"One Vote Away"

[Guest Bitchboy]

RE:Ashcroft is an Ass

 

I'll do whatever I can to see that he (Ashcroft) doesn't get the opportunity to mangle my civil rights. I will yell, scream, picket and use my vote to see that these fake christian homophobes are turned out of office at the first opportunity. As far as Bush, he's a slow-witted, practically unintelligible, selfish little boy who has ruined every business Daddy gave him the opportunity to dabble in. For God sakes, he even ruined the Texas Rangers. Everytime he speaks he more and more resembles the proverbial deer in the headlights. Even he knows he's in over his head.

[BigD]

RE:

 

>The Bush administration won the election. No posturing,

>late night plans or schemes could steal the election for

>Gore.

There should not be so much pride in the Bush win.

Remember, Gore got more votes.

[Guest ncm2169]

RE: Dear Abby or Perhaps Ann Landers

 

"The liberal democrat message appeals to people looking for something for nothing."

 

Bingo! Bullseye! Fuckin A Straight, Baby! }>

 

I want the bedroom police out of my life and I sure as Hell don't expect to pay for it ;-) . So, yeah, I want that "for nothing," just as I want it for every American who believes that privacy matters are no business of government x( .

 

Your geopolitical views are debatable, but I still respect them :-) . I happen to think that Ashcroft's nose is closer to crawling under my tent than Saddam's :o .

 

But you and Rick may have something in common here...I don't think he normally likes people who are looking for something for nothing :+ .

[Guest ncm2169]

RE:

 

You can rest easy. Mondale said, "Yes." :*

[Will]

RE:

 

Three cheers for Rick Munroe.

 

When the stability of Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties becomes a matter of Republicans vs. Democrats, of "us" vs. "them," of "conservatives" vs. "liberals," of "good guys" vs. "bad guys" -- and, most particularly, of "real men" vs. "sissies" -- we're a long way from what I learned in my high school Civics classes about the ethical principles undergirding the political experiment known as the U.S.A. And when the rhetoric of the nation's foreign policy relies not on the reasoned diction of peace-seeking but on swaggering macho metaphors that celebrate toughness, aggression, and get-'em-first-before-they-get-you paranoia, then I'm not sure I want to live in a country where it's unpatriotic to be an advocate of diplomacy rather than unprovoked, pre-emptive military action. Since when was it "un-American" to seek peace? Since when is it wise foreign policy to go looking to start a war in which we can lose not only billions of dollars but millions of our young men and women?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

Yikes, what a spooky reminder of my fundraising days. In fact, I made a few calls for PFAW and the rhetoric was identical. For pretty much all of adult life the Democrats have been running on variations of the "we're on the verge of losing it all" argument, which isn't so much a position as fear-mongering (fear has a lot to do with how you win elections). It's understandable: there are indeed high stakes in narrowly decided outcomes, and of course it matters which party controls the Senate. But surely at some point we -- and I do mean we, since I still vote Democratic and hope the Senate will stay in Democratic hands -- are going to have to decide we're FOR something more than a rearguard defense of legislation/programs/court rulings of 30-60 years ago. At some point we'll surely have to run on a better theme than "aren't the Republicans scary?"

 

But for now, it's interesting to see how awareness of the slender nature of the Senate majority is affecting different races differently, depending on geography. I recently saw a few minutes of the debates for both the South Dakota race and the Alabama race. In the South Dakota race the Republican challenger was arguing that the SD delegation would be more effective by having both Daschle as the majority leader and a Republican who could "work with the President." This played into Senator Johnson's hands: If he loses, he pointed out, South Dakota loses its seat on the appropriations committee and having the majority leader for a Senator.

 

Meanwhile, in Alabama, Senator Sessions was darkly invoking the omninous possibility of Daschle as majority leader (he spoke hypothetically, as if Daschle weren't already the majority leader) and warning that if he loses that Senator Shelby will miss out on the chance to be chair of the banking committee. His opponent in turn argued that the Republicans already control everything except the Senate and said she admired Shelby for crossing partly lines somewhat more frequently than Sessions, whom she painted as a lockstep Republican. It was an interesting parallel: in both races the incumbent made much of the one vote margin (and its impact on the next Senator's ability to bring home the bacon) while the challenger tried to downplay it, and in both races both candidates made a big point of sucking up to the senior senator from their state.

 

In New Jersey and now Minnesota the issue of Senate control will be central to the new Democratic candidates' campaigns. Out of curiosity, are there any Senate races this year where the one vote margin isn't the dominant issue? Maybe in states where the Senate delegation is already split?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>For pretty much all of adult life the Democrats

>have been running on variations of the "we're on the verge

>of losing it all" argument

 

Sorry, I meant to say for pretty much all of MY adult life... :7

[Guest fukamarine]

RE:Ashcroft is an Ass

 

>If I could make John Ashcroft Attorney Gereral for the next

>twenty years, I would do so.

 

You sir, are one sick puppy!

 

fukamarine

[phage]

RE:Ashcroft is an Ass

 

>Name one specific thing Ashcroft has done to violate your

>civil liberties.

 

Well…since you asked. I’ll give you two.

 

He directed the Justice Department to prosecute doctors who comply with Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act. I don’t know about you, but I consider making my own life and death health decisions to be a pretty big civil liberty.

 

He is also waging war against California’s medical marijuana law by raiding farms and co-ops. Apparently Mr. Ashcroft doesn’t have much respect for state’s rights or the privacy of citizens.

 

I’m not a particularly “sky is falling” kind of Democrat. This too will pass and if they go too far, there will be a backlash that will push the country to the center again. I certainly don’t believe that Ashcroft is the Devil incarnate, but it’s just as silly to pretend that he is a defender of civil liberties.

[Guest 7Zach]

RE:Ashcroft is an Ass

 

re marijuana, possession, sell, transport, manufacture, etc. are all federal crimes.

[phage]

RE:Ashcroft is an Ass

 

I’ve been wondering about that. I assumed there was some reason he could get away with it. I also assume he has some discretion on which things he chooses to persecute. (And I do mean “persecute”.)

 

I have a question though since you seem to have some expertise in this area. (This freaking board is just CRAWLING with attorneys and surely that must say something about what kind of men go into the legal profession. I just haven’t figured out what.) But I digress...

 

Why is a state allowed to pass legislation that violates federal law? It seems like it would be set aside by the courts which would be preferable to putting citizens in the middle of some governmental turf war.

[Flower]

RE:Ashcroft is an Ass

 

>re marijuana, possession, sell, transport, manufacture, etc.

>are all federal crimes.

 

They are ALSO STATE CRIMES in all states and in the past, with few exceptions, the feds have been content to let the states prosecute and only involve themselves in very high profile cases or those that the state involved cannot handle or for some other special reason. In the past, the feds have NOT bothered with Mj prosecutions without special reasons.

 

I am Flower :*

[Guest Ruben]

RE:Ashcroft is an Ass

 

Being in agreement on one out of three judgments, Bitchboy, isn't a bad batting average.

 

However. I have this question for you: How does your hatred of John Ashcroft differ from your hatred of him? I'm sure you see only one bigot here, but other people might see two.

[Guest 7Zach]

RE:

 

Samuel Tilden got more votes also, but most people have never heard of him.

[+ Axiom2001]

RE: Dear Abby or Perhaps Ann Landers

 

Equate Bush with oil; he wants to control that resource, and would do anything to retain control-- even commit murdering innocent people at home as well as abroad. THAT IS ALL THAT I WISH TO SAY. You should have heard Ramsey Clark, former attorney general discuss the issue last Sat. and Sun. on C-Span.

[Guest Ruben]

RE:Ashcroft is an Ass

 

Bitchboy,

 

I obviously did not write my question correctly. I ought to proof read more carefully.

 

Anyway, I wanted to ask how your hatred of John Ashcroft differed from his hatred of you.

[Guest 7Zach]

RE: Dear Abby or Perhaps Ann Landers

 

What happened under the Clintons to make this sort of comment appropriate? More importantly, what caused the climate that you would believe that Bush murdered here at home, and by the tone of the post, I assume you're speaking of Wellstone?

[Guest Bitchboy]

RE:Ashcroft is an Ass

 

>

>Anyway, I wanted to ask how your hatred of John Ashcroft

>differed from his hatred of you.

 

My intense dislike of him originated while he was governor of Missouri with his constant roadblocks thrown at any pro-gay rights legislation initiated in that state (my home state) as well as his patronizing and belitting public statements about the sinfulness and degeneracy of homosexuality. He has since, as Attorney General, made many public statements against hate crime legislation, etc. My repulsion stems from what he has said or done. If he hates me, and he may give the usual "love the sinner hate the sin" bullshit so prevalent in right wing christian rhetoric, it is based purely on what he assumes I do as a gay man. That there are conservative christians who are good people (many of my own family are in that unfortunate boat) is not being questioned. That Ashcroft is one of them I would definitely dispute.

[Guest Bitchboy]

RE:Ashcroft is an Ass

 

In addition, the kind of world John Asscroft strives for limits my freedom of action and ability to live my life the way I want. My vision of the world does not prevent him in the least from remaining as a practicing christian, heterosexual, non-abortion participating white man.

[BewareofNick]

>well, he lied under oath to keep from having to pay

>potentially millions in a civil lawsuit. After being caught,

>he settled the lawsuit for close to a million. So big deal,

>it was just a deposition, huh, over sex.

>Maybe so, but the Arkansas Supreme Court, a majority of whom

>were Democrats, thought it serious enough to disbar him for

>that act alone. And the judge in the civil case was a

>student under Clinton and appointed to the bench by him.

>It's not just Clinton, it's people at the top of the game in

>either party- they all are used to a sense of entitlement

 

Nixon: Watergate

Reagan: lied to Congress about the Iran Contra affair. Never held accountable for it (of course, the fact that he couldn't remember anything was probably legit in his case)

Bush, Sr.: lied to Congress about the Iran Contra affair. Never held accountable for it. Where was the moral outrage here?

Clinton: lied about getting a blowjob.

Dubya: squandered the budget surplus achieved under the Clinton administration. With the help of brother Jeb, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and the US Supreme Court, stole the election from Al Gore, who if nothing else still won the popular vote.

 

But Clinton is immoral? Guess this lets you know where people stand.

 

-Truth Justice and the American Way-

[BewareofNick]

I think that the scary part is not so much that Republicans might end up in control of the country, but that the Religious Right might. Both AlGore and Dubya ran as moderates, right down the middle of the road. During the whole election, that was one of the recurring themes. Both candidates were very similar. We've seen since then however, that Dubya is even more conservative than his father. His appointment of John Ashcroft is testimony to that. Both ended up in high political office without having won an election by the popular vote. Bush lost the popular vote to a man who has been accused of being so wooden, he could be dead. Ashcroft lost his Senate bid to an actual dead man.

 

I don't think a Republican win of the Senate would be a good thing for our country for two reasons.

 

The first would be the ascendance of the Religious Right to a place of pwoer that would be detrimental to the country in general and homosexuals in particular.

 

The second is that I think the government ought to have the kind of balance that cannot be provided by having one party in total power, whether it be Democrats or Republicans. Voters seem to be rejecting the extremists in both parties and that bodes well for those running against candidates who are endorsed by the Religious Right.

 

Here in Georgia, voters rejected Bob Barr in favor of John Linder. Both are conservative Repubilicans, but Barr was the far more controversial and conservative of the two. Not to be outdone, the Democrats voted Cynthia McKinney out in favor of Denise Majette. McKinney you will remember was the member of Congress who accussed Dubya of knowing about the 9/11 attacks before they happened.

 

Dubya also seems to forget that he never had a mandate from the people for this election, having been elected by less than 50% of the vote. Clinton forgot that too in 1994 and he got the Republican revolution. Let's hope Dubya gets the same thing in reverse.

 

Interestingly enough, Governor Jeb Bush of Florida is facing a tougher election than he ever thought possible. Democratic challenger Bill McBride is in a statistical dead heat with Bush. Dubya has made 12 campaign visits in support of his broither which shows just how worried the Bush family is about this election. Logic would tend to suggest that with his brother in the White House that this election would be a shoo-in for Jeb, but it's not. I think this underscores that the Democrats have a could shot at not only keeping control of the Senate but also have making gains in the House too. I predict that McBride will upset Jeb in November. That won't bode well for Dubya in 2004.

 

We'll see.

 

 

 

 

 

-Truth Justice and the American Way-

[duke37]

RE:

 

Don't put that one in the win column just yet BofN. More recent polling of the Florida race shows Jeb over 50% and even leading over McBride in what is McBrides signature issue of education 49-47.

 

McBride was horrible on the statewide televised debate hosted by Tim Russert and he's not running a very good campaign. However these midterm elections are all about turnout so the Dems still have a shot if they can get a good turnout. If you want to see Jeb gone and you're a Florida voter better not miss this one.

 

Personally I think Jeb has this one in the bag.

 

Jeff Taylor

[Guest ncm2169]

RE:

 

Granted, no one remembers Samuel Tilden. Then again, I don't recall seeing Rutherford Hayes' likeness last time I visited the Black Hills. ;-)

[Guest elwood]

BON...your comments are right on the mark.When you think of religous right..think of Islammic extremists etc..and you will get the idea....only,In my view, the Christian fundamentalists are WAY more dangerogus.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

RE: Dear Abby or Perhaps Ann Landers

 

>you select Hitler.

>

>What if one country, just one, had the guts to stop Hitler

>while he was violating every part of the WW1 treaty?

>

>Democrats threaten the freedom of Americans. Name one civil

>liberty that has been lost...the right to carry out

>terrorism? Why is giving money back to those who earn it a

>bad thing? Why can't people decide for themselves what and

>where to invest?

>

>The liberal democrat message appeals to people looking for

>something for nothing.

 

This is akin to showing the average voter a copy of the bill of rights and asking them if they approve or disapprove of these rights "for average Americans."

 

By and large, polling historical shows a large majority indicating their disapproval of the backbone of the constitutional rights in this country. This includes the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, a free press and other basic rights which guarantee both democracy and individual freedom in this nation.

 

I do not believe any party has a legitmate claim to being the guardian of these rights. When in power, each party has shown itself capable of disregarding such rights for whatever was felt to be in the "national interest."

 

Was is of concern is a blind adherence and submission of the citizens of this country to any one individual, group or political ideology, without thought to consequence, particularly to the natural polity. The guardian of basic civil and constitutionally protected rights in this country should rest with an informed citizenry, who actively take it upon itself to seek out the truth and the facts, whatever they may be or where ever they may lead and to be an active participant in their own democracy.

 

This, unfortunately, is rarely the case.