes to my enemies...because I believe what Jesus said on the sermon on the mount...

In any event, when it comes down to it, I guess God will judge the hearts of all us, including W.
...but one passage just keeps popping in my head...something which I just can't shake...something which I think is the essence of what has happened for the past 4 years...

"The Love of money is the root of all evil".

and looking at how much money is being made from this war...how much money will be made for the next 20 years because of this dramatic shifting of oil control...I just can't help but cry out for the soul of our country.

what have we become?

Ed

Yes I am saying we would have gone to war irregardless of oil, just as we did in Panama; Grenada; Bosnia; Vietnam; Korea and on and on. 20 mil barrels of oil is chicken-feed, easily a blip on the international market and made up for in a matter of days by other producers. The last "major crisis" directly resulting from disruption of oil was in the late '70's. In spite of clear, substantiated evidence, you are just seeing what you believe friend.

Obviously you did not research partial birth abortion. These are the same children that are often brought to delivery if needed to save the child or mother or are delivered naturally as preemies. The only difference is that labor is induced for the sole purpose of murdering the child, and rarely due to any physical threat to either, only for the "psychological" health of the mother. This occurs OUTSIDE the womb to a living human. But it is completely silly and biologically/spiritually ignorant (and terrifyingly arrogant) of you or any of us to grant "living" status to a person simply because they have left the womb. In that natural incubator it is not a pig and it is not dead.

I think instead you should be asking what you have become...deluded and hypocritical to a frightening degree. You have allowed a political disposition to completely cloud what I think is a good heart. I'm sorry for that Ed, and I can only pray for you buddy.

Fortunately Bush continues to rout Kerry, and I believe the drubbing will be worse than the polls reveal. Most of us have broken free from your type of delusions, in fact there is a Christian revival of unprecedented numbers occuring (of course not being reported) and conservatism is on a dramatic rise, especially among youth. Whew, and just in time...

I think that pretty much ends any hope I had of good debate with you Ed. Best wishes to you.

huh??????????
I am completely aware of partial birth abortions. I am against it. I only used the term "out of the womb" as a metaphor, not as a definition. I believe human life occurs at conception. I think you completely missed my point by focusing on the partial birth and ignored my real point...and that is...
Republicans don't have a corner on the morality market. (and neither do democrats)

As far as delusions are concerned...maybe I am...however, after seeing evil in it's truest forms, I have found myself to have been given the gift of discernment (in case you haven't figured it out, I'm charismatic).

I am quite aware of the resurggence of the Christian faith, having been working on my masters in missions for the past number of years, I try to stay abreast of such movements. I would say that the main thrust of this movement actually revolves around the televised event of 9/11 in which many many people (including myself) witnessed reality and the human condition in all it's horror and resolute finality. Those kind of events push us out of our materialism, subjectivism, and pluralism to searth the depths of our soul and come out on the other side on our knees with our hands stretched upwards. I'm not saying that what happened was a "good thing" rather what happened only made reality, the human condition, sin, hate, etc, much more real for many people that had never "witnessed" such things.

The leading question that is raised from such a thing is this...

what do we do with it?

And yes, I welcome prayer for me and my family. But please don't pray to make me a Republican and "see the light" that would be a real waste since I truly believe that I already have seen it, and try to follow it (and him) every day. Rather I ask that you pray for clarity, vision, and that I will do God's will, for that is the most important thing that any of us can pray for.

And I will do the same.
In Christ,
Ed

BTW, how much of our debt did we spend in Panama, Grenada, and Bosnia? How many ground troops did we send? I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just not to clear about those situations.

huh??????????
I am completely aware of partial birth abortions. I am against it. I only used the term "out of the womb" as a metaphor, not as a definition. I believe human life occurs at conception. I think you completely missed my point by focusing on the partial birth and ignored my real point...and that is...
Republicans don't have a corner on the morality market. (and neither do democrats)

As far as delusions are concerned...maybe I am...however, after seeing evil in it's truest forms, I have found myself to have been given the gift of discernment (in case you haven't figured it out, I'm charismatic).

I am quite aware of the resurggence of the Christian faith, having been working on my masters in missions for the past number of years, I try to stay abreast of such movements. I would say that the main thrust of this movement actually revolves around the televised event of 9/11 in which many many people (including myself) witnessed reality and the human condition in all it's horror and resolute finality. Those kind of events push us out of our materialism, subjectivism, and pluralism to searth the depths of our soul and come out on the other side on our knees with our hands stretched upwards. I'm not saying that what happened was a "good thing" rather what happened only made reality, the human condition, sin, hate, etc, much more real for many people that had never "witnessed" such things.

The leading question that is raised from such a thing is this...

what do we do with it?

And yes, I welcome prayer for me and my family. But please don't pray to make me a Republican and "see the light" that would be a real waste since I truly believe that I already have seen it, and try to follow it (and him) every day. Rather I ask that you pray for clarity, vision, and that I will do God's will, for that is the most important thing that any of us can pray for.

And I will do the same.
In Christ,
Ed

BTW, how much of our debt did we spend in Panama, Grenada, and Bosnia? How many ground troops did we send? I'm not trying to make a point, I'm just not to clear about those situations.

flip flop

Interesting. I was doing research about partial birth...came across this...

"John Kerry voted repeatedly against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. He says that a health exception is necessary. Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter has stated that Kerry would support the ban if it included a "clear exception for life or health of women."
-from somewhere on about.com

I agree with him. I suspect a number of these late term abortions were due to life threatening conditions on the part of the mother (assuredely not even a majority, but all it takes is one)

BTW, there were 2200 PBA performed annually, Before the PBA ban was signed into law by Bush. A couple of federal judges have struck down the law, and you can expect the issue to play out into the supreme court sometime next year.

So from my perspective, the issue will most likely play out exactly the same regardless of who is in office. So in opin