And finally, if it's up and running again, you can watch it for yourself on C-SPAN's website. Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Where was this guy four years ago?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
That is a great question.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Oh, y'know, tallying his votes, conceding his defeat even though it was actually a victory, growing a beard, things like that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Giving up in other words.
Really, who is this guy -at this point- to say anything to anyone.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Oh yeah, he gave up alright. He went to the Florida Supreme Court, got his recount wish granted, and then the US SC shut him down. What more would you have had the man do, hmm?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Well, naturally when you lose an election everything you say for the rest of eternity is without merit. Every word. Duh.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Didn't I tell you he'd changed? It's freaky.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I know I'm scared.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: Oh yeah, he gave up alright. He went to the Florida Supreme Court, got his recount wish granted, and then the US SC shut him down. What more would you have had the man do, hmm?
How about actually take a hand in his party's politics and run for president instead of allowing Kerry founder on ahead and possibly lose to Bush, dooming us to another four years of nonsense? Really, Gore has some real ideas and it sure would've been nice if he'd done something with them instead of waiting this long and lashing out now.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: How about actually take a hand in his party's politics and run for president instead of allowing Kerry founder on ahead and possibly lose to Bush, dooming us to another four years of nonsense?
I really don't see much relevance in that statement.
Clearly the Democratic Party didn't want Gore to run again.
I think it's silly to describe the Kerry campaign as foundering in May...these many months before the campaign season begins in earnest.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mabye "foundering" is a bit harsh, but he's got less than half the campaign money Bush does and if he buys more time (to accept additional campaign contributions) by not accepting the nomination at the Democratic Convention, it'll hurt his campaign because the networks wont give the convention as much (if any) coverage.
Just the other night I saw Tom Brokow mention that it would'nt be worthwhile for any network to cover the convention of Kerry doesnt accept the nomination because it would just be a big pep rally.
So mabye "foundering" is not too far off after all.
What makes you think the Democratic Party did not want Gore to run again? It looked to me like losing was painful to him and he kinda bowed out of the spotlight to recover.
Even if he decided (or the paty decided) not to run again, it's pretty late to be voacl about what he thinks is wrong in the Bush Administration: his fellow Democrats have not been shy about their views, after all.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...he's got less than half the campaign money Bush does..."
That was always going to be the case. Bush is an incumbent president with no legitimate competition within his party. There's no way Kerry could have gathered more money. Are you saying he should have quit before he started?
Not to mention that Bush is unscrupulous, amoral, idiotic, responsible for ruining this country and others, and just an all-around shitstain. So, Kerry's already winning on that account.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No...Kerry's not winning anything as long as Bush can continue to drown out issues with his commercials.
Speaking of wich, I have not seen any Kerry commercials in a while (though I admit to not watching the major networks at all- CNN not included).
I think if he decides not to accept the nomination at the convention, his campaign will wane.
And that would be a bad thing for everyone.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
This would be a great time for a big white spaceship to come crashing down on a japanese island. Or a smaller, red candlewax-ship could land and drop off some pointyears in rural Montana. Either is fine.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
If the red ship landed in Montana, the pointyears people would be indefinitely detained as a threat to Homeland Security and we'd just invade Japan if they had anything as cool as Protoculture.
Though the thought of Veritechs hunting down Al Queida is an amusing one.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I have a nagging feeling that I should know whatever it is you're referencing.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Truly one of your country's most accoladed TV-captains, with a moustache reaching a Stalinial, almost Grouchoian levels.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Hasn't anyone ever considered changing the law over there so that the networks have to give equal coverage to both parties, or something crazy like that?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Liam: Erm... You do remember which country you're talking about, right?
"Truly one of your country's most accoladed TV-captains..."
Crunch?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Liam, it'd take a Constitutional ammendment to give the government the authority to tell the networks to do ANYTHING. Constitutional ammendments are a pain in the ass to pass. Mind you, the Constitution's limits on the government's power aren't enforced ANYWAY, but...
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane:
quote: Where was this guy four years ago?
Running for president. Badly.
I suspect he can talk like this now precisely because he's not a candidate. He has nothing to lose.
Marian
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Liam, it'd take a Constitutional ammendment to give the government the authority to tell the networks to do ANYTHING. Constitutional ammendments are a pain in the ass to pass. Mind you, the Constitution's limits on the government's power aren't enforced ANYWAY, but...
But the networks are already told not to show hard core pornography during the middle of the day. How's that different?
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
They only don't run porno during the day because they know that around 30 million people would sue them if they did. Lose that threat, and that's all that they'd show. Face it, it would bring in numbers.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
What would they sue them for?
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
Unlike Brits, some Americans feel that porno is wrong and all. We have some morality.
Note that these Americans are a distinct minority. (shrugs)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Liam, it'd take a Constitutional ammendment to give the government the authority to tell the networks to do ANYTHING. Constitutional ammendments are a pain in the ass to pass. Mind you, the Constitution's limits on the government's power aren't enforced ANYWAY, but...
But the networks are already told not to show hard core pornography during the middle of the day. How's that different?
Because hard core pornography is entertaining. And there seem to be unwritten laws making daytime T.V. anything except entertaining.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The Supreme Court has upheld the idea that the FCC can fine a TV/radio station all they like for anything they define as "obscene". I'm not sure what part of the constitution is supposed to grant that right. Interstate commerce, possibly?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
BLAH!
See next post.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I'm of the opinion that if the Constitution were written today, Congress WOULD have the power to regulate transmissions, at least to some degree. They'd have the power to regulate air traffic and space exploration, too. It's on my "to ammend" list, and really should have been taken care of decades ago. The only current excuse I can figure for the existence of the FCC would be either interstate commerce or general welfare, neither of which legitimately applies to the situation. At best, with the Constitution as written, the federal government might be able to regulate transmissions of sufficient power to cross a state boundry, which strongly depends on your reception equipment.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
How long before they try to regulate the Internet as well? There has already been serious talk on taxing sales made online....it's just one step away from them taxing internet useage as well.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
If you want to read about the power to regulate television and radio, read this:
quote:Qualification by censorship of content is impermissible, but the First Amendment does not prevent a governmental insistence that a licensee ''conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves.'' Further, said Justice White, ''[b]ecause of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Thank you.
FindLaw is an indispensable site.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Has anyone ever actually watched a party election broadcast anyway? There're usually filled with exactly the same figures, just manipulated in a different way, followed by shots of the party leader pretending to talk to members of the public. Except the BNP ones, which mainly consist of incitement to racial hatred...
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Unlike Brits, some Americans feel that porno is wrong and all. (...) Note that these Americans are a distinct minority."
Please. Half of the US was in uproar over ONE EXPOSED NIPPLE for three months. I don't know where you're from, but that's just a teensyweensy bit more than a distinct minority over here.
"...the First Amendment does not prevent a governmental insistence that a licensee ''conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves.''"
"...the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium."
So, in other words, if the government thinks that what you're broadcasting isn't representative of your community (read: government), it can "insist" that you present different (read: governmental) views or bar you from the airwaves. Great.
And why do people believe that four years of a man who doesn't have ideas but isn't Bush could ever be MORE disastrous than another four years of a man who does have ideas but IS Bush, anyway?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Because there are a limited number of broadcast frequencies for radio and non-cable television use, the Federal Government licenses access to these frequencies, permitting some applicants to utilize them and denying the greater number of applicants such permission. Even though this licensing system is in form a variety of prior restraint, the Court has held that it does not present a First Amendment issue because of the unique characteristic of scarcity.
Lovely, how the court "interprets" the Constitution based on what they think it SHOULD say instead of what it actually says. Very comforting.
And why do people believe that four years of a man who doesn't have ideas but isn't Bush could ever be MORE disastrous than another four years of a man who does have ideas but IS Bush, anyway?
Better the airhead you don't know than the airhead you do, perhaps? I don't find either one that appealing, at this point.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I don't really find Kerry appealing, either. But I find Bush so utterly repulsive in every way, that I don't have to.
What's up with that comic, anyway? Does that guy think he's Tom Tomorrow?
"Half of the US was in uproar over ONE EXPOSED NIPPLE for three months."
Not true. Most people didn't care. It's just that the people who did care are very very very loud. And we have a disturbingly large number of sheep who heard them.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I wish some people would do a modicum of reading about Constitutional law and process before feeling the need to write about it.
At any rate, moving on.
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I don't really find Kerry appealing, either. But I find Bush so utterly repulsive in every way, that I don't have to.
Regarding that:
quote:Why Is George W. Bush President?
I've been thinking a bit about this whole "John Kerry is a Douchebag" phenomenon. A lot of this is driven, I think, by the perfectly correct assessment that Kerry isn't really the best man for the job of president of the United States. During his primary campaign, he didn't even really claim that he was the best man for the job. Instead, he said he was the best man for the job of running against Bush. So folks aren't going to agree as to who was the best man on the merits (I liked Clark) but an awful lot of us can be legitimately disappointed that the best man won't get it.
But then you need to step back and put it in context. Kerry is at least in the neighborhood of being the best man for the job in my perspective. One of a handful of Democrats who could plausibly become president of the United States. Maybe number 2 or maybe number 6 on my list, but up there.
Compare George W. Bush to the list of potential GOP nominees, however, and you'll see that he's nowhere close. Leave aside the Senate moderate whom I'd prefer for ideological reasons. Consider folks like Sens. McCain, Hagel, Lugar, and even the very orthodox John Warner, all of whom have the great virtue of knowing what they're talking about. Tommy Thompson (currently HHS secretary), Tom Ridge (currently DHS secretary), and George Voinovich (currently a Senator) were all governors of big states during the 1990s, much like GWB. But the states weren't Texas -- they got re-elected by much less ideologically friendly electorates, faced real responsibilities, and accomplished some real things. Even Jeb Bush is (and was at the time and always has been) regarded as the smarter, sharper, more substantive Bush brother whose political accomplishments (again, Florida vs. Texas) were much more impressive than GWB's.
One could go on-and-on like this and push it even further back in time. There was no reason whatsoever back in 1994 to think that George W. Bush was the best choice the Republicans had to run for governor of Texas -- he was totally unqualified. His entire political career has been utterly devoid of real accomplishments, he's just a kind of inept loafer relying on his father's name and connections, and the assistance of more competent people willing to humble themselves by working for him. See also Weisberg on a related subject. It's totally appalling.
Then again, maybe we should choose our president by deciding which candidate we would prefer to eat barbecue with.
Seems to be the level of political discourse in the United States.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
So folks aren't going to agree as to who was the best man on the merits (I liked Clark)
I liked Clark too, especially when he was ordering people to attack the Russians. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I like McCain. He speaks well, has a record of sticking to decisions (even if I dont always agree with them) and he's pretty smart in a common-sense kinda way that I like to see. He's impressive in an interview and can even make fun of the position of Vice President (on Jay Leno's show).
I'd feel happier voting for Lurch...er...Kerry if Mccain was in the ticket as well. Think of it: a split party ticket for the first term in....years.
Who know when the last time was?
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
I think that one where the VP and the other candidate had a duel...Thomas Jefferson's election, IIRC.
'twould be nice, yes.
Don't forget, McCain is just as expedient as all the other politicians, he just feels that his interests are best served by being a maverick, not a yes-man. And it appears to work.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Actually, (as I recall) the rule used to be that the runner-up for President became VP. It's also how the VP position became a do-nothing post: the ruling party had no intrest in their political rivals having any power.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: ...Think of it: a split party ticket for the first term in....years.
Who know[s] when the last time was?
1797-1801 President - John Adams (Federalist) Vice President - Thomas Jefferson (Democratic Republican)
I doubt the McCain thing will happen. Clark maybe, but not McCain.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Wasn't Adams/Jefferson during the period when, as mentioned before, the runner-up in the presidential election became the VP?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Jason posted his second while I was looking for information on his first.
That may well be the case, but I'd have to look it up to confirm it.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Now that I think about it, wasn't that the message VP Ben Kingsley tried to get through in "Dave"? His being sent to Africa, where he couldn't disrupt the EvilPres' and Frank Langella's plans?
Totally Obscure Jay said: "maybe we should choose our president by deciding which candidate we would prefer to eat barbecue with."
That has nothing to do with politics. Burgers and national security has nothing in common.
*explodes*
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
If life were anything like the movie Dave, I'd feel really good about voting.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Then again, maybe we should choose our president by deciding which candidate we would prefer to eat barbecue with."
We already do. Because of idiots' coming up with polls like that.
"More voters also would trust Bush, 46-41, to run the family business. But voters were evenly split on whether they would rather have Kerry or Bush teach their children."
I think that that's indisputable proof that the people answering the poll questions were either lying, or utterly mentally imcompetent in every way.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I don't trust anyone who thinks that 87 people is a good number for a poll.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Nor would I. Fortunately for them, though, they used 1160 people.
Or were you being sassy?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That's still a pretty small poll: Where was this poll held nayway? The pollsters could have been asking the residents of a large trailer park for all we know.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
Well, like we say where I come from, "There's nayway if you're a naysay!".
Seriously, what was wrong with the system the first couple of presidents had, being both Democrat and Republican in one body?! I looked at americanpresidents.org and there were a lot of them hybrids for many years. Now I don't think the presidents of those days were mutants carrying a big democrat manbaby in their gut, like in the Academy Award-nominated "Total Recall", so it must've worked like a nice marriage of views, no?
Couldn't you sort of go back to that, mend the fence, so to speak?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No: the VP position as a title and a paycheck back then with zero responsibilities. It was a joke and everyone knew it.
Today the VP's job is much more complex and involves issuing billion dollar contracts to companies he used to run.
Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
No, I meant that some presidents have had the affiliation "Democratic Republican" or "Republican Democrat", why was that merger possible in the 1700's/1800's and why is it not today?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I believe "Democratic Republican" was the name of the party, wasn't it?
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
Remember, the parties do change once in a while. I think the two big parties back in the day were the Whigs and the Federalists. Or maybe the D-R and the Feds? Hmm...IIRC, it was the Civil War that thrust the Republicans into serious power.
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Originally posted by Nim the Fanciful:
quote: No, I meant that some presidents have had the affiliation "Democratic Republican" or "Republican Democrat", why was that merger possible in the 1700's/1800's and why is it not today?
Omega's right, it wasn't a merger. The Democratic Republicans were one early party, and the Whigs and Federalists were others. Then this third-party spoiler named Lincoln came along and upset everything (the Federalists were extinct at that point, IIRC). I'm not sure when the Democratic Republicans came to be known as just Democrats, but I think Lincoln's party was already known as (just) Republicans when he was elected.
Marian
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Nor would I. Fortunately for them, though, they used 1160 people.
Or were you being sassy?
I was commenting on the fact that the poll produced a result of 41 to 46. So either they were using 87 people, or they should spend less time creating polls and more time brushing up on their maths.
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:I was commenting on the fact that the poll produced a result of 41 to 46. So either they were using 87 people, or they should spend less time creating polls and more time brushing up on their maths.
Or, you know, it was 41 to 46 percent.
Marian
PS: That does beg the question, though: what about the other 13%?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Those were the few remaining intelligent people who actually recognized that the poll was asinine and opted for "no preference", naturally.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Omega's right, it wasn't a merger. The Democratic Republicans were one early party, and the Whigs and Federalists were others.
Correct.
The Democratic Republican name simply denotes the name of an early political party in the United States.
By naming the party Democratic Republican, it represents an attempt by its leadership to capture the spirit of the two abstract concepts of democracy and republicanism and to define themselves in those terms. Moreover, it serves to paint the Federalists party as the party in opposition to those concepts.
However, the name does not link the Democratic Republicans to the modern incarnations of the Democratic or Republican parties or in any way signal the working together of these two parties in the past.
In the same way that modern Democrats and Republicans have core ideological differences, so to did early parties like the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans.
quote:Then this third-party spoiler named Lincoln came along and upset everything (the Federalists were extinct at that point, IIRC). I'm not sure when the Democratic Republicans came to be known as just Democrats, but I think Lincoln's party was already known as (just) Republicans when he was elected.
Also correct.
quote:On July 6, 1854, in Jackson, Mich., the Republican Party formally organized itself by holding its first convention, adopting a platform and nominating a full slate of candidates for state offices. Other states soon followed, and the first Republican candidate for president, John C. Fr�mont, ran in 1856 with the slogan "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fr�mont."
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)