babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » USA   » Election Analysis: Why Bush Won and Kerry Lost

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Election Analysis: Why Bush Won and Kerry Lost
Tom Vouloumanos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3177

posted 03 November 2004 07:34 PM      Profile for Tom Vouloumanos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PUTTING THE RESULTS IN PERSPECTIVE

Fact: The Bush Campaign brought out the vote and won a decisive legitimate majority

Fact: The Kerry Campaign came close and hence, the United States is a deeply divided country in the politico-geographic sense

Fact: The Kerry Campaign lost many votes (1 – 2 million according to Greg Palast) due to fraudulent disenfranchisement of the voters’ list; this means that Bush’ victory though real this time is narrower than the official results claim

WHY BUSH WON

· A substantial portion of those who voted for Bush did so for his (what is perceived to be) clear stance on the “War on Terrorism”; people in the United States are sincerely afraid of an attack (ironically New York went to Kerry at 69%)

· The Bush Campaign has closer links with civil society based groups, which are socially conservative and very militant about their causes; these groups got the vote out

· The Bush Campaign had a clear and simple message

WHY KERRY LOST

- IRAQ/WAR ON TERROR

· The Kerry Campaign did not offer a plan for getting out of Iraq

· The Kerry Campaign did not attack the naked corruption of the current administration its links with the Carlyle Group, the weapons and Oil industries as well as to the Saudi dictatorship; Kerry did not mention that members of the administration are getting rich off the invasion and occupation of Iraq

· The Kerry Campaign did not expose that Saddam Hussein offered to leave Iraq and hold elections within two years if there was no invasion (Reported in UK media)

· The Kerry Campaign did not expose the fact that the US under a republican administration was allied to Saddam Hussein during his worst atrocities

· The Kerry Campaign did not expose that the Taliban offered to extradite Bin Laden and that and hence, Bush was incompetent at the very least.

· The Kerry Campaign did not harp on the fact that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with September 11 and that Bush has shied away from bringing those responsible to justice (example above plus via police work) and hence, Bush has been worse for security.

· The Kerry Campaign did not bring up the potential draft given that the US has no UN help and that Iraq is a quagmire.

- VISION

· The Kerry Campaign did not present a vision of an America of diversity, freedom and compassion (euphemisms for a more socially liberal society, a respect of civil liberties and social democratic programs); in other words Kerry did not have a vision statement.

· The Kerry Campaign offered no clear alternatives for other than being a lightning rod for the Anti-Bush Forces

- ECONOMIC/SOCIAL

· The Kerry Campaign did not run on a comprehensive national health care program, which polls have shown is tremendously popular

· The Kerry Campaign did bring up soaring debt and deficit.

- CHARACTER

· The Kerry Campaign did not run ads comparing his military service with Bush’s in order to show that he understands military families.

- STRATEGY

· The Kerry Campaign did not build close ties with civil society groups (they participated in helping him get elected but unlike the Republicans the causes of their supporters did not become theirs.

· Democrats and unions spent too much time, energy and money attacking Nader while not concentrating their efforts on soft Bush voters (i.e Democrats who supported Bush); they gained nothing by this strategy except for destroying the Green Party,

CONCLUSION:

A more left wing campaign would have done better. If Kerry accepts the Bush premise of the War on Terror and the Iraq invasion without attacking it, he concedes to the Bush response. If Kerry rejected the Bush premise than he could have had a more honest, clear and stronger message. Kerry gained nothing from cow towing to the far right on gay marriage and other issues, they want a clear right-wing answer. He would have done better had he created stronger ties with left groups, the way the Republicans are tied by the right-wing groups.

The time has come to build a broad based, non-corporate, authentic left-wing third party that brings the Greens, the DSA (and other small splinter left parties), the unions, civil society groups together – in similar fashion to Jackson’s 1988 Rainbow Coalition – that works strategically with the Democrats (i.e they don’t have to run a presidential candidate)

ANY THOUGHTS?

[ 03 November 2004: Message edited by: Tom Vouloumanos ]

[ 03 November 2004: Message edited by: Tom Vouloumanos ]


From: Montréal QC | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 03 November 2004 08:36 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't want to be too tinfoil-hattish, but isn't now the time for someone to be hacking into Diebold's (and other leading companies with similarly problematic products) computers and looking through their emails to see if they were involved in election fraud? Shouldn't be hard, they don't seem to know anything about security.

I mean, the initial media report is that the elections went smoother than expected, but that doesn't mean nothing sneaky happened, it just means that anything sneaky that happened was not immediately obvious.

My gut instinct says that the American public are just more reactionary, more gut-driven, more media-hoodwinked than I'd given them debit for. But I could be wrong, and I'm trying to think of a reason the Republicans *wouldn't* have used the capability for largely traceless fraud that was in certain states available to them. Ethics? Hahaha! But seriously, folks, why wouldn't they have?


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 03 November 2004 08:56 PM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I mean, the initial media report is that the elections went smoother than expected, but that doesn't mean nothing sneaky happened, it just means that anything sneaky that happened was not immediately obvious.

The thing about the media is that they didn't even acknowledge the extent of the fraud and dirty tricks used in 2000. We are still finding out details of much of what went on then.

So on the one hand the motivation and willingness to engage in fraud has already been demonstrated. The extent that they did engage in fraud may never really be discovered. Bush and co.will really stop at nothing to maintain power.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 03 November 2004 09:47 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Vouloumanos:
PUTTING THE RESULTS IN PERSPECTIVE
ANY THOUGHTS?

You failed to account for the impact that moral concerns, specifically same sex marriage referendums had on bringing out the core right-wing GOP vote. Karl Rove's genius was on the subtle promotion of this "clear and present danger" through the referendum process, and I think it was "a clear and present" reason for the high turnout ACROSS the various conservative age cohorts. Democrats simply couldn't counter this with anything but "Cheney's daughter is a lesbian"... and honestly I don't know if they could have done anything different (besides ignoring her sexual orientation).

Funny how SSM barely made the media radar in the last couple of weeks... of course, I have no idea on how it played out in places like Ohio with the State ballot ticket items and the ads they got.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 03 November 2004 11:03 PM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the Dems aren't making noise about an issue it's more than likely because they have some exposure as well. Therein lies the issue.

Both of these parties are beholden to the same group of big-money interests. There is no significant range of choice in American politics.


From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Raman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7267

posted 04 November 2004 01:33 AM      Profile for Raman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm honestly not sure at all that a more left-wing agenda would have done any good.
Just look at Nader's support...

I believe it is important to realize that the concepts of nation, state and democracy in the US are deeply different from ours and Europeans'.

The US is inhabited by a long tradition of liberal thinking that, almost dogmatically, centers any hope for what they consider true democracy well within the individual's rights and liberties. A tradition, on the one hand, inspired by that society's social and religious roots, the remarkable conditions in which it came to be, and by the particular path it followed to its independence ; and a belief that is in turn emboldened by its extraordinary economic and military successes.

Polls show that there is constantly a vast consensus in America against any suggestion of tax raises, no matter the purpose. Much stronger than in every other Occidental nation.

Now put together the following factors : That liberal bias, which places in individuals the sole responsibility of upholding all rights and liberties ; add what that has done to the American culture in terms of "the pursuit of hapine$$" and the primacy of economy in regulating all facets of social life ; add again what that, in its turn, has done to the education and the media coverage that an average American citizen can obtain, and that explains, to me, how it came to be that the Bushies could convince so many that their message is more in line with true deep American values.

Basically, has so much success spreading his lies as a result of money, TV adverts, religious values, and hard-leaning on bad Fox information. (The last PIPA polls still showed a majority of Americans believed the international community supported the invasion of Irak, and that a near majority believed proofs had been found of WMD, as well as links with Al Qaeda.)

I don't personally believe America could ever be a leftist society, as opposed to say Canada or Québec. It would kill all the dynamism that holds that society together. Or indeed, there will be great transformations before that, which will send deep ripples (mostly economic) throughout the whole world.
But by the same token, dynamism doesn't rhyme with stability. And the US in its present form is likely to one day settle down into a very different kind of state. Maybe then, long after the empire's decline...

What shoked me the most in all the mess that was the election, was the near fanatical rejection on the part of Republican supporters of any critics.
M. Moore's film's reception on their part was a limit case. But even less pamphletarian analyses of Bush's policies' defects were routinely discarded as "bullshit leftist propaganda". I deal weekly with two different guys who are pro-Bush. One an American, the other a Western Canadian. And you can show them any article that details how everybody's rights have dramatically receded since Bush came to power, how the economy is going to shits, how terrorism is on the rise. And they'll dismiss it all saying : "Yeah, but these are dangerous times and the president must do what he must do. Plus we don't know all the facts" and etc., etc. Show them that even the secret services are against Bush, and that's a "CIA conspiracy"...

Both of them thought the Maher Arar fiasco was justifiable, given 9/11. Go argue with that...

[ 04 November 2004: Message edited by: Raman ]


From: Political correctness : The hobgoblin of misguided political activism | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 November 2004 09:19 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Fact: The Bush Campaign brought out the vote and won a decisive legitimate majority


Legitimate it may be, decisive it was not. A bare 51% and possibly as little as 5 electoral votes more than needed is a bare victory. Comparing prior "re-elections," Clinton won by 8 and got over 350 EVs, Reagan got 59% and over 500EVs, and Nixon got 61% and over 500EVs.

From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 04 November 2004 09:48 AM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
it seems that some republicans are worried as well about the make up of the us supreme court.

arlen spector, who was my senator when i lived in pennyslvania, who many feel is more of a democrat than republican and is expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee warned Bush against Supreme Court nominees who want to overturn abortion rights or are too conservative to win confirmation.

Now before i go out an jump for joy i know that this means diddly squat in the big scheme of things.

but if the committee chairman is against the nominees then it is harder to nominate them


spector also made the comment that the bench over the last 15 years has lacked the great legal giants that it once had.

how i wish for the likes of marshall, douglas, brandeis etc


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 November 2004 11:21 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maureen Dowd on the election:
quote:

W. doesn't see division as a danger. He sees it as a wingman.

The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who disagree to heel.

W. ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

Mr. Bush, whose administration drummed up fake evidence to trick us into war with Iraq, sticking our troops in an immoral position with no exit strategy, won on "moral issues."

The president says he's "humbled" and wants to reach out to the whole country. What humbug. The Bushes are always gracious until they don't get their way. If W. didn't reach out after the last election, which he barely grabbed, why would he reach out now that he has what Dick Cheney calls a "broad, nationwide victory"?


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/opinion/04dowd.html?hp


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tom Vouloumanos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3177

posted 04 November 2004 12:28 PM      Profile for Tom Vouloumanos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Panama Jack:
quote:
You failed to account for the impact that moral concerns, specifically same sex marriage referendums had on bringing out the core right-wing GOP vote.

I said:

quote:
The Bush Campaign has closer links with civil society based groups, which are socially conservative and very militant about their causes; these groups got the vote out

quote:
· The Kerry Campaign did not build close ties with civil society groups (they participated in helping him get elected but unlike the Republicans the causes of their supporters did not become theirs.

This is what I meant. The people who voted for Bush may agree with health care, public education, taking care of the unemployed (all Christian conservative values) but they vote for Bush (who is against those things) because the issues of the other social conservative issues.

The reason why Bush won is that the Christian Right did the groundwork and got the vote out and that the Republicans made the issues of the Christian Right their own.

Roman:

quote:
I don't personally believe America could ever be a leftist society, as opposed to say Canada or Québec. It would kill all the dynamism that holds that society together.

I'm personally not so sure about that. I always look back to Jessie Jackson's Rainbow Coalition which brought poor conservative whites from the mid-west, poor urban African-Americans, Trade Unionists and a plethora of lefties together. Yes, the right is strong in the US. It's not internal dynamism that causes this, it's the fact that the State-Corporate nexus which runs the US Empire wants to keep the people away from running things and hence, challenging the present structre. I don't believe that it is socially inherent.

Kerry did not focus on the economy and social programs (health, pesnions, education). Polls in the US have shown that people are ready to pay more taxes if they do receive better services. Americans don't want to pay taxes because their money goes straight to the military-industrial complex.

Kerry offered no alternative on Iraq. He could've said I made the same mistake as the President by suporting this war, I have now realized the error that the President does not want to admit. He could've been much more aggressive on this.

By not challenging Bush on the Economy (Remember Clinotn's "its, the Economy stupid") and by accepting Bush's premise, Kerry set himself up for failure.

I sill believe that a clear consistent strong message from the Left - if supported by the Democrats and hence, not ridiculed by the media- would have done better. All Kerry did was allow Bush to make his case easier since the premise was accepted by both.


From: Montréal QC | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 04 November 2004 12:33 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Vouloumanos:
[QB]The reason why Bush won is that the Christian Right did the groundwork and got the vote out and that the Republicans made the issues of the Christian Right their own.

QB]


we also saw once again the failure of organized labour to deliver the promissed votes. now that may be because of lower union membership etc.

but the democrats used to rely upon the unions as the bastion of their groundforce. clintons ground game in '92 was 70%ish union driven according to the rajan cajan aka james carville.

therefore either they need a new team to deliver or they need to check their delivery method.

yes the unions did help in some states -- pensylvania, michigan etc

but what about west virgina, ohio, the mill states of the carolinas, georgia etc


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 04 November 2004 01:01 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Someone must have correlated voter turnout with the states with anti-gay-marriage referenda on the ballot. How much did those referenda increase the turnout? Does Bush owe his victory margin to those anti-gay-marriage voters who might otherwise have stayed home?

[ 04 November 2004: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 04 November 2004 01:21 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
In Ohio he probably did, and that's the only state that ended up counting.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 04 November 2004 01:27 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfred Day:
Someone must have correlated voter turnout with the states with anti-gay-marriage referenda on the ballot. How much did those referenda increase the turnout? Does Bush owe his victory margin to those anti-gay-marriage voters who might otherwise have stayed home?

[ 04 November 2004: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]


It was probably more than just that but it was important, it seems.
http://tinyurl.com/3u4ot

[ 04 November 2004: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 04 November 2004 01:30 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
according to cnn:
Presidential results:

Bush 51%, Kerry 49%

Ballot 1 to Ban ssm:
In favour 62%, Against 38%

Ban ssm vote by ideology
Liberals (19% of total) -- in favour 28% against 72%
Moderates (48% of total)-- in favour 58% against 42%
Conservative (33% of total)-- in favour 87% against 13%

what is suprising to me is the high moderate in favour of the ban and also those who label themselves liberal that almost 30% were in favour of the ban

the initiative won because those who talk the talk did not walk the walk

[ 04 November 2004: Message edited by: miles ]

[ 04 November 2004: Message edited by: miles ]


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 04 November 2004 01:51 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
In Canada, a decade ago, how many self-described liberals were in favour of equal marriage?

The United States is at least a decade behind us on gay issues.

In the United States a liberal can be in favour of for-profit health care.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 04 November 2004 01:57 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i know that many will argue with this and/or say here goes miles again but according to the fuscia world i live in i think that the main difference between american and canadian political parties is that in canada we are still only near the centre where in the usa they are more to the right. for example:
1. the ndp is far to the left of the democrats, even to the left of the kennedy liberals
2. the liberal party of canada is mainly the kennedy liberals with a spattering of fiscal conservatism
3. most of the old pc party and the majority of the new cpc are what i would call arlen spector republicans. the cpc is not the newt gingrich of the north no matter how hard they try and god knows they try and try and try and try and try and try and try and try

we do not have even though harper is trying very hard to make it happen but we do not have the 25% of the republican party that is not only fiscally conservative and socially conservative but also morraly conservative.

therefore we are a more "liberal society" no matter who is in power.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 November 2004 02:02 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
I think viewing Canadian politics and culture as being on a scale with American (to the left, to the right, more advanced, less advanced) is in some ways simplistic. Some of us (a big chunk of us) see nothing that relates us to American society very profoundly at all, save for some shared North American consumer values.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 04 November 2004 02:03 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"A center-right nation": That's how this writer puts it.
http://tinyurl.com/6a65v

[ 04 November 2004: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 04 November 2004 02:06 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
I think viewing Canadian politics and culture as being on a scale with American (to the left, to the right, more advanced, less advanced) is in some ways simplistic.

I wish the BC Liberals knew that, or some of the yahoos in Alberta (not saying all Albertans are yahoos ) Remember Mike Harris?

[ 04 November 2004: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 04 November 2004 02:24 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not usually a great fan of Thomas Friedman but here's an extract of the column of today:

"...This was not an election. This was station identification. I'd bet anything that if the election ballots hadn't had the names Bush and Kerry on them but simply asked instead, "Do you watch Fox TV or read The New York Times?" the Electoral College would have broken the exact same way...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/opinion/04friedman.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 04 November 2004 02:24 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:

Remember Mike Harris?


but is dalton any differnt than mike? the delivery of the message is different but the message is very similar


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 04 November 2004 02:26 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by miles:

but is dalton any differnt than mike? the delivery of the message is different but the message is very similar


I was commenting about the uS and Canadian left/right/centre being not very much alike ("an oversimplification") not about Ontario politics. I don't know enough about Dalton to begin with


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 04 November 2004 02:26 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:

I was commenting about the uS and Canadian left/right/centre being not very much alike ("an oversimplification") not about Ontario politics. I don't know enough about Dalton to begin with


k my bad


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 November 2004 02:27 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I wish the BC Liberals knew that, or some of the yahoos in Alberta (not saying all Albertans are yahoos ) Remember Mike Harris?

I think these people are out of touch with reality, and with Mike Harris, that clearly was the case.

One of the reasons I chose Hinterland as my screen-name was a conclusion that I came to that the only national traits most Canadians (if not all Canadians) shared were those related to the specificity of the hinterland. And I'm not being romantic about this. Travelling throughout the country, one thing I did notice is that when people got out of the cities and into the bush, a lot of common things (positive and negative) came out; how to camp, how to deal with the cold, how the bugs suck, how nice being alone in a quiet place is, that kind of thing. Unless you're a committed urban dweller (and some people are), people all across Canada relate to this. These experiences are very different from those in the US and many places in Europe, where people live in unfathomably large urban areas (places that make Greater Toronto look quaint, almost), and I can't help thinking that they underpin a big and fundamental difference in character (I'm not the first one to say this, but I finally came to believe it).

You can have very different experiences of Canada when you visit Vancouver, or Calgary, or Toronto, or Montreal, or Halifax, but when you move away from these places and back to the bush (which in most cases only requires about an hour's drive), things all of sudden look very familiar.

I think this is the reality a lot of politicians want to ignore, because it distances themselves from the current fads of power that (in this country) are quite often determined by the US, and I think some of them feel it makes them look less sophisticated. But in doesn't change the fact that we do live a different reality, and in that way, in a very different country.

[ 04 November 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 04 November 2004 03:08 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was fortunate enough to spend some time in the bush. What a wonderful experience for a city boy!

But I think you're a little behind times with your idyllic view of Canada. The vast majority live in cities and most have never been in the bush other than a Sunday excursion into the Laurentians and the like.

P.S People in the bush are by and large helpful and co-operative but there's no politics either, or not much. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Raman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7267

posted 04 November 2004 03:08 PM      Profile for Raman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tom,
From analyzes like W. Hutton's (A Declaration of Interdependence), from the prominence of ultra-liberal thinkers in the media, in universities, in the blogosphere, and from conversations I strike with Americans in real life as well as on the Internet, I keep getting the impression that their most "radical" left-wingers are still closer to libertarians than anything else.

It seems to me, in any case, that the greatest examples of "socialistic" advances in American politics were at best tenuous, and obtained by very narrow margins. -The New Deal, which has since been widely circumvented; or Clinton's failed healthcare plan come to mind.

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Vouloumanos:

(...) Kerry did not focus on the economy and social programs (health, pensions, education). Polls in the US have shown that people are ready to pay more taxes if they do receive better services. Americans don't want to pay taxes because their money goes straight to the military-industrial complex.

Kerry offered no alternative on Iraq. He could've said I made the same mistake as the President by supporting this war, I have now realized the error that the President does not want to admit. He could've been much more aggressive on this. (...)


Granted, Kerry should have offered more of a plan, instead of just criticism and vague promises to do basically the same as Bush, but better. Both his supporters and detractors are now blaming Kerry for that failure. And, in this case, any alternative to Bush would have been on the left of him, even by default.

Yet, not having seen the polls you mention, I can't help thinking that Bush' constant hammering that "Kerry wants to raise your taxes where I give you tax breaks!", regardless of the totally inadequate actual social and health security nets, seems to have had an impact. (At least on the part of the vote that wasn't solely religiously motivated.)
And the data I read concerning the aversion to taxation (in Hutton's book) concerned even health care and social welfare. And again, I find a lot of echo to that in popular discourse. ("Why the hell should the gvt tell me who I should give my money to? I'll give charity if I want to, and to the people I think deserve it.") Only in such a larger social and ideological context could the concept of faith-based initiatives see the light without creating a major revolt in the streets.
Also, I'm afraid that saying "I made a mistake" would have strengthened the stupid and unfounded "flip-flop" chorus (the very proof that if you repeat something often enough it sticks).

I don't know. It may be a simplistic vision, but I always have in mind the idea that so many people will chose a candidate because "he looks presidential", and that a president should be no less than John Wayne for a great portion of the electorate...


Surely, all the social ingredients are there to command a left-wing turn in American politics. But I predict many more social woes before the right-wing distortions of reality can stop sticking.
I see you base your conviction more on the presence of leftist coalitions, which you seem to think Kerry failed to bring together. I'm not extremely familiar with that landscape myself, but it seems to me the choice should have been clear to all of them, regardless of the Kerry campaign failures. (Or maybe those stupid moralistic (and religious) issues really did take precedence in people's votes?..)


Finally, a note on that notion of internal dynamism.
It'd take me too long to mount a full case for that here. But I personally do perceive it as socially inherent.

We here, as well as in most of Europe, have developed stronger senses of nationhood, through which the state, representing the people, is seen as responsible (to various degrees) for their welfare through an idea of a greater social peace. In America, the state is seen as the guardian of individual liberties, and basically an organism that's there to insure that everybody can pursue their own unencumbered path towards the accomplishment of success (or failure, if they're lazy).
Witness the terms of their constitution itself, as well as, for example, the great importance they put on contracts between private parties, in which the gvt can only intervene very minimally (which is unequaled here or anywhere).

I'm not saying that vision of America is uncontested. Or that it's immutable. But it's certainly traditional. And, as mentioned above, America's successes are such that tradition is very hardly contested as of yet.

When I talk of the dynamic nature of American society, I mean that this ideology makes for a lot of competition. Which indeed is a factor of dynamism. But we all know the excesses of unbridled competition on social and human infrastructures in the long run. Hence my claim that it's an unstable system, which would have crashed long ago if it wasn't for the constant influx of foreign capitals and cheap labor into the country. (Two factors that help maintain the illusion that the liberal ideology brings dynamism and prosperity.)

The coalitions you mention, in this scheme, would be perceived as interest groups that fight for the people they represent, and which can unite at times to have more weight. But I hardly see them as representative, in popular consciousness, of any social duty for the people as a whole to care for the disenfranchised and the needy.

[ 04 November 2004: Message edited by: Raman ]


From: Political correctness : The hobgoblin of misguided political activism | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 November 2004 04:52 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfred Day:
Someone must have correlated voter turnout with the states with anti-gay-marriage referenda on the ballot. How much did those referenda increase the turnout? Does Bush owe his victory margin to those anti-gay-marriage voters who might otherwise have stayed home?

[ 04 November 2004: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]



I posted this article in another thread:

quote:

Indeed, in Ohio, 221,000 more people voted for president than for the constitutional amendment. But an analysis of several counties also indicated that the drop-off in voting for the amendment was significantly larger in Democratic counties than in Republican ones, suggesting a higher sense of intensity about the measure among Republicans.

In rural Shelby County in western Ohio, for instance, the number of people who cast ballots for the amendment was just 1.5 percent lower than those who voted for president. By comparison, there was a 6 percent drop-off in heavily Democratic Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland.

Shelby County was significant because it registered the largest increase in support for Mr. Bush among Ohio's 88 counties this year, a jump of eight percentage points from 2000, to 71 percent, according to a Republican analysis.

John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron who has studied religion in politics, said such figures indicated that fervent support for the amendment in conservative areas might have caused turnout to rise by as much as 3 or 4 percent. And that might have helped tip the election to Mr. Bush in this most vital of states.

"If you look around rural, Appalachian Ohio, you'll see there were many counties that Bush won by better than 60 percent of the vote," Professor Green said. "Those are the areas where you'd see increased turnout because of this issue. And I think that increase was large."


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/politics/campaign/04gay.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Montovan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4972

posted 04 November 2004 06:48 PM      Profile for Montovan     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some interesting points--another rather lengthy slant on how the Democrats miss the mark.

[ 04 November 2004: Message edited by: Montovan ]And just for laughs

[ 04 November 2004: Message edited by: Montovan ]


From: B.C. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 04 November 2004 07:14 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Conspiracy alert; I never thought of it but someone suggested that maybe G. Bush Sr. gave his Bin Laden friends a nudge and through family pressure they got Osama to make his appearance to give W a boost.

Devious enough for ya?


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 04 November 2004 07:26 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wanna find Bin Laden?

Try the Bush ranch.


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 04 November 2004 08:10 PM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
By not challenging Bush on the Economy (Remember Clinotn's "its, the Economy stupid") and by accepting Bush's premise, Kerry set himself up for failure.

Kerry did try to raise domestic issues during the campaign, and why wouldn't he, they were his strong points. It was more that whenever he did try to bring the debate around to those types of issues, the discussion never stayed there long enough for him to gain any ground. It always went back to the voters concern with the War on Terror. When your security is threatened, nothing else is as important.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 04 November 2004 10:10 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
the only national traits most Canadians (if not all Canadians) shared were those related to the specificity of the hinterland . . . they underpin a big and fundamental difference in character.

Mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est l'hiver.

For there was a time in this fair land when the railroad did not run.
When the wild majestic mountains stood alone against the sun.
Long before the white man and long before the wheel.
When the green dark forest was too silent to be real.

Canada is a place of infinite promise. The hills, lakes and forests make it a place of peace and repose of the mind, such as one never finds in the U.S.A.
- John Maynard Keynes

I believe in peace keeping, NOT policing.
DIVERSITY, NOT assimilation,
(louder ..)
AND THAT THE BEAVER IS A TRULY PROUD AND NOBLE ANIMAL.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 November 2004 11:40 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
· The Kerry Campaign did not run on a comprehensive national health care program, which polls have shown is tremendously popular


Except that two years ago there was a statewide referendum in California on a Canadian style "single payer" health plan. it was defeated by a 2-1 margin. If Kerry proposed something like that would just get shellacked for proposing a "big government program that will cause higher taxes".

I'm not sure what the Democrats could have done differently. Maybe the US simply a country with a built in rightwing majority where Democrats can only win in exceptional circumstances or when the rightwing vote is split by someone like Perot ( as in '92 and '96). I do think that the Dems might have done a bit better with a candidate like Richard Gephardt who was less of a patrician and who could hold his own in the "heartland".


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 04 November 2004 11:41 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
I recall thinking several months ago that the G.L. ... whatever community was showing incredile political naivity in bringing the issue to the forefront in a presiential election year. If the above posts are correct; Rove has been able to exploit that mistake to hurt not only them; but all of humanity.

Yes, I know I will be lambasted on this; I know that hunan rights are non negotiable; but I also know that the greatest, most fervent, and most sucessful human rights crusaders through history have had the prudence to pick their places; pick their timing.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 05 November 2004 01:00 AM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A few observations...

One thing that makes this result remarkably similar...and I can't believe nobody has commented upon this anywhere...to that of Canada's last election is how Republican (Conservative) and Democrat (Liberal) victories show up on a map.

As in Canada, there also so is a cultural divide in America between rural and urban regions. In both countries, Liberals predominated in largely urban regions and Conservatives owned the predominately rural ones.

The big difference between the ultimate outcomes is that in America the rural regions, because of generally favorable climatic conditions, are much more heavily populated than in Canada where much less of our nation enjoys similarly temperate weather.

Thus, there is much more balance politically between the two cultures in the US than up here, so much so that primarily rural based Conservatives can actually elect a President, and dominate both the Congress and the Senate.

It's much more lopsided in favor of urban Canada, thus giving Liberals (and thus, urbanite culture) what amounts to a virtual lock on the reins of government.

I'm inclined to think that what we're witness to here in North America (I don't know about the rest of the world) is a cultural chasm emerging between two increasingly distinct social orders.

The reason this last election was so volotile in the US is that the two sides of this cultural chasm essentially are balanced, and thus each side has to work for victory that much harder, eliciting every aspect of emotions and rancor in the process.

Whereas in Canada, one has a effectively huge political lever on power over the other.

Because of this balance in America, each side feels capable of victory on the strength of their own convictions. IOW, there is little perceived compelling reason to moderate particular stances to any great degree.

In Canada, the converse is true. Liberals rarely have to moderate their positions to any great degree because, at the end of the day, the deck is culturally stacked in their favor.

Thus eternally playing with a stacked deck, Liberals afford themselves the luxury of offering carrots (IOW, money in great big gobs) where it suits them in order to accomplish essentially little more than secure their grip on power beyond the realm of mere chance...generally to soothe disgruntled Quebec nationalists, or perpetually underemployd Maritimers.

To overcome this, Conservatives essentially have to become Liberals...which is precisely what the PC Party has been for as long as anyone can remember. (Same shite, different pile.)

It's not mere happenstance that the political contempt for each other between Libs and Cons in Canada pretty much mirrors the same criticisms tossed out between rural and urban cultures.

Libs consider Cons to be quaint, passe, old fashioned, and disconnected from the real world...their urban world.

Cons consider Libs to be overly idealistic, self-preoccupied, flighty, and disconnected from the real world...their rural world.

You know, it's nice...if not self-satisfying and ingratiating...to endlessly muse and pontificate that it's all much more complicated than this.

But, looking at a demographic map overlaid by political divisions indicated by two basic colours, either in Canada or the US of A, reveals the simple truth of it all.

I've read here that Democrats should move further to the left.

Nonsense. That would only further sharpen the division between rural/urban America, and achieve no political gain...other than running the risk of actually losing soft liberal support in urban regions.

The same rule applies equally to Conservatives. Hardening of ideological positions, right or left, ultimately alienates more potential votes to be found in each others camps than it has it could ever attract.

Perhaps a lesson here for both hardline NDPers and Conservatives, eh?

FWIW.


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 05 November 2004 01:42 AM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A few observations...

You certainly raise some good points in your post talking about the divide between rural and urban. Something to think about. It's not a complete fit, though.

You may have used the term urban, to refer to both urban and suburban. But they're not the same really. Suburban really is a force unto itself, in Ontario it has its own title, the 905 belt.

Also, I would note that in all of Alberta, the Liberals have ownly been able to elect 2 or 3 MPs. And although they were elected in Edmonton, an urban area, others in Edmonton went Reform and now Conservative. And none of Calgary's seats have gone Liberal for a very long time, clearly an urban area. I think that the feeling Albertans have of rugged individualism is the more dominant factor at play. But absolutely there is merit to the urban rural split you describe in many parts of Canada. And as urban centers become more influential, this is a pattern politicians would be wise to be aware of.

I would also like to point out that Mike Harris was also able to win seats within the city limits of Toronto, Canada's largest urban area, with his common sense revolution.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 November 2004 01:47 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting geographical take on it, with some elements of truth I think, but slight contradiction in your summary Sir S. Urban-rural divides that close should make them tilt to the centre, which in reality only the Democrats have done with little apparent recognition from the American right, beyond vague expressions of "compassionate conservatism" which are promptly forgotten after their election. They keep on getting more extreme in their agenda and means, so the dynamic down there actually allows the rural led right to become more ideological while forcing the left around purely pragmatic (or expedient) centre in attempt to capture the drifting centre, mostly in fear of further rightward push. Or maybe just bleeding heart baby boom guilt complex that if only WE act "nicer" they'll soften their stand too. Whatever, it so far has just allowed the right to redefine and push their position further.

Far as I can see, Canada has similar if less pronounced dynamic in the sense that our own centre has been shifting progressively to the right, while the functional "left" has become so moderate in reality that it can't do much in practice to counteract the drift. Stop the cutbacks and privatization but don't DARE raise (income) taxes to undo the damage. Like a ratchet effect, one step back, pause, another step back.

Mostly because of the corporate media in reality. Something conservatives still maintain is liberal somehow, based on the nothing more real than their urban settings and meaningless motherhood statements about "peace in our time" or "right to "choose" bla bla. The ideological view from Bay Street, surburbs and countryside apparently maintains the same left(NDP), right(Conservative) and centre(Liberal) scenario regardless of the long running drift, all the while maintaining the assumption that business types and country folk are by nature more "realistic" and pragmatic. In their own backyard maybe.

Biggest difference between US and us IMO is that a lot of mostly liberal Americans continue to see liberalism as akin to socialism and therefore see themselves as "conservative", while supposedly more politically sophisticated Canadians see themselves as liberal but still seem to assume the party brand names mean what they say. Other difference I see is that Americans maintain faith that they too can join the rich and famous club, no matter how poor they get. Most Canadians don't (according to polls) but assume that WE will escape the fate of our neighbours. Or maybe both are just different expressions of the same passive bravado.

[ 05 November 2004: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 05 November 2004 01:49 AM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Democrats can only win in exceptional circumstances or when the rightwing vote is split by someone like Perot ( as in '92 and '96).

The presence of Perot had nothing to do with Clinton winning or Bush losing. That's Republican mythology, not born out by any facts. But I'm impressed, although more sadened, that they have so many people convinced by such an utter falsehood as Perot split the vote and allowed Clinton to win.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 November 2004 02:03 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I do think Perot took more votes from the right than left, even if more contrarian, less satisfied right.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 05 November 2004 02:04 AM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The left has had decades of prominance in both Canada and the US. And we have the massive debts to show for it. It's about time that conservative thinking is having it's day.

If you think about it it's like the Liberal get into power and then go on wild spending sprees. Then at some point it's time for the conservatives to come in and clean up the mess left behind. Kind of like the liberals throw a big party, invite the whole neighborhood. Then the next morning, when the hangover hits and there's a big mess, the conservative cleanup crew comes in to do the hard work getting things back in order. Only then, after the conservatives get the job done, the liberals get back in and throw another big party.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 05 November 2004 02:06 AM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I do think Perot took more votes from the right than left, even if more contrarian, less satisfied right.

Then you've been had by the Republican propaganda as well. Sad but true.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 05 November 2004 02:07 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Leuca:
The left has had decades of prominance in both Canada and the US. And we have the massive debts to show for it. It's about time that conservative thinking is having it's day.

Clinton, Chretien: no deficit

Bush, Mulroney: highest deficits in history.

Your next lie?


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 November 2004 02:11 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've been "had" by Republican PR? Do you have anything which indicates that Perot was a mostly leftist movement rather than a kind of confused Reform Party of the south? You know, direct democracy mixed with libertarian kind of ideas? Really just curious what you think here.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 05 November 2004 02:12 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Clinton, Chretien: no deficit

Bush, Mulroney: highest deficits in history.

Your next lie?


That's a pretty tenacious falsehood, isn't it? Harris-Eves left Ontario with a 5 billion dollar deficit as well. I wonder why the Right clings to it? Do they not read? Or do these people just really make up their own reality as they go along?

[ 05 November 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 05 November 2004 02:14 AM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think what makes the big difference in is when a polarizing issue comes into play.

Nothing is more polarizing than the matter of waging war. If we go even as far back as WW2, the political divisions, both in Canada and the US, were sharp and relatively overheated in both camps for and against.

As in everything else, there are no hard set axioms that can be applied in every instance.

It is a rule in politics, however, that the side...or its leader...which can best sieze upon, or even invent, a polarizing issue (f'rinstance, free trade, or the GST) can overcome many other cultural and economic divisions.

Andrew Coyne, on his website, came up with an interesting breakdown of exit polling regarding demographics and motivations therein.

The issue of security/war ran across pretty much all demographical divisions of gender, age, ethnicity, etc.

It is this reality that ultimately put GWB over the top in race in which the margin of victory, because of the balance between these two cultural social orders, is measured by a few percentage points one way or the other.

Had it not been for this polarizing issue, or another one of similar impetus in its place, Kerry would almost certainly have won the day...by about 5 points, give or take 1.


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 November 2004 02:15 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
Clinton, Chretien: no deficit

Bush, Mulroney: highest deficits in history.

Your next lie?


A conservative explained it to me once. Their kind of debt is good debt, "our" kind is bad. Non-productive you see, only feeds the losers.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 05 November 2004 02:19 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Really. Mulroney took the debt from $150-Billion to over $500-Billion. Debt exploded under Reagan, who took the U.S. from being the largest creditor nation in the world to being the largest debtor nation. Bush Jr. inherited the largest surplus in U.S. history, and within a couple years started producing the largest deficits in U.S. history. Conservatives in North America are by far the most fiscally imprudent. Governments of the centre or left-centre are almost always more prudent.

The fact that the present dipshit repeats this myth just shows how pervasive it is.


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 November 2004 02:20 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sir_springer:
I think what makes the big difference in is when a polarizing issue comes into play.

............

The issue of security/war ran across pretty much all demographical divisions of gender, age, ethnicity, etc.

..........

Had it not been for this polarizing issue, or another one of similar impetus in its place, Kerry would almost certainly have won the day...by about 5 points, give or take 1.



Not that I put much stock in what Andrew Coyne says, but could be there. Just too bad that most polls cited when Kerry was trying to make an issue of it said that bread and butter issues were more important to voters than the war. Then after the election largest group said "moral" values were what counted. Hmm.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 05 November 2004 02:21 AM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. It's rarely commented on correctly in the media. More often you'll hear the falsehoods repeated. But I did hear it right, in the wee hours of the morning after the election, from Jeff Greenfield of CNN. Very surprised to hear the reality spoken in a national media broadcast. As he said the exit polls from the 92 election showed that Perot drew equally from both Republicans and Democrats.

The Republicans like to spread the idea that Perot elected Clinton, probably so that they would not have to actually take any of the blame themselves for losing to Clinton. And they have a lot of people buying it. If you repeat a lie often enough it starts to look like the truth.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 November 2004 02:27 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Albireo:
The fact that the present dipshit repeats this myth just shows how pervasive it is.

The great thing about this myth is it's almost impervious to rational debate, based on conservative self image, and allows them to turn around and demand liberals clean up "their" mess by more social service cuts. Then more tax breaks as their reward when left base falls away. Raising income taxes remains taboo, service charges don't count. Can't lose game.

[ 05 November 2004: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 05 November 2004 02:28 AM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Really. Mulroney took the debt from $150-Billion to over $500-Billion.

You don't really think Mulroney is/was a conservative do you. No offence, but, Hello.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 November 2004 02:30 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Leuca:
The Republicans like to spread the idea that Perot elected Clinton, probably so that they would not have to actually take any of the blame themselves for losing to Clinton. And they have a lot of people buying it. If you repeat a lie often enough it starts to look like the truth.

So Clinton did draw votes from a more "soft" conservative base as well, ok.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 November 2004 02:31 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Leuca:
You don't really think Mulroney is/was a conservative do you. No offence, but, Hello.

What do you consider Mulroney to be, radical right?


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 05 November 2004 02:41 AM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's be fair on the matter of debt here.

Clinton took over on the heels of an economic recovery intiated by Reagan...in large part fed by the re-allocation of resourses/spending cuts to the military that theretofore had been directed towards the Cold War with the USSR.

IOW, Reagan finally won the Cold War, and American immediately prosperred thereof.

Conversely, Bush took the reins at about the same moment the incredibly overheated stock markets finally melted down in one massive correction. The Dot.com binge crashed and burned, resulting in massive and crippling financial losses pretty much right across the spectrum of investors. Mutual funds got severely hammered, and middle America took an unimaginable...up to that point...bullet.

Whether Democrat or Republican, the administration dealing with that catastrophe would have been facing some tough challenges.

Then toss into that already volotile mix 9/11.

In Canada, the PCs carried on...as I said, because they were no different than the Liberals...the same fiscal policies initiated essentially by Trudeau years earlier: Spend now, pay later.

However...

Facing the ultimate economic realities of such rampant spending...bankruptsy...it was the PCs who brought about the GST, which essentially amounted to a desperately needed cash cow...as opposed to cutting spending...for getting deficits under control.

The Liberals came to power by promising to axe the GST.

Immediately upon winning, they admitted the fact of Canada's desperate financial situation, and reversed their stand on the GST...for the very same reason the PCs created it. It was a cash cow that had become indespensible.

IOW, Martin more or less crushed the deficit on the back of PC initiatives...but nevertheless took all the bows for as though it were entirely his own fiscal mastery.

IMHO, the principle reason provincial governments, Conservative or otherwise, are running deficits is because the federal Liberals have massively and deliberately tipped the economic scales in their own favor. Thus we have a federal government that sucks up resourses...i.e., taxes...like one huge vacuum cleaner, while leaving provincial (and municipal) governments sucking the hind teat.

There is only so much money governments can carve out an economy before it starts imploding upon itself...and provincial governments have essentially been left to deal with the consequences of federal policy, with little extra room to breathe or raise their own tax revenues.


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 05 November 2004 02:43 AM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Debt exploded under Reagan, who took the U.S. from being the largest creditor nation in the world to being the largest debtor nation.

Let's do a little review. Reagan inherited an economy from Carter that was a basket case. OK. Reagan pushes through his policy of reducing tax rates in the income tax system. I believe his highest tax rate for the highest bracket was 27%. Revenues to the US governement went throught the roof. And the Democratically controlled Congress spent like wild men. It is the Congress that appropriates the cash.

Then Bush running for the top job proclaims read my lips. Then he gets in and they have the "tax and budget" summit. He agrees to raise taxes (probably raised income tax rates, the ones Reagan reduced). But he didn't do it to be popular, he did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. But of course, it wasn't and I believe he would acknowledge that. The problem was that for every dollar increase in taxes from the "tax and budget" summit, spending went up 1.83, or in that range. You can thank the Democratically controlled crongress for that.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 05 November 2004 02:51 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Oh, right. That's how the rightwingers do it. They blame the debt on the previous non-rightwing government. Doesn't surprise me; rightwingers never take responsibility for anything they do.

How tedious.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 05 November 2004 02:54 AM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So Clinton did draw votes from a more "soft" conservative base as well, ok.

If Perot was not in the race Clinton would have won a massive majority, it would have been embarrassing for the Republicans. Bush was extremely unpoplular at that time, despite his high poll ratings in the 90% range after the Gulf War. The economy was in the tank in the US by then, all around the world for that matter. And he was sinking fast. He had to face a serious challenge in the Republican Primaries, of course rare for a sitting President, from Buchanan. He won a significant 30% in NH running against Bush.

Bush didn't stand a chance in 92, so you can see that by getting people to believe he lost because of Perot, they would not have to face the reality that they screwed up.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 05 November 2004 03:15 AM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
IOW, Martin more or less crushed the deficit on the back of PC initiatives...but nevertheless took all the bows for as though it were entirely his own fiscal mastery.

I would not agree with that. Martin, with Chretien's backing and he could not have done what he did otherwise, slashed transfers to the Provinces ( nothing to do with PC initiatives ) and raised taxes dramatically ( and those increased revenues did not come from PC initiatives in whole ) The Liberals raised taxes dozens of times over their time in power. That's how the vast majority of the deficit was reduced.

Mulroney's problem was that every time he tried to get any control over the spending side of the budget, he was attacked by the Liberals and NDP and the media and then lost his backbone. If he was a real conservative he would have stood on principle and done the right thing. I think one of the cuts he proposed was cutting back on OAS benefits to Seniors making more than 50,000 a year, a pretty high income by any standards and he was torn to shreds for even thinking it. Because he didn't have the guts or even the smarts to do the right thing, he ended up alienating his base, and banished his party into oblivion for a decade.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 05 November 2004 03:44 AM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Bush Jr. inherited the largest surplus in U.S. history, and within a couple years started producing the largest deficits in U.S. history.

What a joke! If you go back to the 92 campaign, the Wall Street Journal ran an article entitled can't you guys ad, referring to both Bush's and Clinton's deficit reduction plans. Their numbers didn't add up. And don't forget when the Republicans took over control of Congress in 94 half way through Clintons first term, there was a some new pressure to cut spending. That's about the time when Clinton joined with the Republicans to cut welfare spending, as well as spending in other areas. So for the first time in a while there was a little downward pressure on spending, the key word being little. Republicans weren't that confident yet to make any serious cuts.

Around that time the growth in the economy and the minute downward pressure on spending allowed the deficit to become a surplus, but if you took a look at the projections for the budget in the out years, government numbers when Clinton was President, it was back into deficit again, (largely because there was no plan to get a grip on entiltlements). In other words it was more of a short term phenonmena rather than a structural change producing real results. In one of Clinton's Budgets, he was predicting an 80% tax rate at some point in the future 2010, 2020. Because that's what the taxes would have to be in order to keep up with the spending side of the budget. Obviously long before the US would ever get to a tax rate that high, spending would be slashed.

So to talk about W Bush inheriting a Clinton surplus and then squandering it may appear true on the surface, but when you take a closer look there's some real problems calling it a Clinton surplus. Clinton also benefited from some of the hard work done by Bush Sr. appointees to clean up some banking problems before Bill became the President.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 05 November 2004 04:29 AM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Clinton, Chretien: no deficit

Chretien was Trudeau's finance minister the very first year the Liberal government brought in a deficit, which started a string of almost 30 consecutive deficits, by mostly Liberal and Liberal/NDP govt.'s with the rest of the help from Mulroney PC's who in 84 promised to balance the budget but brought in deficits year after year getting larger and larger, alienating their base and helping to give rise to Reform.

Clinton's surplus came after Republicans took over control of the House, and it was temporary in nature, and wouldn't have continued were he to be President once more.

quote:
Bush, Mulroney: highest deficits in history.

Mulroney is not a conservative, and I would mostly criticize him not defend him for his failures.

If your refering to Bush sr. he had free spending Democrats controlling both houses of Congress. There is only so much one can do in those circumstances and he wasn't Reagan.

If your talking about W Bush, the economy of the US was already falling into recession before he became the President and then he had to deal with the worst blow to the US economy in it's history, 1 million jobs lost in a matter of days. He has faced down the opposition to his 'tax cuts' and has created some 1 or 2 million new jobs. Although I'd like to know more about what kind of jobs these are. And he is on a mission to scrap the super complicated tax code and bring in a simplified flat tax system, just watch the US economy reap benefits from that move.

I do have a couple of problems with the W however. I would like Bush to get the idea out of his head that he'll balance the Budget with growth alone, I'm a little skeptical on that. Although, I would point out that he is going to tackle the very serious problem of how to deal with the issue of Social Security esp. for the younger generations with his new mandate, which will help with the deficit. , and I'm tired of the massive relocation of many good paying jobs overseas and into Mexico. I'm not in favour of all of these so called 'Free Trade' deals the US sets up. At a time when the US has a massive debt and is running deficits, the US needs all the good paying jobs it can get its hands on. They need as many people working and paying taxes as possible.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 November 2004 07:47 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Leuca is indulging in historical revisionsim here. The "left" has been in control for decades in the U.S.? Not in this U.S. The only time it can be argued that any type of "left" was in control for the last quarter century was in 1993 and 1994. As for Perot, it has not been clearly established one way or the other whether Clinton would have beaten Bush I had Perot not been in the race. My hunch is he wouldn't have. It was not only Perot's presence on the ballot, but his attackes on Bush that weakened the incumbent. Plus, and this is very important, Perot's presence made it difficult for the Bushies to run their usual smear campaign. And there was a lot they could have tried to smear Clinton with. As it was, Bush lost by only 5.5%. My hunch is that had Perot not been on the ballot, Bush I would have won by at least the margin his son won this year.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 05 November 2004 09:10 AM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow twilight zone. Can we move this thread to, well, FD?
From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 05 November 2004 09:56 AM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
[QB]Oh, right. That's how the rightwingers do it. They blame the debt on the previous non-rightwing government. Doesn't surprise me; rightwingers never take responsibility for anything they do.

[QB]


Hinter -- you have just explained to me what is going on in ontario right now. i finally get it dalton mcguinty and the lying libs are really right-wingers

talking about spin:
republicans blame perot for '92
democrats blame nader for 2000

kerry will blame everyone but himself for 2004


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Right Tory
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6897

posted 05 November 2004 10:13 AM      Profile for Right Tory     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bush won because he makes a better leader than da flip-flopper.

I'm glad Bush won instead of Kerry.

Civilization 1: Communism 0


From: Quebec | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 05 November 2004 10:21 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now no one flame this guy. Let this comment stand as a permanent testament to the intellect of Canada's right wing.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Right Tory
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6897

posted 05 November 2004 10:25 AM      Profile for Right Tory     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Now no one flame this guy. Let this comment stand as a permanent testament to the intellect of Canada's right wing.

We right wingers are far more intelligent than you socialists. We believe in a strong military who can perform both combat and peacekeeping. We believe in freedom and keeping the government out of people's lives, you guys believe that the government should interfere with people's lives.

We respect the freedom of religion, you do not.


From: Quebec | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 05 November 2004 10:30 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We believe in a strong military who can perform both combat and peacekeeping. We believe in freedom and keeping the government out of people's lives...

Ooh! Ooh! Who wants to play spot the oxymoron?


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 05 November 2004 10:30 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Civilisation 1, Communism 0

quote:
We believe in a strong military who can perform both combat and peacekeeping.

quote:
We believe in keeping the government out of people's lives

examples of:

- how kerry was "communist"
- where on earth the US has done "peacekeeping" (when they refuse to serve under UN command)
- how the PATRIOT act keeps government out of people's lives,

would be welcome.


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 05 November 2004 10:31 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We respect the freedom of religion, you do not.

No you don't, you two bit idiot. You believe in the freedom of your own religion only. You believe in sending other people's children to fight wars to steal others people's oil. Nothing more than common criminals.

You belive in government in the bedrooms of everyone ensuring they engage in only missionary, heterosexual sex. You believe in selling out principles of human rights, compassion and the rule international law in exchange for soft wood lumber disputes and beef bans.

You believe in the arrogance of your own ignorance and stupidity.

[ 05 November 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Right Tory
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6897

posted 05 November 2004 10:33 AM      Profile for Right Tory     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

No you don't, you two bit idiot. You believe in the freedom of yoru own religion only. You believe in sending other people's childrens to fight wars to steal others people's oil. Nothing more than common criminals.

You belive in government in the bedrooms of everyone ensuring they engage in only missionary, heterosexual sex. You believe in selling out principles of human rights, compassion and the rule international law in exchange for soft wood lumber disputes and beef bans.

You believe in the arrogance of your own ignorance and stupidity.

[ 05 November 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]



Did I just strike a nerve?


From: Quebec | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 05 November 2004 10:35 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are a nerve. Capable of responding to stimuli only without independent thought or action.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 05 November 2004 11:15 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Right Tory:


Did I just strike a nerve?


No, you were just shown up as a liar.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
FakeDesignerWatch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6901

posted 05 November 2004 11:19 AM      Profile for FakeDesignerWatch   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Right Tory:
Bush won because he makes a better leader than da flip-flopper.

I'm glad Bush won instead of Kerry.

Civilization 1: Communism 0


Character, it came down to friggin' character. And an illegal war on behalf of the US is better than legitimately questioning the government - in the eyes of many in the US. Yes, civilisation is better served by doubting the scientific method but accepting religious certainty and killing, killing, killing.

If this is civilisation, then I'd rather be a savage in this Brave New World.

(interesting though, we saw what we did to indigenous groups in American when we brought civilisation to them...)

[ 05 November 2004: Message edited by: FakeDesignerWatch ]


From: Milan | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 05 November 2004 01:48 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tackaberry:
Wow twilight zone. Can we move this thread to, well, FD?

In fact I did initiate a thread with the same post I first wrote here in this thread at FD.

A few there are now fantasizing about me standing in front of a firing squad.

I rarely back away, in political forums, from saying what I think needs to be said...and wherever it needs to be said.


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Right Tory
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6897

posted 05 November 2004 02:09 PM      Profile for Right Tory     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by FakeDesignerWatch:

Character, it came down to friggin' character. And an illegal war on behalf of the US is better than legitimately questioning the government - in the eyes of many in the US. Yes, civilisation is better served by doubting the scientific method but accepting religious certainty and killing, killing, killing.

If this is civilisation, then I'd rather be a savage in this Brave New World.

(interesting though, we saw what we did to indigenous groups in American when we brought civilisation to them...)

[ 05 November 2004: Message edited by: FakeDesignerWatch ]


What would you prefer Saddam to stay in power and continue torturing people?

I believe America made the right choice in re-electing George W. Bush. He is better than the alternative.


From: Quebec | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 05 November 2004 02:15 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
righty,

i am glad that sadaam is out of power i am glad that he is no longer torturing people. hell i think that the middle east is better off without him and his band of murdering jack asses.

saddam was a boil on the butt of the world and needed to be lanced.

but -- this election was not about sadaam hussein.

if fact the war as originally announced was not about sadaam.

the war was a war on terror. a war to get "those evil empires" that caused wonton destruction on the united states. a war to revenge those who died on 9/11 at the pentagon, a field in pennsylvania and at the world trade centre

there has not been any proof that sadaam hussein was a member of al-quieda.

therefore the attack of iraq was not part of the wwar on terror.

the war in iraq however much warrented and needed was started under false pretenses.

and right wing before you try to come over and yank down the red ensign i have flying and replace it with pearson's pennant there are a couple of things you should know:
1. i am very proud of the history of our military adn the work that cf does every day. i am honoured that i live in a country that has produced padre foote vc, andrew mynarski vc, smokey smith vc, w barker vc, billy bishop vc. and proud to be from a city that sent its boys to die on the beaches of dieppe

2. i would have supported canadian forces in iraq. but we did not have any to send. our army was stretched as thin as it could be between un requirments and our forces in afghanistan. so the answer was really made by the CDS and not the PM

[ 05 November 2004: Message edited by: miles ]

[ 05 November 2004: Message edited by: miles ]


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 05 November 2004 02:27 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bush won for two reasons.

1) Skull and Bones - Kerry was weak and wasn't going to bring about change anyway.

2) E-Fraud - http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
http://blackboxvoting.com


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 05 November 2004 02:55 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
[QB]2) E-Fraud - http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm

That is a very interesting link. The kind of data that he points out could be explained without cheating: the winning candidate may legitimately attract more independents than his opponent, and attract more cross-over votes from his opponent's party than he loses in the same manner. You'd really have to do a detailed comparison across different voting methods, different precincts, and perhaps compare with exit polls.

If the damned machines are programmed to flip a couple of votes out of every hundred from one candidate from the other, that is not an easy thing to detect.

[ 05 November 2004: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
jimmytango
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7291

posted 05 November 2004 03:13 PM      Profile for jimmytango     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with Quelar.

A few points to consider:

1. Exit polls - while not so scientific in nature, there are some odd discrepancies when looking at exit poll results vs actual vote tallies for e-vote machines sans paper and e-vote machines with paper or paper ballots. Take a look here:

http://img103.exs.cx/img103/4526/exit_poll.gif

In states with paper voting of some kind, the exit polls are right in line with the actual results. In states without paper, the swing is as high as 8% in favor of Bush. My research has showed that not one e-vote state swung in favor of Kerry when comparing exit polls and actual tallies.

Before you shit on the idea of exit polls as a point of comparison, remember that exit polls were used by Jimmy Carter to validate Venezuela's election.

2. E-vote machines and friends of Bush

The CEO of Diebold stated in Aug 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." A turn of phrase or a freudian slip?

Ohio head of Elections, Ohio Sec of State Ken Blackwell was the man who decided to buy the e-voting machines for Ohio. No big deal, except he was also co-chair of Bush's Ohio campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A448-2004Oct26.html

Just have a look at the Ohio exit polls versus the actual tally.

3. The idea that such a democratic nation would opt to run an election with NO PAPER TRAIL only accentuates the point that there is NO OTHER REASON to balk at paper (or go to court as Florida did to STOP a call for an e-vote paper trail) other than to prevent audit of an electronic machine! Seriously somewhere the founding fathers are losing the plot!

Bush is 2 for 2 - 2 elections run, 2 elections stolen.


From: ontario | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 05 November 2004 03:16 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
guys i will not commetn about irregularities but lets let the exit poll dog die.

exit polls are not accurate. full stop.

james carville said that exit polls are used for at best to see possible trends but that they should not be used to predict results.

therefore to compare exit polls to actual results is an error.

this does not mean that the actual results are right or wrong. simply put. some democrats started to pour champagne after hearing exit polls rather than getting my bodies to vote


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 05 November 2004 03:20 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytango:
http://img103.exs.cx/img103/4526/exit_poll.gif

That is just a gif file at Image Shack. Do you know where it comes from? Is there any site that explains the methodology, and has some analysis?

This is very important if true, but I'd like to see a source for it.

[ 05 November 2004: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 November 2004 03:21 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

The CEO of Diebold stated in Aug 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." A turn of phrase or a freudian slip?

Ohio head of Elections, Ohio Sec of State Ken Blackwell was the man who decided to buy the e-voting machines for Ohio. No big deal, except he was also co-chair of Bush's Ohio campaign.


I believe in the end Ohio decided not to go with e-voting. But its continued use of punch cards, which I believe Diebold's machines were used to read, were also problematic given what happened in Florida in 2000.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 05 November 2004 03:22 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Agreed, Exit polls are unreliable and should not be taken as a factual representation.

However, looking at the detailed discrepancies between the paper votes and evotes raises serious concern.

How is it that in paper votes we see a 1-3% diffence between actual votes, but in Evotign districts almost overwhelmingly a large drop in Democrat only votes?

What I'm getting at is, their system was corrupt enough, unverifiable results lead me to believe we can't count on any of it.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 05 November 2004 03:25 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Exit polls are relevant only in so much as people usually will freely admit what's on their minds or motivates them, and provide demographical data.

But a lot of people will not necessarily be truthful about for whom they're voting, often for reasons of political correctness, or suspicion, or the simple reality that for many this is a very personal matter.

Exit polling in Florida failed miserably regarding the election outcome...but I don't think it also necessarily failed relative to these other factors.


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 05 November 2004 03:29 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Fascinating the way you justify lying. What's wrong with simply refusing to answer if it's a personal matter?

Don't you have any morals at all?


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 05 November 2004 03:31 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sir_springer:

In fact I did initiate a thread with the same post I first wrote here in this thread at FD.

A few there are now fantasizing about me standing in front of a firing squad.


Weird. I don't think anyone here is peeved at you, actually--which is somewhat unusual. Your comment showed a degree of insight and was worth discussing. I don't fully agree--get to that in a minute.
I believe the reference in what you replied to was to a couple of the other right-wing posters who are basically waving as red rags a few of the more obvious falsehoods about left/right differences.

As to the rural/urban divide, yeah, it does seem largely to be that way--now. And in North America. But it isn't that way everywhere--peasant farmers from India to Mexico are often far left. And it wasn't always that way here. Two words: Tommy Douglas. Our greatest Canadian
His base in Saskatchewan was rural. His platform was decidedly left, but he understood rural issues and sensibilities. He gave rural people a clarity about what the left was about in their terms. And it seems like rural people, at least in Saskatchewan, had a culture of co-operation that they are either losing, or have channeled into a much more limited vision of co-operation (e.g. the people who go to my church).
So the question for a leftist is, how do we recover, reactivate, reawaken, the cultural aspects of rural life that allow for more leftist ideas? Frankly, with agribusiness shutting down the independent farmers and big boxes killing the independent businesses and financial institutions screwing everybody, rural areas are badly in need of left-wing economic ideas. How can the left help them out in a way that taps into the best of their own ideals?


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 05 November 2004 03:34 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Here's an interesting fact:

quote:
COLUMBUS, Ohio — An error with an electronic voting system gave President George W. Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, elections officials said.

Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct.

Bush actually received 365 votes in the precinct, Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, told The Columbus Dispatch.


http://tinyurl.com/4uady


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 05 November 2004 03:35 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
whether the system is corrupt or not. that does not validate exit poll data.

also exit polls are only partially accurate if those polled represent the society at large.

an done from 10 am to 2pm does not take into account those who start work at 830 and work until 4pm

also humans lie. the lie to their spouses, friends and family so why the hell won't they lie to pollsters

also if you were a republican coming out of a polling place and there were only kerry for president signs and supporters would you vocalize you are for bush?

if you were a democrat and walked out and saw a see of bush supporters would you jump up and down and say you are in favour of ssm? you may not. you actually may say that you are against it.

those are just a couple of examples.


btw it always appears to me that claims of voting irregularities always come out from the losing camps. but has anyone noticed that no mention has of that has come from washington state were the governors race outcome is still not known? i wonder why


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 05 November 2004 03:44 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Regardless of the inherent usefulness of exit polls, it is instructive to compare the exit vs. real poll results from the various states. Especially the ones without a paper trail. I would like to see a proper statistical investigation done by an independant group (maybe a UN election monitoring group, for example) encompassing all 50 states, on a county-by-county basis. Admittedly not a small job, but not too complex, either. Such a study would help either alleviate doubts or confirm suspicions. It will also help push forward the need for paper-trail enabled voting in 2008.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 05 November 2004 03:45 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
.
How is it that in paper votes we see a 1-3% diffence between actual votes, but in Evotign districts almost overwhelmingly a large drop in Democrat only votes?


Where did you get your statistics on this?


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 05 November 2004 03:46 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
Fascinating the way you justify lying. What's wrong with simply refusing to answer if it's a personal matter?

Don't you have any morals at all?



I see. So now it's immoral to lie to a pollster. What about a telemarketer, do you have to be honest with them too?


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 05 November 2004 03:51 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
If you consider your vote a personal thing you don't want to share with others, then yes, it's pretty damn immoral to lie to a pollster when you have the honourable option of refusing to answer.

You are also likely unaware of who springer is. He is a deeply hateful man, a separatist and a homophobe, fond of lecturing others on morality, yet from a message board where the other deeply moral people often boast about deliberately lying to pollsters in an attempt to skew public opinion.

[ 05 November 2004: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 05 November 2004 03:58 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
You are also likely unaware of who springer is. He is a deeply hateful man, a separatist and a homophobe, fond of lecturing others ...


Hey, maybe the guy is a jerk. But really, lying to a pollster? At this rate I will have to stop spitting in the toilet pretty soon.


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 05 November 2004 04:09 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are many sources out there, however none of those which would be considered "mainstream" media sources, who have not published wide "exit polls" as they were patently disregarded as wrong the night of the election.

http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=388

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65609,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20416/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/52213/1921

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/11/ana04025.html

http://www.opednews.com/palast_110504_Kerry_won.htm

I would apologise for not having more credible sources, but I'm not about to take a dive for the "news" networks not looking into a story.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jimmytango
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7291

posted 05 November 2004 04:23 PM      Profile for jimmytango     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I completely agree with the challenge on the exit polls - but will someone explain to me (and Quelar) the strange discprencies between the exit polls and tallies for paper locales and non-paper locales? Shouldn't the deltas between the polls and the actual vote tallies be the same for paper and non-paper states? That is why pollsters use polls - a small sample can predict within a margin of error the results of the much larger total group. (I know everyone knows this - sorry).

No one has commented on the fact that almost one third of voters used machines that had no means for a recount, should one have been necessary. Is that not insane? I mean in N Korea, ok - they live in a dictatorship. But cmon - if the Bush Admin is going to go around pushing democracy on others shouldn't they try to get it right at home - not go the other way?

And my Blackwell reference - does no one else find this situation wrong?

FYI - Ohio used a mix of e-vote and punch cards - they will be all e-vote by 2006.


From: ontario | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 05 November 2004 04:28 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
That's a pretty tenacious falsehood, isn't it? Harris-Eves left Ontario with a 5 billion dollar deficit as well. I wonder why the Right clings to it? Do they not read? Or do these people just really make up their own reality as they go along?

Okay.

Let's hold on here.

The mania for "balanced books" comes from the Right and the fact that nominal centrists have proven better at making cuts is not cause for celebration.

Harris never ran a deficit while he was Premier and I've no doubt that Eves would have balanced the books with brutal cuts had he won the election. (As an aside, it's important to remember that the McGuinty Liberals arificially inflated the deficit by some $3.8 billion by playing with the stranded hydro debt. They needed to create a fiscal crisis to justify abandoning their platform. Once they'd established the $5.6 billion figure they played with the numbers again - instantly cutting the "deficit" in half)

Mulroney and Reagan never built up the political capital to dramatically slash the size of government and Clinton and Chretien succeeeded where they failed - but let's not pretend it wasn't the same people pulling the strings. The business community wanted to reduce government just because Clinton/Chretien delivered better than Mulroney/Regagan doesn't make it a "progressive" victory.

As for Bush - he's a whole new beast. He cares only about winning elections, helping the rich, and running the world. He doesn't care about anything else. He won't reign in military spending because that'd mean he'd have to reign in his imperialist agenda. He won't stop cutting corporate taxes because that'd mean betraying his base support. And he won't slash social spending because that'd hurt his chances of winning election.


From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 05 November 2004 04:42 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i would love to see the us system changed to a more fair and equitable system. maybe something wild like the same system in every state. a system where the feds decide how an election is run rather than leaving it in the hands of the individual states.

but we also have to be realistic for change it will need support of current politicians both republicans and democrats, governors will need to support it and they are either republicans or democrats with i think 1 independant.

then the proposal will have to be passed onto the fec and then go back down the line.

their was great fanfare when the mccain / feingold financing bill was approved. guess what a loophole was found in the tax code that both sides used this past cycle. it was call the 527 (i think that was the number) anyways it was the section of the tax code that allowed swift boat to put out adds, and moveon.org to do the same.

the point i am trying to make is that for change to happen the current political leadership must want it.

guess what...as mad as the democrats are right now. not one of them has the guts to change the system.

and fyi both mccain and feingold still find themselves in the dog houses of certain circles of their parties.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
jimmytango
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7291

posted 05 November 2004 05:36 PM      Profile for jimmytango     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry to dwell on this, but stolen elections get to me.


Ohio machine gave Bush extra votes

So is this just a one off 'oh well mistakes happen' situation - HELL NO. This is proof of fraud. Guess who wrote the software for the machines that did this - ES&S. Do a search - see who owns them, who their management outrightly supports.

There's two steps to take here - let this story die, and expect worse in the future, or push and push on this one to the point of embarassment to MAKE the mainstream media acknowledge the potential for a screwed election and then make Bush and Co explain their side.

Finally - what would a rant be without an exit poll comment?

How come exit polls were good enough for the mainstream to cite as validation for the Venezuelan elections but in North America we apologize them away as 'unscientific'?

Do we have an actuary in the house?

[ 06 November 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]

[ Edited out the link because it was causing supersidescroll - Michelle ]

[ 06 November 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: ontario | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 05 November 2004 05:52 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course neither of them are interested in real change. By changing the system you are opening up the possibility of a three *gasp!* or MORE system.

Even though the Democrats have been beaten handily , they realise that the tide will eventually shift back their way as there are no other options.

Would you give up the duopoly if you had to?


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 05 November 2004 05:59 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
jimmytango

just a helpful suggestion: Copy your long url into the window at
www.tinyurl.com
Generate a tiny url.
Then edit your post and replace the long url which is causing the horizontal scroll in your post with the tiny url link
Everybody around here will love you for it

The result will be like this:
http://tinyurl.com/5mlaw

[ 05 November 2004: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ki No Ronin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7195

posted 05 November 2004 05:59 PM      Profile for Ki No Ronin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am going to exress my Displeasure with the American People Voting for Bush by buying nothing but Heinz Products from the Safeway from now on.

I am going to eat my Eggs and Bacon with Heinz Ketchup, Steaks with Heinz Bar BQ Sauce, my Hot Dogs with Heinz Mustard Relish, etc:

I was for Kerry, and I am going to express my continued support for Kerry by buying his Wive's Condoment Products.

Ki No Ronin


From: New Westminster | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 November 2004 06:13 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:
jimmytango

just a helpful suggestion: Copy your long url into the window at
www.tinyurl.com
Generate a tiny url.
Then edit your post and replace the long url which is causing the horizontal scroll in your post with the tiny url link


I second the motion. Long Urls cause side scrolls which make threads much more time consuming to read, especially long ones like this. Thanks.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 05 November 2004 06:28 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Burns:

Harris never ran a deficit while he was Premier

No. Harris ran huge deficits to pay for tax cuts to the rich during the first several years he was Premier.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 05 November 2004 06:28 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:

I second the motion. Long Urls cause side scrolls which make threads much more time consuming to read, especially long ones like this. Thanks.


Why not just use the "url" button and forget about tinyurling ?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 November 2004 06:54 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Leuca:
Mulroney is not a conservative, and I would mostly criticize him not defend him for his failures.
If your refering to Bush sr. he had free spending Democrats controlling both houses of Congress. There is only so much one can do in those circumstances and he wasn't Reagan.

Leuca, the Democrats did NOT control both houses of congress during all the Reagan-Bush sr years, and neither these last years, I think you've been sadly misinformed. You're also misinformed about the causes of the huge budget overruns overseen by mostly conservative government. Just cause a conservative doesn't behave the way they say theyre "supposed" to doesn't mean they aren't real conservatives, that's just circular. Rightwingers from Reagan to Mulroney to Campbell to Bush cut all the social programs, supposedly loved by liberals, while increasing spending on the military, suposedly hated by liberals, which combined with massive tax "breaks", which only benefitted the rich, cut into any possible long term revenue gains.

Maynard Keynes didn't consider tax breaks till budgets were more or less balanced (he did believe in balanced budgets, but through growth, through the entire business cycle) and he was very particular about who should receive most the benefits, mostly working people who recycle of it back into the working economy. Military Keynesian isn't what he had in mind either as military is a destructive not productive enterprise, it has few long term "multiplier" effects.

The word of caution by "Burns" is worth noting too, got a point too. Balanced budgets are not an good unto themselves (not necessarily bad either, mostly depends on how they're balanced) looking at society as a whole, and the left should be careful how we subscribe to the new economic "reality" which is usually just political in intent. And no, I won't thread drift anymore unless Lueca or others demand evidence to support the obvious conservative hypocracy Re budgets. I can provide it if needed, but only if conservatives here agree to at least recognise it. Otherwise not going to the extra bother.

[ 05 November 2004: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Burns
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7037

posted 05 November 2004 07:02 PM      Profile for Burns   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by andrewtgsadler:

No. Harris ran huge deficits to pay for tax cuts to the rich during the first several years he was Premier.


I stand corrected on that one but I still stand by my original premise - Lefties should be careful about touting the benefits of "balanced budgets"

From: ... is everything. Location! Location! Location! | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 05 November 2004 07:20 PM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

As to the rural/urban divide, yeah, it does seem largely to be that way--now. And in North America. But it isn't that way everywhere--peasant farmers from India to Mexico are often far left. And it wasn't always that way here. Two words: Tommy Douglas. Our greatest Canadian
His base in Saskatchewan was rural. His platform was decidedly left, but he understood rural issues and sensibilities. He gave rural people a clarity about what the left was about in their terms. And it seems like rural people, at least in Saskatchewan, had a culture of co-operation that they are either losing, or have channeled into a much more limited vision of co-operation (e.g. the people who go to my church).
So the question for a leftist is, how do we recover, reactivate, reawaken, the cultural aspects of rural life that allow for more leftist ideas? Frankly, with agribusiness shutting down the independent farmers and big boxes killing the independent businesses and financial institutions screwing everybody, rural areas are badly in need of left-wing economic ideas. How can the left help them out in a way that taps into the best of their own ideals?


You mention Tommy Douglas, obviously...and deservedly so...an icon amongst the NDP. My father-in-law, from Saskatchewan, to this very day votes NDP because of the shadow cast by T. Douglas.

What needs to be recognized here is that Douglas...and for me, the likes of WAC Bennett, were politicians in an entirely different era. At the time both of these great men came to power, BC and Sask. were in dire financial straights, hugely underdeveloped, and had virtually nowhere to go but up.

That's not to say that just anyone could accomplish that. Absolutely not! But in each case these two men demonstrated dynamic leadership that at the time was unconventional...not necessarily because of ideological bent.

Douglas didn't absolutely adhere to socialist principles, and Bennett didn't adhere to purist free enterprise (BC Hydro and BC Ferries).

Nevertheless...

Times have changed dramatically since those days, have they not?

The current NDP no longer really champions the cause of the everyday, working stiff, little guy...and for one reason, which slapped them in their face not long ago when Alexa suggested that anyone making over $60,000/yr is making the big bucks. (This from a millionairess, and an MP pulling down over $100,000, eh?)The uproar of indignation amongst union workers...in particular, the UAW whose members on average make probably more than that...brought to light the reality that things aren't nearly that tough for them, wagewise, in this country.

I said it a long time ago here...much to the distress and outrage of many...that the NDP is facing the huge challenge of redefining itself within the context of a new economic era in Canada in which the "average" Canadian ain't doing all that bad. Certainly he/she is doing a lot better on average in standard-of-living than back in the '40s, '50s, and '60s.

IMHO, the NDP are far too busy trying line up the causes of special interest groups than they are with trying to become identified with the "average" Canadian.

Similarly, my own Conservatives face their own challenges in changing times. Social Conservatives in particular are really struggling with deeply held beliefs/idealisms within the emerging context of modern liberalism. This is gut wrenching stuff for them. Religious morals and values, by their very nature, for many do not lend themselves to merely sitting back and doing nothing, least of all keeping quiet about it. For many, silence equates to acceptance of things that some religious tenets demand actual confrontation thereof.

For Conservatives in general, bridging such differences of opinion within the paramaters of an inclusive and larger political mechanism, frankly, is a real son of a bitch with which to contend.

And, as we're all seeing, it's not like Liberals are having a free ride of it, either. There are deep philosophical divisions within their ranks as well.

Welcome to the 21st century in which the biggest challenge of all is quickly becoming discerning which information we're being flooded with is factual, and which is bullshit.

Unfortunately, most of it, IMHO, is bullshit.

The Internet and the airwaves simply are an all too inviting medium by which just about anyone with a keypad can propagandise the world with just about anything he/she can dream up...and literally millions may actually line up to buy into it.

Politics back in Tommy Douglas's day, compared to now, were a relatively simply affair. He, like Bennett and others, went town to town and spoke to big crowds of people who were interested because, to a great extent, there was little else to be interested in, or divert their attention.

In those days, politics was much more of a civic duty.

For the most part these days, it's way down on the list of interesting things to do, if for no other reason than there's a readily available plethora of things to entertain us that weren't there back in "the good ol' days".

Or so it seems...


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 06 November 2004 12:56 AM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Leuca, the Democrats did NOT control both houses of congress during all the Reagan-Bush sr years, and neither these last years, I think you've been sadly misinformed.

When was I talking about the Reagan/Bush years? I was talking about the Bush sr. years. I'm aware there was a period during Reagan's 8 years when the Senate was controlled by the Republicans. But that had nothing to do with my point.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 06 November 2004 02:30 AM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You're also misinformed about the causes of the huge budget overruns overseen by mostly conservative government. Just cause a conservative doesn't behave the way they say theyre "supposed" to doesn't mean they aren't real conservatives, that's just circular. Rightwingers from Reagan to Mulroney to Campbell to Bush cut all the social programs, supposedly loved by liberals, while increasing spending on the military, suposedly hated by liberals, which combined with massive tax "breaks", which only benefitted the rich, cut into any possible long term revenue gains.

There's so many holes in that short quote I don't quite know where to start. I can tell your good at spouting off left wing talking points.

First off I'm not a party man, I will support a party position (left or right wing) if I feel it's defencible, and criticize it if it isn't. Some people in the PC party had to know that the massive deficits they were bringing in were not good for the country, but Mulroney who certainly had the final say, let it happen anyway, instead of standing on principle. So right there he lost my respect.

We had a federal Progressive Conservative Party, and we now have a Conservative Party, political parties are governing vehicles and they are by necessity broad based with varying opinion, eg. Red Tory's, and then there are conservatives, emphasized sometimes saying small c conservatives as opposed to The Conservative Party. We have Liberals and then there are liberals.

Sometimes the free spending politicians can be found inside the Conservatives, Republicans, etc. Sometimes they form the leadership of the party as in John Tory leading the PC's in Ontario and Mulroney running the show federally way back. Mulroney raised taxes numerous times during his 8 or so years, not very conservative, and although he did bring in cuts, they were forced as the int. on the growing debt ate into the program spending ability of his govt., and by the way, the cuts he made paled in comparison with the slashing of social program spending by the Chretien government. Then there are guys like Romanow who lead left wing govt.'s that take power when govt. spending has been mismanaged for so long they are forced to get the budget under control. But he didn't just cut spending he raised taxes as well, he was governing under Chretiens slash and burn agenda so it was understandable, but the conservatives in Sask would have preferred not to raise taxes as much if at all, raising taxes effects the economy negatively in many cases, esp. during our times with taxes been so high to begin with, there is a limit to how high taxes can increase, point of diminishing returns.

As opposed to someone like Rae, who didn't understand the importance of a little fiscal restraint. Typical left wing approach, spend your way out of a recession, ...it's not always bad to go into deficit spending during a recession, but not after overspending has been going on for 'too long', more than a decade of it qualifies as too long, the theory goes that you pay down debt during good times that you may have accumulated in tough economic times, nothing wrong with a deficit here or there by any type of govt.

Reagan didn't cut taxes all by himself, a President has a lot of power but needs Congress to help out as well, so the Democrats deserve some credit for going along with Reagan's vision. Govt. revenues exploded as a result of the lower tax policy. But the spending overall was too high in too many areas. But to say that spending on the Military was the cause is not particularly fair or accurate. The US was one of two military superpowers, the other one being an arch enemy, The most important and basic responsibility of a federal govt. is to provide security for the citizens within its borders. If you can't do that then you don't have a country. So Reagan built up the US military in order to compete with the USSR. And in the end it worked. The two countries never went to war, (what would have been the cost of that?), the USSR collapsed economically, because they could not keep up with the US and now the two are more like allies than enemies. A huge success by any standard.

Don't forget that Kennedy also brought in tax cuts. And benefited with increased revenues to the US treasury. I heard a quote from Kennedy where he said, "sometimes party loyalty asks too much", I don't know in what context he was speaking that, but it shows that he could think out side the box, a good thing for liberals and conservatives to do.

The only one of Reagan, Mulroney, Campbell and Bush (assuming Bush sr.) to cut taxes was Reagan, in fact Mulroney and Bush both raised taxes dramatically. Remember Bushes 'read my lips' promise. Campbell is irrelavent in my mind, she never had any time to really make an impression as leader.

There are too many liberals who's first inclination is to spend cash to solve a problem and too many that raise taxes too high.

As far as a conservative like Reagan, although his tax cuts did dramatically increase revenues to the govt., a good thing, so long as the extra money was used responsibly, (read pay down accumulated debt, if any exists) his tax cuts were weighted in favour of the wealthiest of Americans, (not something I like, I'm into fairness and equity) as they said, trickle down didn't trickle.

I don't like tax cuts that benefit the wealthy more, nor do I like tax increases like the ones McGuinty's Flibs brought in, where the burden is on middle and lower middle income people more than on the wealthier.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 06 November 2004 02:44 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Leuca:
As far as a conservative like Reagan, although his tax cuts did dramatically increase revenues to the govt...
That's a blatant falsehood.
quote:
The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.

Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up only 91.3 percent during the 80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which is directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. Hence, the claim that the doubling of TOTAL revenues proves the effectiveness of tax cuts is including revenues which resulted from a tax hike to prove the effectiveness of a tax cut. This seems like the height of hypocrisy.

Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.


[ 06 November 2004: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 06 November 2004 02:56 AM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
Leuca's a lying liar who lies.
From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 06 November 2004 03:33 AM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Leuca is indulging in historical revisionsim here. The "left" has been in control for decades in the U.S.? Not in this U.S. The only time it can be argued that any type of "left" was in control for the last quarter century was in 1993 and 1994.

The Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress for a period of about 40 years in the 1900's before the Republicans took over in 94. There certainly were Democrats in the Whitehouse, dring that time. And the Democratic lead in the House was a great deal more dramatic than what the Republicans currently have. There was life before the last 25 year period.

quote:
As for Perot, it has not been clearly established one way or the other whether Clinton would have beaten Bush I had Perot not been in the race. My hunch is he wouldn't have. It was not only Perot's presence on the ballot, but his attackes on Bush that weakened the incumbent. Plus, and this is very important, Perot's presence made it difficult for the Bushies to run their usual smear campaign. And there was a lot they could have tried to smear Clinton with. As it was, Bush lost by only 5.5%. My hunch is that had Perot not been on the ballot, Bush I would have won by at least the margin his son won this year.

Let's go over the facts again. The exit polls in the 92 election showed that Perot drew support evenly from Republicans and Democrats. That doesn't mean that of the 19% of the popular vote that Perot received that 9.5% would have gone to Clinton and 9.5% would have went to Bush were Perot not in the race, making Clinton's 5.5% higher vote (if that number is accurate) the same. Rather it means that the same percentage of voters who were declared Republicans and Democrats voted for Perot instead, not all voters are registered as Republicans and Democrats, some register as Independent or maybe for other parties.

Bush was already weakened before Perot ever entered the race. Bush faced a significant challenge from Buchanan in the Republican Primaries. Not significant enough to push Bush out, but significant enough to cause serious damage. Buchanan got about 30% of delegate support in New Hapshire. The advantage of incumbency is that you don't have to deal with any kind of serious primary challenge, Bush was totally caught off guard by Buchanan's assault. He also had to carry the burden of an economy in deep recession, that started in 1990. And he was killed with the read my lips promise, Perot was not the first to attack Bush on that. That's why Clinton's campaign slogan was it's the economy stupid. When the economy is doing poorly the incumbent is at a severe disadvantage. Bush was seen as overly preoccupied with foreign issues at the expense of the serious domestic issues Americans were focused on at the time. Although Perot did criticize Bush more than Clinton esp. in the early part of the campaign (the campaign, read after labour day) that was well after attacks from many other corners over a long period of time. And it was more to do with the fact that Bush was the incumbent and had a 4 year record in power. Perot did take a closer look at Clinton's poor record as Governor of Arkansas later in the campaign to help even it out.

The Bushes/Republican smear campaign was in full force against both Clinton and Perot. Who do you think helped Jennifer Flowers get her story out? Then there was Bush attacking Clinton's Character for going to Russia and organizing protests against the Vietnam war.

Your hunch about Bush winning is way off the mark. At the highest levels of the Bush campaign they were begging Perot to stay in the race so that Clinton would not win by a landslide, and then they go about rewriting history claiming Perot elected Clinton. Bush was toast. And at the highest levels of the Clinton campaing they wanted Perot to get out so Clinton would have a massive victory.

The Republicans and Democrats feel that the votes of the American people belong to them. Third parties and independents need not apply.

Another factor at play in that election was that Perot's presence in the race increased voter turnout. It added a certain level of increased interest in the 92 election that would not have been there otherwise.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 06 November 2004 04:17 AM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That's a blatant falsehood.

Govt. revenues can go up as a result of tax increases and tax reductions. Both are possible. It depends on the particular circumstances at the time.

Take a simple example of the govt. charging a flat 10% rate. Then they increase the rate to 15% or even 20%, revenues will go up. Because people are not going to change their behaviour too much because they are paying 5 or 10 dollars more for every 100 bucks they earn. But try raising the rate from 10% to 50%, people will change their behaviour, and the govt. may not get more money. The very existance of the GST has caused people to pay cash for many services, and those service providers are then not declaring that income and are therefore not paying federal income taxes as well as not paying the GST itself.

The reverse is also true. Take a 60% tax rate, lower it to 50%, still relatively high, not a significant reduction. Many people would not change their behaviour. The govt. may end up collecting less revenue from such a tax cut. But push it down to 30% or 20% and people will work harder and make more money causing govt. revenues to go up.

Don't get caught up in economic mumbo jumbo, if you ask 100 economists a question don't be surprised to get 100 different answers.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 November 2004 08:30 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In spite of this nasty sidescroll, I'll reply to Leuca's Perot point by saying she ignores his appeal to white independents. In other words, Perot maximized Clinton's minority vote advantage because Perot's vote was almost entirely white. Bush was not toast. In fact, he had nearlyu pulled even several less than a week before election. The announcement of Iran-Contra indictments the Friday before the election set him back for good. While Buchanan did distract Bush in New Hampshire, after that he wasn't a factor. Perot's attacks on the deficit and Bush's overall management of the economy that were far more damaging. And again, in a three way race, the normal attack/smear strategy is not as effective because it's not a zero-sum game.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 06 November 2004 05:14 PM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Leuca's Perot point by saying she ignores his appeal to white independents. In other words, Perot maximized Clinton's minority vote advantage because Perot's vote was almost entirely white. Bush was not toast.


I did point out that Ross energized the electorate and increased voter turnout in that election. But the point is those voters would not have participated were Perot not in the race.

The other theme, by the way, of the Clinton campaign was the 'vote for change' theme the Democrats were pushing. Bush could not have been attacked on the economy were it performing well. There was a real sense at that time the things were not going well with the economy, and that hurts the incumbant more than the challenger.

Are you talking about the white vote, as opposed to the black vote? The blacks would have voted massively for Clinton whether Perot was in or out. Clinton did well with whites in the southern states did he not?

Both the Democrats and Republicans start off with 20% or 20% plus of the voters. The natural advantage of an established party. Then there are the people that change parties from election to election. What I'm saying is that Clinton would have gotten the majority of those people and would have won a massive majority of the EC votes as well as a mid to high 50's percentage of the popular vote if Perot was not in the race.

quote:
In fact, he had nearlyu pulled even several less than a week before election. The announcement of Iran-Contra indictments the Friday before the election set him back for good.

What, did you go back and study the week by week poll results for the length of the campaign? That's dedication.

quote:
Perot's attacks on the deficit and Bush's overall management of the economy that were far more damaging.

I'm not saying that Perot's criticism of Bushes' handling of the economy didn't have an impact, of course it did. But if Perot were not in the race and did not have the platform of the debates and the benefit of full participation in the election process, no one would have been listening to him whether he was speaking about those issues or not.

Clinton was critizing the handling of the economy as well. And if Perot wasn't running he would have still been doing it with effect. The economy was in the tank at the time, you're certainly not arguing that was good for Bush. There was a lot there for any opponent to criticize.

Bush was not a terribly good campaigner, and there was the incident where he was asked what the price of bread was and couldn't answer. Then you have this smooth guy Clinton, an awesome campaigner, talking about how he had turned the State of Arkansas around and offering the people hope for the future, (total rhetoric of course, his record as Governor wasn't all that great).
At a time when the focus of the people was totally on economic issues, you had Bush trying to make Clinton's character for organizing demonstrations against the Vietnam war on foreign soil an issue, and empty rhetoric about Clinton being a tax and spend liberal that fell on deaf ears, considering Bush was being held responsible for the poor performance of the US economy at the time, rightly, since he was in charge.

You can't ignore the importance of Bush breaking the read my lips promise and then Clinton, comes along and promises to only raise taxes for the richest of Americans (a total lie of course). He was talking about investing and growing the economy. He effectively had created hope in the minds of Americans.

With Ross in the race, once the Republicans realized they couldn't win, at least they were certain that Clinton would not get a massive majority and a real mandate, making him weaker than he would otherwise have been. And they were thinking ahead to the next battle when they could blame Perot for having elected Clinton, in the hopes that people would believe the lie and not risk voting for Perot again, and believe me the Bush and the Republicans new Perot well enought o know that he would run again. Which he did. And isn't funny how the second time around Perot wasn't allowed to join the Presidential debates. I wonder why that was the case? Hmm, interesting, eh?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 November 2004 06:17 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

What, did you go back and study the week by week poll results for the length of the campaign? That's dedication.


Didn't need to. I have a good memory. Which is why your depiction of the race as somehow hopeless for Bush is incorrect.

From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leuca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6495

posted 06 November 2004 07:23 PM      Profile for Leuca     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Which is why your depiction of the race as somehow hopeless for Bush is incorrect.

What exactly was it about Bushes stellar re-election bid that would lead you to buy into the Republican myth that he would have won if only Perot were not in the race? Is your basic argument that all those white voters that voted for Perot were natural Bush supporters. That's a bit predjudiced.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 06 November 2004 09:52 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually that matches pretty well with the voting demographics, particularly in the South and Midwest which Clinton managed to make a meaningful dent in. His Arkansas backround must of helped somewhat but he was hardly a good ol'boy in substance or style, less so than billionaire Perot.

Lueca, we were talking about conservative v liberal spending in general and you mentioned Reagan as an example, giving him credit for priming the economy for Clinton by his (not daddy Bush's) tax cuts. So far you've offered nothing but rightwing talking points yourself. I can give you a statistical rundown of relative spending of Republican and Democratic presidents, from a fairly objective source, but if you don't want to dispute the records of earlier presidents that's fine. Saves me digging through my files again.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 November 2004 10:52 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Leuca:

What exactly was it about Bushes stellar re-election bid that would lead you to buy into the Republican myth that he would have won if only Perot were not in the race? Is your basic argument that all those white voters that voted for Perot were natural Bush supporters. That's a bit predjudiced.


My point is that it is not cut and dry. Good arguments can be made both ways on the question. But to simply dismiss the possibility that Bush could not have won without Perot in the race is ahistorical. There's no way of ever knowing for sure.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 06 November 2004 11:18 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What "moral values"?

quote:
So we have explained the economy vote and the fear vote, but what about the moral values vote? In America, the only moral values ever discussed are gay rights and abortion, otherwise know as "family values." In the stark political lexicon of America, if you are for gay rights and abortion, you are against families.

In 2000, when pressed on what his candidacy would do to the prospects for reproductive choice, Ralph Nader dismissed abortion as a women's issue that was not nearly as important as his goal of breaking the American political system free from corporate control. Unfortunately, abortion is one of the linchpins of that control. It does not pay to marginalize women's reproductive freedom because of the tremendous power that it has.

...

Control of women's reproductive freedom is at once a moral issue, an economic issue and an environmental issue, yet pro-choice supporters rarely frame it as anything other than an issue of personal privacy or freedom. Most people would agree that when moral values are at stake, personal choices are less important. And so, anti-choice zealots, on their high horses, can look down on women who choose abortion and call them selfish or worse.

It is vitally important that all who want change recognize that abortion may be the biggest issue that divides us as a nation. We must begin to directly address the true moral implications of abortion, which are these:

It is utterly immoral to force a woman to bear an unwanted child. It is immoral not just because of the impact to women but because of the impact to the earth and future generations. Billions of people today live in poverty on the edge of starvation. The World Wildlife Fund reports that we currently consume 20 percent more natural resources than the Earth can produce and that we have permanently reduced Earth's capacity to support life. The skyrocketing curve of population growth is about to meet the plunging curve of resource depletion.

If a woman does not want a child, then the Earth does not want it either. Far better to let a tiny embryo, the merest spark of life, be extinguished, than to risk the lives of so many who are already here. This is a moral choice of the highest order and it is one that all women are empowered to make.

Those who oppose abortion and reproductive choice are the ones who are anti-life.

Those who support a woman's right to choose and who want to help women all over the world gain access to reproductive health care are the ones who are morally righteous and who are on the side of life.

There is no cause more moral than this one: We shall leave a living planet to our children, not a wasteland.



From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 06 November 2004 11:21 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oops. Double post.

And, I don't get any sidescroll.

[ 06 November 2004: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 06 November 2004 11:21 PM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
SIDESCROLL OF DEATH!!!!!!!!!
From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
sir_springer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4230

posted 07 November 2004 12:15 AM      Profile for sir_springer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
You are also likely unaware of who springer is. He is a deeply hateful man, a separatist and a homophobe, fond of lecturing others on morality, yet from a message board where the other deeply moral people often boast about deliberately lying to pollsters in an attempt to skew public opinion.

This is barely worthy of a response.

Deeply hateful? Only of outright dishonesty and corruption like that demonstrated by the current reigning Liberals in Ottawa. (And a tad perhaps of people who make slanderous personal attacks when they can't think of anything intelligent to say. )

A separatist? Allow me to qualify this: If the west cannot achieve equality within this country, thus remaining gridlocked in colony status to central Canada, then, yep! I'm a separatist...with no apologies to anyone.

Homophobe? Why? Because I'm not on board with s/s marriage? Sue me. (It must make politics infinitely more convenient to have a handy list of labels and slurs to cast about in lieu of something worthwhile saying.)

Lecture on morality? If being disgusted by, and thus motivated to write about, dishonety and corruption in government or the proliferation of outright lies and slander equates to "lecturing on morality", I guess I can live with that. I'm not surprized any more that such matters simply don't matter to some people, eh?

As for "lying to pollsters"...

Yeah, good grief, eh? What is this world coming to??? Next thing you know, people will even be cheating on their income taxes.

BTW...

I like your handle. "Reality Bites" really seems to suit you.


From: Kootenays, BC | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
MickYaggar
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6327

posted 07 November 2004 12:52 PM      Profile for MickYaggar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Swift Justice

Bold John sailed forth in his faux scow,
Till the Swiftees fired across his bow;
And legions of irate attorneys,
Could not defend Cambodian journeys,
Nor stories of his fabled hat,
So voters sensed they smelled a rat.
And while the networks denied them prime,
The Swiftees surely got their time.

While John screamed it was all a smear,
O’Brien came across sincere,
And forced Big John to duck the press,
To run, to hide from his specious mess.
But relentless those old Swiftee guys,
They bit, hung on, exposed his lies.
These brave old warriors once again
Stood for their country, for their kin.

They made us all look one more time
At the traitor who’d charged them with crime,
And gave false witness to their deeds
For nothing more than political needs.
It’s a smear proclaimed the New York Times
Those liars all committed crimes.
Chris Matthews raged, foamed at the mouth,
Still the turncoat’s campaign headed south.

So the Swiftboat Veterans’ charges stuck
And made poor John a sitting duck.
He had no answers, no glib replies,
To cover up his treasonous lies;
That made us think, our minds aware,
The Swiftees had some truth in there;
What if he’d faked his combat valor,
Were all those medals tinged with pallor?

Dan Rather would not pay them heed,
But still the Swiftees made John bleed.
The mainstream pundits called them liars;
But no lefty slant could staunch these fires.
The blazes that these Swiftees set
Were burning John Boy’s a $$ you bet;
And those Swiftboat fires just burned away
Till they fried John’s a $$ on election day.

Now all you heroes on that Wall
Take solace seeing Kerry fall.
This scheming pol who stained your name
Has been denied his claim to fame.
The Swiftees stood and did their best,
Denied the traitor his life’s quest.
You can rest in peace our honored kin
Your honor restored by honorable men.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66


From: Edmonton | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
docottawa
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5092

posted 07 November 2004 02:54 PM      Profile for docottawa        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
I think viewing Canadian politics and culture as being on a scale with American (to the left, to the right, more advanced, less advanced) is in some ways simplistic. Some of us (a big chunk of us) see nothing that relates us to American society very profoundly at all, save for some shared North American consumer values.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
docottawa
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5092

posted 07 November 2004 03:01 PM      Profile for docottawa        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
I think viewing Canadian politics and culture as being on a scale with American (to the left, to the right, more advanced, less advanced) is in some ways simplistic. Some of us (a big chunk of us) see nothing that relates us to American society very profoundly at all, save for some shared North American consumer values.


A Poem for Parrish

Four more years of missiles and war
Four more years of blood and gore
That’s what lies, for us, in store
At his hands, and maybe more?

Four long years of misery and pain
That may wax, but never wane
Though we warned, that he’s insane
He treated us with utter disdain

His British poodle by his side
By every wish he will abide
But when, at last, the turn of tide
Sweeps them off, they will not hide

And Paul will rush to shake his hand
And roll the carpet on our land
With Stephen Harper, he will band
Together, to obey his every command

They’re out of step, and out of line
With Canadian hopes, yours and mine
And those brave words, of Carolyn
When men turn wimps, women show spine!


From: Ottawa | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Raman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7267

posted 08 November 2004 03:51 AM      Profile for Raman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He's the guy I'd vote for in 2008.
Nobody that honnest could possibly not be up to the task of sending great waves of "realism" in that govt towards which we still all look.


quote:
November 03, 2004 Concession Speech [Former candidate Felber, flanked by his family and supporters, steps up to the podium in the bright autumn sunlight. Cheers and applause are heard.]

My fellow Americans, the people of this nation have spoken, and spoken with a clear voice. So I am here to offer my concession. [Boos, groans, rending of garments]

I concede that I overestimated the intelligence of the American people. Though the people disagree with the President on almost every issue, you saw fit to vote for him. I never saw that coming. That's really special. And I mean "special" in the sense that we use it to describe those kids who ride the short school bus and find ways to injure themselves while eating pudding with rubber spoons. That kind of special.

I concede that I misjudged the power of hate. That's pretty powerful stuff, and I didn't see it. So let me take a moment to congratulate the President's strategists: Putting the gay marriage amendments on the ballot in various swing states like Ohio... well, that was just genius. Genius. It got people, a certain kind of people, to the polls. The unprecedented number of folks who showed up and cited "moral values" as their biggest issue, those people changed history. The folks who consider same sex marriage a more important issue than war, or terrorism, or the economy... Who'd have thought the election would belong to them? Well, Karl Rove did. Gotta give it up to him for that. [Boos.] Now, now. Credit where it's due.

I concede that I put too much faith in America's youth. With 8 out of 10 of you opposing the President, with your friends and classmates dying daily in a war you disapprove of, with your future being mortgaged to pay for rich old peoples' tax breaks, you somehow managed to sit on your asses and watch the Cartoon Network while aging homophobic hillbillies carried the day. You voted with the exact same anemic percentage that you did in 2000. You suck. Seriously, y'do. [Cheers, applause] Thank you. Thank you very much.

There are some who would say that I sound bitter, that now is the time for healing, to bring the nation together. Let me tell you a little story. Last night, I watched the returns come in with some friends here in Los Angeles. As the night progressed, people began to talk half-seriously about secession, a red state / blue state split. The reasoning was this: We in blue states produce the vast majority of the wealth in this country and pay the most taxes, and you in the red states receive the majority of the money from those taxes while complaining about 'em. We in the blue states are the only ones who've been attacked by foreign terrorists, yet you in the red states are gung ho to fight a war in our name. We in the blue states produce the entertainment that you consume so greedily each day, while you in the red states show open disdain for us and our values. Blue state civilians are the actual victims and targets of the war on terror, while red state civilians are the ones standing behind us and yelling "Oh, yeah!? Bring it on!"

More than 40% of you Bush voters still believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. I'm impressed by that, truly I am. Your sons and daughters who might die in this war know it's not true, the people in the urban centers where al Qaeda wants to attack know it's not true, but those of you who are at practically no risk believe this easy lie because you can. As part of my concession speech, let me say that I really envy that luxury. I concede that.

Healing? We, the people at risk from terrorists, the people who subsidize you, the people who speak in glowing and respectful terms about the heartland of America while that heartland insults and excoriates us... we wanted some healing. We spoke loud and clear. And you refused to give it to us, largely because of your high moral values. You knew better: America doesn't need its allies, doesn't need to share the burden, doesn't need to unite the world, doesn't need to provide for its future. Hell no. Not when it's got a human shield of pointy-headed, atheistic, unconfrontational breadwinners who are willing to pay the bills and play nice in the vain hope of winning a vote that we can never have. Because we're "morally inferior," I suppose, we are supposed to respect your values while you insult ours. And the big joke here is that for 20 years, we've done just that.

It's not a "ha-ha" funny joke, I realize, but it's a joke all the same.

Being an independent candidate gives me one luxury - as well as conceding the election today, I am also announcing my candidacy for President in 2008. [Wild applause, screams, chants of "Fel-ber! Fel-ber!] Thank you.

And I make this pledge to you today: THIS time, next time, there will be no pandering. This time I will run with all the open and joking contempt for my opponents that our President demonstrated towards the cradle of liberty, the Ivy League intellectuals, the "media elite," and the "white-wine sippers." This time I will not pretend that the simple folk of America know just as much as the people who devote their lives to serving and studying the nation and the world. They don't.

So that's why I'm asking for your vote in 2008, America. I'm talking to you, you ignorant, slack-jawed yokels, you bible-thumping, inbred drones, you redneck, racist, chest-thumping, perennially duped grade-school grads. Vote for me, because I know better, and I truly believe that I can help your smug, sorry asses. Vote Felber in '08! Thank you, and may God, if he does in fact exist, bless each and every one of you.

[Tumultuous cheers, applause, and foot-stomping. PULL BACK to reveal the rest of the stage, the row of cameras, hundreds of unoccupied chairs, and the empty field beyond.]


[ 09 November 2004: Message edited by: Raman ]


From: Political correctness : The hobgoblin of misguided political activism | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 09 November 2004 02:55 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bob Herbert of the NYT thinks ".... a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion..... You have to be careful when you toss the word values around. All values are not created equal. Some Democrats are casting covetous eyes on voters whose values, in many cases, are frankly repellent. Does it make sense for the progressive elements in our society to undermine their own deeply held beliefs in tolerance, fairness and justice in an effort to embrace those who deliberately seek to divide? .... What the Democrats don't need is a candidate who is willing to shape his or her values to fit the pundits' probably incorrect analysis of the last election. Values that pivot on a dime were not really values to begin with. ..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/opinion/08herbert.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=

From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 09 November 2004 09:48 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Analysis in six panels...


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 09 November 2004 09:53 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Funny! And too long!
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca