Seriously, didn't anyone find this funny? Everyone in my office liked it and I haven't seen it posted in any of the other election-threads.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
I found it very funny. So did my mom. But then no one else wrote me back. I have no friends. Or life.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
That has been doing the rounds on the office emails all around the place. Very funny.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Saw something very similar 4 years ago, except it was trying to get you to vote for Gore.
And where do you get the idea that most of the US supports Kerry? Every single poll here has it close enough to be dead even.
B.J.
Posted by lennier1 (Member # 1309) on :
The polls are pretty close but if W won�t win his friends at Supreme Court will lend him a helping hand like they did the last time. The decisive weight will probably be Florida again. And we all know who�s in command there. But of course the last time it was only a coincidence as it will be this time.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Well the last poll I read about was just after the last debate, but I've realized Bushie's been gaining since then.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
quote:Originally posted by lennier1: The polls are pretty close but if W won�t win his friends at Supreme Court will lend him a helping hand like they did the last time.
Let me see if I remember this correctly. The news media called Florida a "Gorry State" before more than 25% of the precincts were in. THEN it turned out to be a Bush state by a narrow margin. The Demonrats then decide to challenge the vote count in ONLY THREE COUNTIES that are VASTLY idiotic...I mean democratic minded. Even with the hand recounts and the attempts to "determine the voting intent of the punch cards" they STILL couldn't CREATE enough votes to takeover. They therefore resort to accusing Bush of "stealing" the election. Wasn't that EXACTLY what THEY were attempting? If they were truly concerned about Florida's vote they would have wanted a recount of the WHOLE state.
Besides, I truly believe that if you are not competent enough punch a whole through a card that you SHOULDN'T even HAVE the right to vote.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Funny how you never hear Democrats talking about whether or not people have the right to vote.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The Democrats tried to have all overseas ballots thrown out in Florida.
Complaints about the 2000 election in Florida are just stupid by this point. Every official count of votes ever done by any set of criteria resulted in Bush winning. The only reason that wasn't declared to begin with was because the Supreme Court of Florida tried to rewrite election law. All the SCOTUS did was tell said court to knock it off and do their job. Yes, that resulted in a confirmed Bush victory, but... he won anyway. And that's without the estimated 5,000 vote margin he would have gotten from the panhandle if the state hadn't been called early.
By every measure of law and rationality based on available information*, Bush won in Florida. Deal with it.
*Note that an unknown number of people who should have been able to vote were not allowed to, and an unknown number of people who were convicted felons were still allowed to vote, but estimates of how this would balance out are vague to the point of uselessness.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Every single poll here has it close enough to be dead even."
1. Polls mean little.
2. An unhealthy number of the major polling companies have been shown to be biasing their results toward Republicans.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Would you care to give us a figure?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:The Democrats tried to have all overseas ballots thrown out in Florida.
But that, as you say, was last time and no-one's allowed to mention that election anymore. But I haven't heard any Democrats saying that anyone abroad shouldn't be allowed to vote this time. I've heard plenty of Republicans saying that foreigners like me aren't allowed to have opinions about other coutries' governments. Yup, they're allowed to have an opinion on who should govern Iraq, but I'm not allowed to have an opinion on who should govern the US. I shouldn't have that opinion at all, let alone express it on the internet, or write a letter to someone in Ohio about it.
And another thing. . . I keep hearing all this "Forget the 2000 election! It was three years ago! Get over it! Move on!" Well, funny thing, we just had the third anniversary of another event yet there seems to be no statute of limitations on that one.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Re: what Omega said....no.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Lee, you said it was funny how Democrats never said anything along the lines of people not having a right to vote. I pointed out a rather major instance of that being false. That's all. You can talk about the 2000 election all you want, and you're welcome to hold and express whatever opinion suits you. My only point is that Bush won Florida by any legal measure. If anyone has a good argument to the contrary, please, do tell.
Well, actually, another point would be that an election is hardly comparable to 3,500 civilian deaths in a single attack.
BTW, Jay, you do realize that every post you make takes some degree of electricity, right? You're contributing to the heat death of the universe. Maybe you should post something that actually, I don't know, has content? Think of the entropy!
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
But I'm talking about the here and now. I never mentioned the past, in which I'm sure there are quite a few instances of Democrats thinking that certain people shouldn't be allowed to vote. If I'd said "you never ever heard" instead of "you never hear," or "people had the right" instead of "people have the right," then you might have a case.
As it is, on the one hand you're criticising people for putting this election in the context of the last one, while simultaneously criticising the way I discuss this election by referencing the last election yourself.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Well, actually, another point would be that an election is hardly comparable to 3,500 civilian deaths in a single attack.
Right, more people outside the US actually care about the election.
Sorry.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I'm not criticizing people for putting this election in the context of the previous one. I'm criticizing their interpretation of that context.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
One of the other ones (SurveyUSA, I believe) doesn't weight their polls at all. Which also gives an advantage (albeit less of one) to the Republicans.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Now I hear that around 60000 voting bills which should've been administered to voters in Florida has vanished. Funny enough, the bills were for districts where the democrats had won last time.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'm skeptical, personally. There are always a million and one scare stories that go around at times like this, very few of which are true.
(which, incidently, makes the ones that are true more likely not to be noticed. Crazy mad boo.)
As for more people caring about the election than the 3,500 deaths, one of the reasons is because of how the previously elected government reacted to those 3,500 deaths. So it's all, y'know, related.
And I don't think Lee was saying that people should forget about 9/11. Rather, it should be (respectively) "toned down", such as it were. Remember the dead, but not use it as a continual call to arms/excuse for everything ever.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
The way I understand the results of the post 2000 Florida Fiasco was that an survey done by independent newspapers found that had Gore been able to proceed with the plan he put forward to only count certain counties, he would have lost.
Whereas Mr. Bush would have lost an entire state recount.
And as to the rest, a new baby and being forced to use dial-up will make you be brief too.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
That was my understanding too, Jay.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I voted: Kerry is sure to win now!
Really.....even with the dozens of bozos standing outside holding "Bish/Cheney" posters outside in front of traffic.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Hmmm...we've heard of the "Nader Factor"...now we have the Bin Laden Factor... Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I want to hear more about this George Bish.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
He's a fish-man alternate reality version of Bush: he's very diffrent: he's honest and really smart...
Gotta love Bin Laden's timing: Bush can spin this to his "fear factor" campaign but Kerry can (should) point out that Bin Laden was always the real threat nad he could vow to eliminate him... Something Bush could'nt pull off.
Bin Laden's looking pretty frisky there: definitely not the "hunted man" he's been portrayed as in the recent media. I wonder which Saudi prince's palace he's chillin' at this week?
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I saw something very interesting in the news earlier. They showed a real possibility where the electoral votes result in a tie between Bush and Kerry. In which case, the House decides who is President, and the Senate decides who is Vice-President. Bush/Edwards, anyone?
B.J.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I saw that on CNN as well: if that happened, the VP job would become a "stuffed shirt" position like it was back in the 1930's.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Edit: Meh.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
So people are voting now? When will it be over? I cut my hand up bad recently and have been out of the loop for a while, popping pills and looking at old movies.
What's the "next step" in the process?
Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
Voting can take place now in certain places, and absentee ballots are being received... though no counting takes place until Tuesday.
We'll begin finding out the way things are pointing when the polls close on the West Coast and the national news organizations can begin their predictions.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Close on the west coast before predicting????
Don't they start that as soon as the first person on the east coast leaves the building???
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
It's just a continuation of the last four years of predictions. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I wonder if they'll then all change their predictions to match Fox News' again. 8)
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
So we should know who's won by about mid-December then...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I won. All bow before your new Predident for life!
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
OK, but we don't want to come too close in case we catch that nasty cold. . .
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I'm going to do some cleaning, start some laundry, then I'm off to the polling place, the bank, and the grocery store. Busy day, me.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Snaeff: "...grocery store."
Is this Jeff's uncle posting? Malnurtured Irving?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Look, I can't eat freeze-dried venison forEVER.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Georgia, Indiana, and Kentucky for Bush...Kerry has Vermont, according to early predictions.
34 to 3.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Unfortunately this double post contains no new information.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, this is off to a great start. CNN.com is already calling some states one way or the other that have 0% of precincts reporting.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Just wait for fox. They're always right.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well, it is shortly after midnight here in Maryland. According to CNN, the electoral tally is currently 197 Bush, 188 Kerry. It seems like the great hope - the youth vote - didn't, er, vote. Fucking slackers.
I'm off to bed. I'm tired, and I've been switching between CNN, MSNBC, FNC and the Daily Show for the last four hours.
Click here for some interesting news on the GOP's lawsuits in Ohio.
Oh - I don't think Florida is done with, not yet. They've got 1 million absentee ballots yet to be counted, with many of those coming from traditionally Democratic precincts. So - here's hopin'.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Ohio's now the state to win. But I am very tired. So the results will have to wait until morning...or next week.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
How can you NOT VOTE? The entire world is anxious for the results, and those fucking ignorant bastards don't even VOTE!
Anyway, it seems Bush has won. What a surprise. Another four years of cringing stupidity and blatant ignorance from the monkey-boy. But hey, if that's what the American people want...
Let me just say that this probably won't quite help reducing anti-American sentiments.
I'm looking forward to the 2008 election of Arnold Schwarzenegger as President.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I'm going to chime in my two cents, although it is very late.
I have been seeing a lot of similarities between this election and the election of the Premier of Ontario (Canada's equivalent of a Governor). In our case, Ontario voted for what they felt was the lesser or two evils, aka the Liberal Dalton McGuinty, over the evil Conservative Ernie Eves, right hand man and successor to the dictator Mike Harris.
Flash forward one year after that election. McGuinty broke almost every single promise he made in the election. Why? Simple. He made too many and now he can't own up to it. And many people hate him for it. In retrospect, many people feel that Eves would have kept his promises, even though they were really hard-hitting promises (i.e. privatize public transit and police services, more cuts to social programs, etc).
The reason why I'm bringing this up is that somehow, I have the same bad vibes regarding John Kerry. If he were to be elected, I would not be surprised if he went down McGuinty's path. Call me the voice of experience on this one, and in case you are wondering, I did not vote in Ontario's election. I was so fed up with the candidates that I decided that it was pointless to vote.
*departs*
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Okay, but, a Kerry who doesn't do half the things he's talked about is still about eleventy billion times better than a Bush who "stays the course" he's laid out over the past four years.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Pointless to vote. I never understood that. It's your right to vote. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain either. Although obviously, in a two-party system, your choices are severely limited.
But a similar point has been brought up by several 'experts' on TV here. If Kerry wins now, he ends up with a Republican Senate and House, and a number of issues like Iraq and the deficit. It would possibly backfire on him in a terrible way.
But still.. even a popular majority for George W. Bush. I can't understand it. It seems Americans live in a different universe or something, where George Bush actually did something good. It could be the way the media cover America, but almost anywhere outside the US, there is extremely little sympathy for Bush.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
TSN: It's called credibility. Over here, in Ontario, McGuinty may not be as bad as Harris or Eves, but he still raises up a pretty bad stink over here regarding constantly broken and very extravagant promises. I don't like it. Besides, as leader of one of the most powerful nations in the country, you'd want to have a course plotted for the future, not lose your rudder in the sea and drift around going nowhere.
Harry: Neither the Conservatives or Liberals here put out anything that gave me any interest. The Liberals were close with some issues that I find dear to my heart, but I found that it was hard to trust him given all the other promises that he had made. In the end I decided I had better things to do with my time than to haggle with the electoral office (while I lived in one riding, my registered address was with my parents, in which I had to drive a half hour to that polling station just to vote). McGuinty then reneged on every promise involving every issue I wanted dealt with, and concentrated on his "other priorities". To me, that is BAD BAD BAD.
Even in the next election, I won't vote Liberal over this, and the Conservatives don't appeal to me as an alternative choice. And barring a radical overhaul of their policies, I wouldn't be voting New Democrat either (half socialist, half liberal).
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
249 Bush to 242 Kerry right now. Hey, maybe in about a year when everyone (else) is pissed off with Bush, you should get Gray Davis to spearhead a recall of the President. 8)
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
254 for Bush now. CNN is making up plots for an unlikely Kerry win. For the sake of Democratic credibility, he should probably not go the long and awkard way.
OTOH, within four years the world is going to end anyway.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Y'know, I've only just started to realise how the TV seen on TV (trendy 30 year olds sitting on New York cofee houses watching the Simpsons) is completely different from what the majority of America seems to be, and that's nice, quiet little communities billions of miles from anywhere interesting, full of people who've never left their home and have no desire to.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Watching the election coverage with things so neck and neck, its clear to me that people need a greater number of viable options.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
My wife is muttering imprecations against Nader since it seems he might have cost Kerry New Mexico. . .
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I woke up about an hour ago sick to my stomach. Urgh. I really don't understand how things went from 12 hours ago thinking "Kerry's got this all wrapped up" to now.
On the bright side - even if, as looks likely, Kerry loses, then what does that mean? That Bush will be held responsible for the growing debacle in Iraq. And, as I think likely, another terrorist attack within the United States will not, in the long term, help him.
I really think George W. Bush is in for a very rough second term - one that he might not even see through, especially if public outcry (re: Iraq, other bunglings) reaches such levels that the Republican Congress might see long-term benefits in impeaching him in hopes of not facing a complete blowout in '08.
This is, of course, a lot of prediction.
PS - my friend Lisa worked on the campaign of Dan Jennings for the House of Representatives in Indiana district 8. She moved to Indiana six months ago, and has spent the last 1/2 year sleeping on a floor, and subsisting on pbj and water. Dan Jennings lost. I think she's out getting piss drunk right now.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I had a good laugh when they said on CNN that Bush would probably shore up his increased Hispanic vote by putting a Hispanic justice in the Supreme Court. Get real! There are plenty of rich asshole white lawyers who imagine it'll be their turn before "some wetback." Unless of course the President gets told by TPTB that he's had his fun, and his second term is going to be all about making it look like the elction of President Cheney in 2008 is something that could ever happen. . .
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
quote: ...public outcry (re: Iraq, other bunglings) reaches such levels ...
Ehm, NO. Because the majority of Americans do not give a fuck about Iraq, the deficit, equal rights or any of that. We have seen today that the majority of Americans are right-wing orthodox Christian conservatives. Whatever public outcry there will be, it will still only be from that same left-wing 'elite' minority that runs blogs and watches John Stewart and Micheal Moore.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
You must have traveled a lot, to have met all those Americans.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Well, they just voted, didn't they? And the majority of Americans support a right-wing Christian conservative as their President most powerful man on Earth.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Harry, they may not all be 'right-wing orthodox Christian conservatives' but some of em sure are silly. As are people everywhere.
Still as long as GWB is honestly elected this time around I can't gnash my teeth too much. I do disagree with it, democracy, like the law can sometimes be an ass.
Oh and one more thing.....the entire universe is doomed Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Oh yeah, I forgot. You don't vote for a party with the same ideas as you, you just vote for the guy who looks best on TV.
And I do respect that this is the choice of Americans. It's just that I'm dissapointed and confused.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Well, along with everything, lets not forget this interesting tidbit:
quote: Six months after gay and lesbian couples won the right to marry in Massachusetts, opponents of same-sex marriage struck back Tuesday, with voters in 11 states projected to approve constitutional amendments codifying marriage as exclusively being between a man and a woman.
Man, you guys would vote down evolution being taught in schools if you could.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
A terrible defeat for common sense nad agiant leap backwards socially.
Man, I feel worse for my friends in the military than anything else.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Well, contrary to the opinions on this board, it seems that just over half of the US prefers Bush over Kerry. I also voted for Bush. There were many many reasons behind this, but the number one reason that I voted for Bush is because I don't want Kerry as the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. He may have said a lot in his campaign about supporting the military, but in my opinion his past record of voting down every single defense program vastly outweighs that. I also work in the defense industry, and would like to keep my job, thank you.
B.J.
P.S. - I also have friends and relatives in the military, and they all voted for Bush.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
According to a poll on the BBC website, of the people who said that "terrorism" was the most important issue of the election, around 82% were Republican compared to 18% Democrat. On the economy, it was 80% Democrat to 20% Republican. So I'd say that the war in Iraq had an effect on a lot of people.
And I don't want to promote the "stupid orthodxx American Christian" insults that have been flying aroud, but apparently 2/3rds of those who attend religious services weekly voted Republican.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: ...but in my opinion his past record of voting down every single defense program vastly outweighs that. I also work in the defense industry, and would like to keep my job, thank you.
*rolls eyes* This doesn't even fall under the category of political debate. You've entered urban legend territory.
On an unrelated bit, there's this fun note:
quote:re: Colarado: The law would have changed the system which gives all Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate with the most votes state-wide...The votes would have been awarded based on the percentage of votes for each candidate.
You let the majority vote on how the minority vote should be treated. Quality.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I just wish there were electiuons for VICE president the biggest qualm I have with Bush is that I think Cheney/Rumsfeld are calling the shots an waaaay too many issues.
Tom Dashell got voted out: good and bad- he's a dickweed but the republicans having even MORE power is a scary scary thought.
BJ, I share your concerns over Kerry: it's why I think he was a poor choice for the democrats. Most of my military pals voted for Bush as well. Much to my dismay.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I never said stupid orthodox right-wing Christians. And it's not an insult, just an observation and something that puzzles me greatly. Because Americans always talks about freedom and liberty, yet are more convervative than many Europeans.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Man, you guys would vote down evolution being taught in schools if you could.
Not all of us.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Goddamn. At least when the country is in shambles by 2008, it will be the fault of Bush & Co.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Of course, they could just keep the "fear factor" going nad get another republican elected. All the democrats need to do is find someone the US armed forces will have nearly as much as Kerry....
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
I was wondering where this conversation was on the board.
Speaking as someone who finds orthodox Christianity attractive, I am glad the side I have chosen won. That said, I am about as happy that the election was clearly a victory for one side versus another, counting the Senate, the House, and several ballot issues. Plus the absolute majority that even adding Nader votes would not overcome. I've gotten sick of gridlock.
And just so that everyone doesn't label me a shill, I would vote to keep evolution in schools, and I did vote for two Democrats at the state level.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Greece and Russia has orthodox christianity.
Methodists, baptists and other free-church offshoots are not orthodox by any stretch. In fact, adult baptism, healing and speaking in tongues takes them as far away from mainstream christianity as possible, next would be proclaiming holy war and establishing a moral-police corps.
I hope Bush doesn't do that.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
No, Russia and Greece have Orthodox Christianity. I specifically made it a little "o." I would include Roman Catholics in "orthodox Christanity," as well as the Armenian, Melkite, Italo-Greek, Syriac, Chaldean, Coptic, and Maronite churches (and some others that I'm not writing down right now).
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
This should not have be a close race
quote:P.S. - I also have friends and relatives in the military, and they all voted for Bush.
Lucky for them they, like you, will get to keep their jobs too. Regardless of whether they want to or not. Until they get kidnapped/decapitated/killed/wounded. But then you, like the present Commander in Chief, don't need to worry too much about that. So you won't.
Q: How many xeno-phobic short-sighted moronic assholes do we have in this country anyway? (A: >=58,486,488)
The United States will never recover from a second term of George W. Bush. I'm presently postponing my depression until after we sort out which Republican legal homonculous has distorted or hopelessly perverted the democratic process this time around...
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
AP is just now reporting Kerry has called Bush to concede. Might be over in hours now, not days.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I know a good number of Roman Catholics who would protest about being put in the same religious group as Bush and co.
And I'm confused about your comment anyway, David. What did orthodox Christianity have to do with who you voted for?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I am Catholic and I object to being put in the same religious group as Bush. I personally know no Catholics who are for Bush. I mean, even the Pope called the Iraq War a disaster for humanity.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Harry mentioned that orthodox Christians were voting Bush, and I thought I would speak as a member of a group that is probably in the minority on the board. Nothing snarky meant by it. Sorry if I offended any.
On Roman Catholics, you're right about many not considering themselves politically conservative. There is a move in the church towards orthodoxy among younger members and among the Bishops elevated since JP2 came on, but it's not all the way to the right yet. I read a fantastic and very comprehensive study on it, but I can't find it right now. Check back later and I'll update with it if anyone is interested.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: I am Catholic and I object to being put in the same religious group as Bush. I personally know no Catholics who are for Bush. I mean, even the Pope called the Iraq War a disaster for humanity.
I'm Catholic and I don't know any who *didn't* vote for Bush. The church (around here, at least) was pushing pro-life doctrine pretty heavily, and did everything short of backing Bush publicly.
Personally, I am mostly pro-life (especially now that I have two kids of my own - having kids changes you more than you know), but it's not one of the major voting issues for me.
B.J.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
So Karl Rove's plan for calling up the 'evangelist troops' has worked well.
So.. what actually happens to Kerry now? Is he still a Senator?
I'm also wondering. What does this mean for the Democrats? Will they ever be able to win again? I mean, if they can't even convince the people that Bush was bad, how are they ever going win from a 'decent' Republican?
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
He still has four years in the Senate if I remember correctly. Whether he will stay on is a question I don't think he'll make for a few days. Most candidates recede from the public consciousness, but most of them don't have an office to come back to, either. We'll have to wait and see.
As for winning again, of course they'll win again eventually, but they might be spending some time in the wilderness akin to the Cold War period: mostly R, punctuated by a few attractice Ds able to grab votes from the other side. Of course, this is off the cuff, but even with this worst case scenario, the Democrats are not permanently banished from American political life.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
IMO, as a Republican, any number of Democrats could have easily beaten Bush, just not Kerry. General Clark could have pulled a lot of people over, and maybe Dean if he hadn't shot his political career in the foot. If McCain (a Republican) had agreed to be Kerry's running mate, that would have been a huge danger to Bush. Fortunately for Bush, McCain and Kerry differ too much on a lot of issues.
B.J.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
I'm inclined to agree with you, BJ. A General Clark running on a more articulated strategy (than Kerry's) for the War on Islamofascism might have beat Bush. He just wasn't a smart campaigner. Lieberman could have done it too on foreign policy, but his social stands were just too much for the activists.
I just realized, BJ, you're in St. Louis. Yeah, I bet Bishop Chaput really was turning out the R vote!
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Okay. I'm frustrated and confused. These last two days have been very strange. First, the second political murder in my country in two years, and now the clear victory of Bush. I need an incoherent rant, so feel free to skip this post.
What the hell happened? Did I miss the memo where we were told to fuck up the world? Or has anyone suddenly moved on from the ideals like equal rights, peace and freedom of speech?
In my own country, a film director can't make a controversial movie anymore, for fear of being brutally murdered. A politician can't publicly oppose the Islam without needing body guards and hiding his family. What the hell happened to that 'Dutch tolerance'?
And Bush' re-election is confusing me.. on the one hand, I can't contemplate why you would even vote for someone like Bush. OTOH, this is the democratic process. This is the choice of the American people.
Two major tests of democracy and ideals in two days. It's a bit too much for me. I want to sleep now.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
This isn't a fucking mandate.
ps-We're doomed.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
My only consolation is that Florida was not the deciding factor this time.
Soooon the "Ohio D'Oh!" jokes will replace the "Flori-Duh" jokes and we can be safely ridiculed for only local corruption, racial insensitivirt and harboring the occasional terrorist. Oh, and the dirtiest political campaigns anywhere. Cant forget that.
Florida fell to the Repuiblicans because Bush's stand against Castro: nothing's so persuasive as millions of Cubans rallying behind a 20 year-old anti-communist policy towards one flyspeck island nation that cant feed itself.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
According to some BBC Newsnight polls they just showed on TV, the majority of Bush-supporters did not think that terrorism, Iraq or the failing economy were the main issues. They think the main issues were social values.
Which brings this frustrating day back full circle, in that I will say again that apparently a majority of the inhabitants of the 'land of the free' are actually extremely conservative.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
Look on the bright side. Republicans pretty much now have control of Congress, the presidency, and eventually the Supreme Court. Now people who may be in the middle or who voted for Bush over a couple issues will see what we're really in for without very much checks and balances. Or not. The neat thing about giving a group of people too much power is that their ugly side, if there is one, will emerge all the more quickly.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Not that we'll be able to do a damn thing about it for FOUR YEARS.
Good fodder for comedians, cartoonists and songwriters though.
I played Greenday's new album when I heard the news this morning....prime stuff.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
On the bright side, at the very least he can't be elected again.
Although that could change when the Republicans amend the Constitution to allow for another term in office for Mr. Bush because we in the middle of a war and all.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
As for the issues that made a difference, I've seen the polls as to what made the difference for most people. But I think those polls are a little deceiving: there were plenty of people I know voting on both sides that had several reasons for voting for one or the other. The social issues I always saw as more akin to the issues commanding the most common ground, not necessarily the highest priority. However, I am of course open to contrary evidence in post-election polling. (Maybe it will be better than the pre-...)
As for the libertarian critique, I hope the increased majorities, a clear win in the popular vote, and the constitutional limitation on third terms will allow Bush the room to reign in discretionary spending, farm subsidies, tarriffs, and runaway Social Security liabilities. Who knows? Maybe the dominance by one side will discredit divided government as a spending-limitation forever. Here's to hope!
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I am deeply disappointed and saddened because it seems the majority of Americans voted for a guy whose only credentials are that he walks around like a sheriff and talks with a homey accent.
My one vote in opposition wasn�t enough to stop it.
The Republicans carpet-bombed political discourse in this country to get Mr. Bush back in office, and the press did next to nothing to hold Mr. Bush and the Republicans accountable for their distortions.
This Administration doesn�t have a clue, and the number of ways it doesn�t have a clue is frightening.
I only hope that the terrorists don�t smuggle something into the country in a non-inspected container. Remember, 95% of containers are not inspected....
I only hope that Mr. Bush�s deficit doesn�t hurt our country in ways that we�ll be paying for for years to come....
I only hope that some of the people who are unemployed in this country can find a job at a place other than Wal-Mart....
I only hope that some of the millions of people who lost their health insurance coverage can get it back in some way...or avoid getting sick in the meantime....
I only hope the Administration can do something about North Korea and Iran....
I can only hope that the Administration can do something about these things cause they haven�t cared to do much about them for the last 4 years.
What�s most saddening is that that apparently doesn�t matter to 53 million Americans. What matters is Mr. Bush�s empty rhetoric and posing.
And the result is that we get another four years of blinding incompetence.
The problem is that America will have to pay the price for that incompetence sooner or later.
But there�s nothing I can do about it now.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Sands: As for the libertarian critique, I hope the increased majorities, a clear win in the popular vote, and the constitutional limitation on third terms will allow Bush the room to reign in discretionary spending, farm subsidies, tarriffs, and runaway Social Security liabilities. Who knows? Maybe the dominance by one side will discredit divided government as a spending-limitation forever. Here's to hope!
Well, good old George already had a Republican Congress during the last term, and the spending increased more in his first 4 years than during Clinton's two terms. What's changed? If anything, the fact that he can't have a third term gives him the license to spend as much as he wants without worry of re-election.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
Jay: As Art Williams said, All you can do is all you can do, and all you can do is enough. Sometimes you just have to let the shit hit the fan before people realize what's going on.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tora Ziyal:
quote:Originally posted by David Sands: As for the libertarian critique, I hope the increased majorities, a clear win in the popular vote, and the constitutional limitation on third terms will allow Bush the room to reign in discretionary spending, farm subsidies, tarriffs, and runaway Social Security liabilities. Who knows? Maybe the dominance by one side will discredit divided government as a spending-limitation forever. Here's to hope!
Well, good old George already had a Republican Congress during the last term, and the spending increased more in his first 4 years than during Clinton's two terms. What's changed? If anything, the fact that he can't have a third term gives him the license to spend as much as he wants without worry of re-election.
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration announced Wednesday that it will run out of maneuvering room to manage the government's massive borrowing needs in two weeks, putting more pressure on Congress to raise the debt ceiling when it convenes for a special post-election session.
Treasury Department (news - web sites) officials announced that they will be able to conduct a scheduled series of debt auctions next week to raise $51 billion. However, an auction of four-week Treasury bills due to be completed on Nov. 18 will have to be postponed unless Congress acts before then to raise the debt ceiling.
"Due to debt limit constraints, we currently do not have the capacity to settle our four-week bill auction scheduled to settle on Nov. 18," Timothy Bitsberger, acting assistant Treasury secretary for financial markets, said in a statement.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
What a bunch of gloomy guses. I for one can't wait for my all-expenses-paid trip to downtown Tehran. Think of the history!
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I've been thinking it over, and really there's only one conclusion we can come to.
Libertarians are twats.
No, really, they are. We all know the definition of a libertarian - someone who wants to maximise personal freedoms while minimising government intervention. But scratch a libertarian and you'll find a conservative underneath. It's all the same - I don't like paying so much tax, or any tax at all in fact. I don't like the idea of my taxes going to benefit anyone but me. And so on and so forth.
Really, a libertarian is someone who doesn't like to be called a conservative. Because conservatives are such ghastly people, aren't they? Rednecks, fundies, militiamen. . . Why, how can one be taken seriously associating with such common folk? Let's use a word that almost sounds like 'liberal,' but with lots of manly, tough consonants in there. Libertarian, that'll do!
National Socialist Worker's Party, anyone? Why not just call yourselves the conservative elite - or don't they feel particularly elite? Perhaps you feel that only the liberals should have an elite?
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
Sure, libertarians don't like to pay taxes, but who does?
But you are absolutely right about libertarians like maximum personal freedom and limited government, which is not exactly like liberals (max personal freedom and greater gov't control) or conservatives (limited personal freedom and limited gov't control). Although I've observed that libertarians could be liberal-leaning or conservative-leaning, and they tend to say "liberal" like a dirty word as hard-core conservatives do.
As for being twats, well....they always nominate some twat for president who doesn't get any votes, during election year talk about how the two major candidates are both fucked up, and then spend the rest of the time complaining about liberals and conservatives. Yep, you're right about that too.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Tora: I hope you're wrong. But you might be right. The way I saw it was that it was buying the opposition off on some issues in exchange for their compromising with you on other things, i.e., logrolling. Since he really has nothing to gain with a third term denied him, he might not need to compromise on some of those issues (especially with photogenic guys like DeMint in the Senate to act as the frontmen). But your theory could be right too. Only time will tell, but as the article Jay quoted talked about at the end, I think he's going to save most of his free-market energy for social security reform, not getting rid of textile tarriffs or whatnot.
Lee: interesting theory on the semiotics of the label. Having been attracted to it in youth, I can remember seeing the double takes when you throw that word out and the attention it gets you. There's also some shock value is getting to exaplain what kind of libertarian you are.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
Well, I just read some article saying Bush wants to focus on cutting down the deficit by half AND reform social security, but he also admits it's difficult to do both at once. We'll see, I guess.
quote:Having been attracted to it in youth, I can remember seeing the double takes when you throw that word out and the attention it gets you.
Yeah, I mentioned being mostly libertarian at work yesterday and got a double-take. I have to admit not expecting that kind of reaction, although the word has the advantage of not instantly labelling yourself as "the enemy" and make people defensive when you call yourself a liberal in front of conservatives or a conservative in front of liberals.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Look, I am not surprised by Bush's reelection. I was expecting Bush to basically take it away from Kerry from the start. Kerry, to me at least, seem to be stumbling everywhere, not sure of what he is saying, making one too many promises on one side and flip flopping on another.
Sound familiar? DALTON MCGUINTY. The dude did the exact same thing that Kerry did and won. Now he is fast becoming one of Ontario's most hated politicians, even more so than Mike Harris himself. It seems that many Americans were smart enough to pay attention to Ontario's Election when it really counted.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
You know, I'm not wild about Kerry by a long shot, but I'd have voted for his wife if she were running.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Yes, I'm sure that American's take notes from provincial politics.
Dalton McGuinty is great anyways, he's saving me about $990 this year, $1140 the next, etc.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Tora: I've been hearing the same thing too. Basically, completely rework the tax system on a scale like the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and go with private investment accounts and you might accelerate growth past the growing deficit. Combined with tort reform and taking some heat off Medicare, and he could make some breathing room by the time he leaves. Let's hope we get lucky with a result like the 1965 tax cut.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Yes, I'm sure that American's take notes from provincial politics.
Dalton McGuinty is great anyways, he's saving me about $990 this year, $1140 the next, etc.
Huh? I have to cough up at least $450 more in *coughcough* Premiums *coughTAXEScough* this year. And I was making $26000 a year. How can this be?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Tuition freeze baby.
Old scenario: $3795 tuition per four months, 15% increases per year.
New scenario: $3300 tuition per four months.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"It seems that many Americans were smart enough to pay attention to Ontario's Election when it really counted."
"Many Americans" aren't informed enough to find Canada on a map. Of Canada.
It's times like this that I wish the US were not powerful and not prosperous. At least then, with a less complacent population, it would be possible to have a revolution.
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
And then there's BC
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tora Ziyal: Well, I just read some article saying Bush wants to focus on cutting down the deficit by half AND reform social security, but he also admits it's difficult to do both at once. We'll see, I guess.
I want to go to both the Moon and Mars but since I dont know shit about either, I'm in the the same position Bush is. Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Sands: Tora: I've been hearing the same thing too. Basically, completely rework the tax system on a scale like the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and go with private investment accounts and you might accelerate growth past the growing deficit. Combined with tort reform and taking some heat off Medicare, and he could make some breathing room by the time he leaves. Let's hope we get lucky with a result like the 1965 tax cut.
And maybe if he just clicks his heels together three times and heads off to see the wizard, then we'll get some real action.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Harry:
quote:In my own country, a film director can't make a controversial movie anymore, for fear of being brutally murdered. A politician can't publicly oppose the Islam without needing body guards and hiding his family. What the hell happened to that 'Dutch tolerance'?
I read about Van Gogh in Sweden's Metro-paper, I understand he was a columnist for your edition of Metro. I was really saddened by the news. At least he forced them to come out of the woodwork, effectively making him a martyr. I hope something good comes out of that.
Jay:
quote:Although that could change when the Republicans amend the Constitution to allow for another term in office for Mr. Bush because we in the middle of a war and all.
Belarus comes to mind. Man I'm tired of that Lukasjenko.
I'm tired of Bush too. I hear that moral values were one of the most important hinges in the election. That's such a sham, like the collective moral energy will rise with Bush but fall with Kerry (that's what Bush seems to imply) and that that will make any difference ten years down the road. It's the ultimate political trick; "I stand for good values! Family values! Your values!" Doesn't matter that no one can define family values as something specific, but it still gets old mums and dads wet with excitement.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, regardless of one's position on them, the sorts of values being promoted have been specified: no homosexual marriage, for instance. The Republican platform, whatever else you want to say about it, makes no attempt to hide that, and other things.
Yes. Because every righteous American knows that The Gay is a sinful disease that should be stopped at all costs. Hooray for religion!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
The impression I get is that the anti-gay marriage thing is largely driven by a religious belief. Whereas over here, it seems to be more a case of "urgh, I don't want some man bumming me while I queue for a McDonalds".
Was any attempt at all made by the Republican party to disuade the "God says you must vote for us" attitude I've read about in some places somewhere?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
THe problem with the marriage thing being a religous offshoot is that the right-wing CHristians will now wield unprecedented political power: Kerry was careful not to take a stand against them because the huge number of voters they claim to have (and indeed there are many reports of churches openly endorsing Bush to their congregations) so whoever runs for the Democrats next time will take even less of a stand in favor of church/state seperation (or gay rights for that matter).
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
quote:..And I would expect the president to be mindful..
Yeah, well, that's kinda the whole problem. He isn't particularly known for being mindful.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
At least Specter is willing to act in the name of common sense: too bad he was not there to reject that nutcase Scallia from the bench.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Specter was in the Senate at the time. And the reason no one put up a fight with Scalia is that so much energy had been put into trying to keep Reagan from elevating then-Associate Justice Rehnquist that they couldn't put up a fight against someone as charming as Scalia was at his hearings.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
One tip: Watching Bill Hicks' Revelations (1993) makes you depressed, talking about the days of Reagan and Bush finally being over... how far we you have come.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Sands: they couldn't put up a fight against someone as charming as Scalia was at his hearings.
A great act: now he's the "press nazi" that forcibly has recorders confiscated whenever he gives a speach so the assinine things he says cant be broadcast.
Guys a head-case.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
OK, I think there needs to be some clarification here with the swipe at Justice Scalia regarding his limitations on the press during his talks. If you are referring to the speech he gave at Presbyterian Christian High School in April, Scalia never directed the marshal to confiscate and destroy the recording made of his speech. He personally apologized to the reporters. He has since instructed his security detail not to obstruct such recordings.
As for broadcasting his speeches, it is perfectly within his right as private citizen to condition what will and will not be recorded when he is gracious enough to speak to groups. People have such a distorted view of freedom of the press. The protection prevents the government from restricting the rights of the press to say what they want, not the right of the press to impose whatever conditions of publication its deems appropriate on a non-governmental actor protecting conduct they think appropriate to keep less-than-fully public. When he is acting outside the confines of his office, there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about what he is doing. While he is a public figure, there is no legal doctrine that eliminates his right to set the conditions under which he will have these talks. And those kinds of conditions are more common among judges than most realize. In fact, knowing that he hears constitutionally contentious controversies that could be used for political purposes, it is his duty to impose conditions that minimize whatever political involvement would result from taking his words out of context. See the American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 5(D).
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Sands: In fact, knowing that he hears constitutionally contentious controversies that could be used for political purposes, it is his duty to impose conditions that minimize whatever political involvement would result from taking his words out of context.
Or, the converse of that is true...the fact that he says controversial things about controversial topics that he could be ruling on from the bench makes it even more important to listen to those things he says when not wearing the robes.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Jay, I won't get too deep into it because I'm not a credientialed jurisprude, but your statement implies to me that you hold a derivative assumption of the legal realist school of jurisprudence: that all judicial processes are politics by other means. Because Justice Scalia is a policy-setter by means of his role, the public has a right to know everything that he says, not matter whether he actually is saying something as a private citizen.
Now, I won't say that that adjudication has no political valence. However, if one took seriously legal formalism (a competing jurisprudential camp, and one from which Justice Scalia derives much of his philosophy) as a valid decription of how judges decide cases, then it is possible that a judge who practiced virtue jurisprudence (sorry, it's a long post, but more eloquent than I can explain here) could comment on such contentious cases without rendering his interpretation of the law apart from actual litigation. If that is the case, there is little danger in having someone like Justice Scalia give these talks where these topics arise. No policy is set in such events because he has not engaged in the judicial decisionmaking process. However, the danger that his words could be twisted in such a way as to impugn the impartiality of his tribunal still exists. As he is ethically obligated to minimize appearences of partiality, I think his choice to restrict what media may be recorded is an appropriate one.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I don't know if you're familiar with the debate about privacy laws in the UK, and whether we should have or need them, but this is a very similar issue. Whenever some papparazzo snaps a pic of some celebrity which that celeb generally wishes they wouldn't, the issue resurfaces, but for the most part the debate is fuelled by how it would relate to those in public life, i.e. politicians.
The politicos by and large want to have their privacy protected from public scrutiny under the assumption they're entitled to a private life. The contrary argument goes that quite often what they get up to in their private lives reflects greatly upon their moral probity. This was most apparent in the later years of the last Conservative government, when - in the midst of a big family values push - Ministers were either shagging their secretaries, researchers, friends' wives, or being found dead in bondage gear asphyxiated by an orange.
So, in the UK attempts to bring laws top protect people's privacy are generally seen as being the first step on a path to limiting free speech and the freedom of the press. It was expected after Diana's death that the press would suffer for the actions of those papparazzi, but in fact nothing changed, and even the guys on the motorbikes got ofgf with little more than a wrist-slapping.
And this is really the same thing. Scalia is addressing these people because he is a Justice of the Supreme Court. That makes what he says a matter of public interest.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Lee: same response as I gave Jay.
But as for privacy rights being the first step toward a draconian crack-down on free speech, try this article. We've already taken many steps down the slope. We haven't slipped much yet.
I never heard about a sex scandel involving fruit. Sounds interesting. Perhaps I shouold google that...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Sands: However, the danger that his words could be twisted in such a way as to impugn the impartiality of his tribunal still exists. As he is ethically obligated to minimize appearences of partiality, I think his choice to restrict what media may be recorded is an appropriate one.
Maybe he should be ethically obligated to minimize appearances of partiality not by limiting what people hear of what he says, but rather by actually being, you know, impartial.
Given Justice Scalia's well publicized need to recuse himself from the recent Pledge of Allegiance case in and his proclivity to make controversial public statements, I think limiting access to public statements which may or may not impugn his impartiality via a contextual argument is particularly unacceptable in a democratic system.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Since my law school training is somewhat lacking, I can't respond with a fully formed post on legal formalism.
But I find it incomprehensible that Justice Scalia can give reasoned public statements and then fall back on statements like this to maintain a thin veneer of impartiality.
quote:Before proceeding to discuss the morality of capital punishment, I want to make clear that my views on the subject have nothing to do with how I vote in capital cases that come before the Supreme Court.
I for one do not see how his long, thoughtful, reasoned, publicly held views on the subject can not but inform his opinions.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I forget the guy's name. Might be off on the details, it was at least ten years ago.
I know what you said to Jay. I just don't agree with it. I think Scalia can comment on matters of law without it necessarily compromising his impartiality. After all, he's just one of nine Justices. However, the fact remains he was giving a public speech because he IS a Justice, and that makes it a matter of public record.
Interesting article. Might be worth discussing; certainly the gulfs between total censorship and total free speech, and between privacy and free speech, are very similar in that the law needs to find some ground in between, that can change according to individual circumstances - and it's very hard if not impossible to legislate for that.
For me, in the case of censorship, it comes down to taste - and how do you put something as nebulous (especially given how individual taste can be) as that? I've long characterised it thus: while I believe that, say, hard-core porn should be available to the public, I don't really want to see a rack of it in WHSmiths. I'm quite happy with it being only available in licenced sex shops.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
He has been largely impartial. Where he hasn't, he has appropriately recused himself. As for limiting access to his public statements, he hasn't prevented access to what he has said, he's just specified the means. Reporters have still been allowed to report exactly what he's said other than that instance.
quote:I for one do not see how his long, thoughtful, reasoned, publicly held views on the subject can not but inform his opinions.
Simply because someone's opinion is informed by his experiences does not mean that he has irrevocably decided how he will vote in future litigation.
Lee: interesting article. Dare I assume they have ever gotten closer to figuring it out with finality?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Simply because someone's opinion is informed by his experiences does not mean that he has irrevocably decided how he will vote in future litigation.
Good thing I never said it did.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Then exactly what is "impartiality"? My understanding of it is that if you are partial, you have predetermined what the outcomes of litigation are prior to arguments on the merits by the litigants or that you will steer the proceedings so as to prejudice the case for one side.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
My objection is to your use of "irrevocably."
And yes, one can be partial on some issues and impartial on others. And I don't believe one can say, as Justice Scalia did, here are my deeply held opinions on the death penalty. By the way, they have no bearing on how I look at the law.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Per Milligan, no. It's like whatsisname, the Clintons' guy who committed suicide. All sorts of conspiracy theories about him.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Ah, now I see what you were saying. Though I believe someone can have strong moral beliefs about something and still look at the law about it disinterestedly. Just loook at former AG, now Judge, Bill Pryor. Despises abortion, and yet still advised every Alabama municipality in the wake of Sternberg that they had to allow partial birth abortion and they he would take them to court to force them to allow it if they crossed him.
Lee: I'm not surprised. As I was reading I immediately thought of Vince Foster.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
That's the one.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Jay, I won't get too deep into it because I'm not a credientialed jurisprude, but your statement implies to me that you hold a derivative assumption of the legal realist school of jurisprudence: that all judicial processes are politics by other means. Because Justice Scalia is a policy-setter by means of his role, the public has a right to know everything that he says, not matter whether he actually is saying something as a private citizen."
The problem is, he wasn't speaking as a private citizen. The only reason he was giving that talk in the first place was because he's a Supreme Court justice. They didn't say, "Hey, let's get this guy to give a speech, and whoa, he's on the Supreme Court?! Who knew?!".
I wouldn't advocate following him around and trying to tape everything he says as a private citizen. I see no reason for the public to know what he whispers in his wife's ear when they have strictly-missionary-style sex (there, try to get that image out of your brain). But it's a different matter when he's giving a speech directly because of his Supreme Court justicehood.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Tim: that doesn't address someone I said after that post. While I disagree with where the line is droawn on what should be the public's right to access a justice's private conduct, Justice Scalia has still made speeches like that available. He just doesn't allow them to be videotaped. The public was not denied anything from that high school speech as far as I know.
I disagree with all of you that a person is unable to separate himself and his thoughts from the context of his role as a government actor. While I would not argue with the legal realists that at some point absolute separation is impossible, there are adequate examples of decent jurists on the left and on the right who have such virtue. They have been able to hold personal opinions that later bore on cases they heard and still managed to follow the law despite desires to steer the result another way. However, I doubt anyone here is going to agree with me.
But back to his prohibition on videotaping. Let me try to tease out what I think might an undercurrent to this conversation. If the real objection is not disclosure of his speech versus no disclosure, is the real issue that Justice Scalia is improperly limiting which media can come? (Note: by media here, I do not mean a broader definition like TV vs. print journalism. I mean a narrower meaning akin to videotape vs. audiotape.) Is the objection founded on a sense of entitlement for more complete exposure to judges?
If that is the case, I think perhaps what might be one reason Scalia does not want videotape is that he understands the kind of emotion that television inspires. As an appellate judge, he is trying to maintain the same detachment as he has when he is sitting on the bench. Allow me to give an extended quote from Judge Richard A. Posner in Frontiers of Legal Theory, pp. 228-29:
quote:[E]motion focuses attention, crystallizes evaluation, and prompts action in circumstances in which reflection would be interminable, unfocused, and indecisive. But in situation in which making an intelligent decision requires careful, sequential analysis or reflection, emotion may, by supplanting that process, generate an inferior decision. � We expect appellate judges to be less emotional [than] trial judges because [we want them] remote from the emotionally most salient features of the case. � The design of the appellate process can thus be seen as a response to the danger of emotionalism viewed as the placing of too much weight on a salient feature of a complex situation.
Since he understands the roles of an appellate judge and appellate court are to prevent too much emotionalism attaching to subject matters of litigation, he is attempting to short circuit potentially inflammatory interpretations of his performance in front of a video camera, both on and off bench. The majority of the Supreme Court agrees with him on the negative consequences of videotaping on the ability of the court and its personnel to perform their duty with the candor and collegiality that television destroys. A rather colorful example was Justice David Souter�s congressional testimony where he said, �I can tell you the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body.�
However, in the interest of the public�s desire to know his thoughts on matters of potential litigation, he has still released his actual words and let them stand on their own. Therefore, nothing substantive has been hidden from the people.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Sands: However, in the interest of the public�s desire to know his thoughts on matters of potential litigation, he has still released his actual words and let them stand on their own. Therefore, nothing substantive has been hidden from the people.
Bull: inflection is everything.
Take a raw transcript of one of Hitler's speaches from the 1930's and he might not come across as a raving lunatic either....
People have a right to know the character of public officials: it applies to the President, but Scalia thinks he's above such scrutiny.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
You can still hear inflection in audiotape, and he allows that.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The public was not denied anything from that high school speech as far as I know."
It's been a while since I read the original articles when it happened, but I believe they were denied everything, yes? Didn't the security (Secret Service?) goons destroy the reporter's audio recording?
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
For that speech, yes, the audio recordings that the reporters made would have been destroyed. However, having gone to a school where we had two justices from the Supreme Court speak in a single year, I know that the administration usually is allowed to make some recording to place in the library for posterity. There could still be a recording available. The reporters would just have to check it out.
That said, Scalia has, to my knowledge, subsequently allowed such recordings, so the policy has been in effect since.
(On a side note, the Secret Service does not provide the security detail for the justices. United States Marshals do.)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"(On a side note, the Secret Service does not provide the security detail for the justices. United States Marshals do.)"
Alright. I knew they weren't just regular cops or security guards, but I couldn't remember exactly where they'd come from.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
I had thought the Secret Service had been responsible too, until Rehnquist came to our school. Lots of guys in dark suits and sunglasses with lapel pins that looked like the Texas Rangers' badge. Then it hit me.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Hello, everyone. Just peaking back because I finally found something I had promised to post for everyone two weeks ago.
Veers said, "I am Catholic and I object to being put in the same religious group as Bush. I personally know no Catholics who are for Bush. I mean, even the Pope called the Iraq War a disaster for humanity."
BJ replied that many Catholics he knew had voted for Bush.
I added that there is a turn toward orthodoxy among Catholics in the United States. While this study does tell what growth there has been over the past 15 years among traditionalist Catholics (as opposed to modernist), it does lay out the precise percentages that I had in mind.
There are a few things I wish he had done differently (e.g., divide Jews into Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and Orthodox into Hasidum on one side and Joe Lieberman-liberal ones on the other), but it's more complete than anything you'll find in the media.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)