Fun in Kentucky
 

Yes, having a dead candidate was an advantage.

They did keep him quiet at the debate, but checking him in would have made it a bit less obvious what they were doing.

More yard sign fun
 

I swear this isn't an Onion Article

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ign_vandals_dc

The Kerry to Bush yard sign ratio in my neighborhood is about 12-1. I've noticed a lot more going up as the election gets closer. There's a Kerry sign in the back of my car that will go up whenever I remember it's there. Probably mid-November.

Fun in Kentucky
 

In Mass., there will be a special election to fill the seat. So it will likely remain Democratic.

I understand most people think the Rs will pick up a couple of seats. I think there are some who think the Dems could hold their own and some who think the Rs could pick up more than a couple.

Fun in Kentucky
 

As a small matter, the Dems are running rampant in Illinois so much that I'm not sure what good it would do for Obama to campaign in Illinois for them. His talents would certainly be useful in other critical states, like basically every state that surrounds Illinois.

As another small matter, the Dems were nuts if they thought Daschle was a shoo-in, though I'm not saying he's going to lose. Thune was my good deed for the year.

Aside from that, my impression is that the R's are expecting to pick up a few (maybe 2) seats net (i.e., after compensating for the loss of the R seat in Illinois to Obama). When that last honorable R in Illinois moves to Virginia in a few months, I think there is going to be a lot of soul-searching in conservative circles thereabouts. Come to think of it, he's moving to McLean VA when he leaves his seat. Could he be up for a serious cabinet post?

More yard sign fun
 

Wow. Is your neighborhood in Texas one of those with the barbed-wire fences around it?

Jesse Helms once famously prescribed that solution for Chapel Hill, but North Carolina never really got around to doing it. Perhaps Governor Goodhair is more pro-active.

More yard sign fun
 

Mary Cheney would be welcomed with open arms in my neighborhood. So, if rumor is to be believed, would Governor Goodhair.

ETA: More people voted for Gore than Bush in the city of Houston in 2000, though Bush won the county.

Love me, love me, love me -- I'm a liberal
 

For those of you who haven't checked it out yet, the "running with lawyers" blog is hysterical. And, despite the following, Rufus the blogger is mostly non-political.

But one of his recent posts raises a question I constantly ask: Why isn't everyone a Democrat?

Discuss.

http://runningwithlawyers.typepad.co...s_america.html

• But people who are behind Bush really baffle me. It’s just astounding to me that people can’t see him and those he surrounds himself with for what they really are. And don’t tell me what’s wrong with Kerry, I’m fully aware of what’s wrong with Kerry, but compared to the alternative how can anyone even consider Bush? I truly don’t understand red America. And despite what they claim, I truly believe my America is in keeping with the traditional ideals of America. Indeed, why is liberal a slur? Every political and social advancement that has improved the lives of ordinary Americans over the past 72 years has been the work of liberals and was opposed by conservatives. From Social Security to legal protection for trade unions to the minimum wage and OSHA to civil rights to voting rights to student loans to environmental protection, all liberal programs. I don’t get it.

(emphasis supplied)

Love me, love me, love me -- I'm a liberal
 

Yeah, I'll give you some discussion. See the charts supplied by our Dear Leader herself last week for what has happened over the last 72 years. Some blogger wants to call this social advancement? All I see from my view is increased incarceration, a higher violence rate, higher taxes, a higher abortion rate, a higher divorce rate, a higher teenage pregnancy rate, etc. etc. etc. Lets see, 72 years=1932, right?

Social Security won't be around for us. Trade unions are on their way to extinction due to incredible abuses.

I'll give you the characterization for minimum wage, bite me for the civil rights (hate is not a "conservative" trait"... don't believe me just go visit Chicago or the Northeast Democrat areas), student loans are a massive fraud that is trapping America's youth into debt for large portions of their working lives, environmental protection only works when the conservative economic models are invoked (i.e., tax people for the burdens they impose on others/society... such as with pollution vouchers).

And so on and so on.

So yeah, you guys got the minimum wage. Congratuflippinlations, geniuses. Do you want the other 50% of my check, or have you run out of ways to spend my money yet?

He(b-b-but, the blogger started it, maaaa)llo

Caption Contest
 

All this proves is that Bush ain't Right.

You're screwing around with me, NTTAWWT. I have been describing rather conventional political science theory to defend my innocent characterization, and you have now confirmed that you are engaged in your losing battle to define and defend a pure meaning of "Right."

True enough.

They may not have much meaning, but I think they are harmless, and facilitate conversation. BTW -- is this the point of your whole "Right" thing? Clever.

S_A_M

Caption Contest
 

Basically. I think I know how people felt about the term "liberal" being a disparaging term 10 or 12 years ago now. There are so many things that are misconceptions and mischaracterizations of the actual doctrines, that the use in modern language almost seems arbitrary. So arbitrary, in fact, that Club recently was asking something like if Buchanan was a good conservative or model Rightist (something like that). I almost cried when I saw it, because its like the Evil Media taught our exemplary citizen how to swear.

Maybe we could start a movement to positively define the terms "conservative" and "liberal", so that the various positions of the candidates could each be compared to the actual terms. Something tells me that Bush doesn't come out nearly as much the principled and committed conservative as I would like, or as people assert.

Love me, love me, love me -- I'm a liberal
 

I think conservatives would argue that many of those things site (other than the obvious, such as voting/civil rights) are not net benefits to society. In addition, they would argue that the welfare as a whole has had the opposite effect of what was intended, especially on blacks.

But I'm not really a conservative so I wouldn't know.

Love me, love me, love me -- I'm a liberal
 

So tell me, what's the solution to:

1. Student loans putting kids into debt forever.

2. Teen pregnancy.

3. High abortion rates (this figure is so miniscule to begin with thats its almost silly to note it or even call it a "problem" - but hey, its your list...).

4. Higher incerceration. (Wait, let me guess... "shoot them", right?)

5. Social security. (BTW, it will be around for you - it is agreed that it will be fine through 2050).

As to the trade union problem, well, since they're running themselves out of business, sounds like a self-correcting problem to me. Another example of the free market taking care of things.

Wages are driven in part by taxes. If that part of your check that goes to uncle Sam didn't go to Uncle Sam, it wouldn't be going to you.

The argument that taxes act as a disincentive on people's productivity is ludicrous. In practice, I've never seen anything but the opposite. The more they take, the harder you work to make up the difference. I have yet to hear anyone say "Well, I would like to get a raise, but that just means I'll get taxed more, so fuck it... I'll stay right where I am."

Caption Contest
 

Or maybe we could stop trying to put people and ideas into one of two pots. If someone is pro-choice, pro-education, pro-death penalty, pro-free trade, pro-free speech, anti-unnecessary taxes, anti-pork, pro-basic social services, pro-smart growth, pro-gun and anti-assault weapon, is that person a "liberal" or a "conservative"?

Even breaking it down to a single issue, like imigration: is placing tighter restrictions on immigration "liberal" or "conservative"? Is it "Democrat" or "Republican"? The answer can change at the drop of a hat.

You define "Right" as whatever you think is correct, but that doesn't necessarily have any correlation to historical perceptions of "right" or "left," or any relationship to people who are currently sitting on the right side of the aisle.

Caption Contest
 

How about "People who want to tell you what to do" and "People who think you should decide for yourself"?

Caption Contest
 

Doesn't work accross issues

nuclear proliferation
 

Who's making us safer?

• Of all the deceptive claims being made by BC04 this year, the most shameless has to be Dick Cheney's habit of darkly suggesting that a Kerry administration wouldn't do anything to prevent nuclear terrorism.
  
  The Bush administration's record on securing nuclear materials to keep them out of the hands of terrorists is by any standard disgraceful. Prior to 9/11, the administration repeatedly tried to gut the Nunn-Lugar initiative, and succeeded partially, to the point that Sam Nunn had to go to Ted Turner and secure private funding for his efforts to deal with loose nukes in the former Soviet Union. After 9/11, the administration grudgingly allowed Nunn-Lugar to continue, but without additonal funding; meanwhile, there's no evidence that Bush has even mentioned the subject in his various meetings with his buddy Vladimir Putin. To top it all off, the administration managed to invade the one rogue state that didn't have a WMD program.
  
  This is one subject where Kerry has been absolutely far-sighted and consistent for many years. He has gone into excrutiating detail in this campaign in outlining exactly what he'd do to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and materials, and exactly what the administration has failed to do.
  
  So: where are all the media fact-checkers when Cheney calls a nuclear 9/11 the most important threat to our security, and says (as he did yesterday in Ohio) John Kerry can't be trusted to even understand the threat, much less deal with it?
  
  Of course, the media might be awakened from their sluggishness on this issue if the Kerry campaign responded by pointing out the two candidates' records, instead of simply hitting the replay button and citing Kerry's Vietnam service as proof of his toughness.

NewDonkey.com

Caption Contest
 

Well what do you call these folks who scream for states rights so that the states can then impose regulations on their residents which the fed govt could not impose or was reluctant to impose? Isn't that talking out of both sides of your mouth? I mean, if you're for states' rights on the grounds that the fed govt should not be interfering in people's lives, but you favor the state interefering in people's lives, how can you say you're for liberating people from the heavy hand of govt? How can you be against big govt at the fed level, yet in favor of it at the state level? Isn't that pointless? Aren't you just changing who's doing the interfering?

It appears to me that a lot of the states' rights people don't really want less intrusion, they're really arguing "I don't like the fed govt and I want to be regulated by the state instead". That's a valid sentiment, but these people should stop defining their aim as "liberating" people when what they really want is greater regulation of people's liberties at the state level.

Love me, love me, love me -- I'm a liberal
 

Don't go to private universities if you plan on being a social worker as your life's career.

State schools are reasonably priced and the only people with heavy debt are those who go to private universities and grad schools. They could have gone to a cheaper state school.

Masturbation.

Limit abortion to life of the mother, rape/incest, serious health consequences of the mother and birth defects.

Legalize drugs.

Means test for medicare and social security.

Any other problems you would like me to solve for you today?

Fun in Kentucky
 

Edwards' will be won by a Rep. Kerry's isn't up so it'll be appointed or special election. But of course, anything from Mass. will be solid Dem.

Caption Contest
 

I don't disagree with you, but it's on the other side as well. Those that want everyone to have basically unlimited social freedoms do not want all to have commensurate economic freedoms. That is what I meant by saying that your definition doesn't adequately describe people accross all issues.

Caption Contest
 

Right. With the exception, of course, of state voting procedures -- in that case, the SCOTUS should step right in.

Love me, love me, love me -- I'm a liberal
 

And in case you aren't aware, there is now an option when you consolidate your student loans for income sensitive repayment. You monthly payment is tied to your income. If at the end of 25 years (or maybe it is 30) you haven't paid off the balance, the balance is forgiven.

Moreover, the military gives people education benefits, so that is another way to get a degree without going in debt. Also, many employers will pay for their employees college tuition if they do it at night. So get a job as a secretary or in the mail room out of highschool at one of these employers, and you can go to college at night.

Or someone can go to community college for 2 years living at home and then transfer to a state school for the other 2 years.

It is only private universities that put people so far into debt. There are many other options open to people including the military.

Caption Contest
 

I think it might better than one would suspect.
Currently, you are correct, there isn't a correlation between applying "leaving people alone / telling people what to do" and political parties. That's why many people have to weigh their stances on these issues. I think you and I (and SD) weigh toward the leave people alone side. But you find yourself a Republican disappointed with their stands on social issues (because the economic ones are more important to you) and I find myself a Democrat disappointed with my party's traditional (but as an aside, I think getting much better) stands on economic questions, because of how I rank the relative importance of my values. I'm okay with pandering to unions, because the alternative is to throw my hat in with people who hate gays, which I will NOT do. You tolerate aspects of the Republican platform because you will NEVER support raising taxes. It's just priorities (I'm genuinely trying to be neutral here: I understand your priorities even while I may disagree as to their relative importance).

I think the next ten years will show a reflection of a trend from the last ten years: periodically, the two parties have some big realignments in their philosophies to more accurately reflect the biggest masses of public opinion. It'll take another 10-15 years for party loyalists to realize they are in parties that don't reflect their interests (much like the defections of Southern Democrats to the Republican party in the 70s and early 80s), but I suspect you and I will find ourselves in the same party in 20 years.

Caption Contest
 

There is nothing wrong with SCOUS overturning a state court when the state supreme court acts unconstutionally. I didn't see you crying about SCOTUS overturning the TX SC in Lawrence v. TX.

Caption Contest
 

To regain the re: line.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLIT...07.bush.ap.jpg

Caption Contest
 

Karl, come closer so I can hear you please. No? Ok, I'm coming out there than. Boy did I miss you.

Caption Contest
 

And I agree with you. It seems that the Democrats can't divorce themselves from the arm of their party which demands that the govt retain a babysitting role. That's too bad. I think if the liberals got rid of that vehement minority in their camp, they'd discover most of the country agrees with them. Most people are "liberal republicans" (less govt/taxes + as much social freedom as possible).

Here's a hypthetical for you... What would happen if the Dems suddenly dropped the plank of their platform which supports govt regulation/babysitting? What if suddenly they became the party of less govt and more social freedom? How would the traditional GOP deal with all the liberal republicans who've only voted GOP for tax reasons suddenly switching to a liberal republican alternative party? I think at a minimum, such a move would create a more honest debate in this country. It would force the alleged "copnservatives" to admit they're actually not for freedom and liberty at all, but for freedom and liberty for people to act as they see fit.

The real crux of the difference between the Right and Left in this country is that the Right wants to regulate people's social lives and the Left wants to regulate their pocketbooks. I lean left a lot more these days because I can always ,make more money if the Left's in charge, but I don't know how to go about creating liberties once they're taken away from me. I'm beginning to understand why some people see this election as so important. Maybe Bush's ideologues will never get to regulate our lives as they'd like, but why even give them an inch?

Caption Contest
 

You didn't? You must have had your tv off that day.

Caption Contest
 

Ooooh Yeah, Honey! That's nice.

Is this old news already?
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct19.html

'The film features 17 former prisoners of war criticizing Kerry's 1971 allegations of U.S. atrocities in Vietnam. Asked whether the political uproar prompted Sinclair to change its plans, Faber said: "We did not and do not make programming decisions because of political pressure." Sinclair also generated headlines after firing its Washington bureau chief, Jon Leiberman, on Monday, for criticizing plans to air the movie.'

TM

Caption Contest
 

That vehement minority is the one headed by Hillary Clinton, the next leader of the Dems.

That is not what a populist is.

Speaking of Penzke
 

Can someone post that picture of the fat, bloated, drunk ted kennedy that penzke used to regularly post? I am going through withdrawal. If I don't see it soon, I am going to have to start talking about Rosemary's lobotomy again.

if you're tired of the conventional polls, try this
 

Caption Contest
 

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLIT...07.bush.ap.jpg

Practice the Love. Ya, Baby, Practice the Love.

Caption Contest
 

A better assessment of the sad state of our choices would be hard to find. "Damned if you do..."

But lemme ask you this... Why is it that we can't have a party that demands fiscal responsibility and is also socially liberal? Why do social conservativism and fiscal conservativism have to walk hand in hand? If the majority of the country is really liberal republican (and from what I read about dicontent with the parties, I believe it is) why can't we have a liberal repiublican party? Why can't we dredge up Nelson Rockefeller's plank and run with it? Why in today's world shouild it be such a sin to stand up and say "I'm a socially liberal Rockefeller Republican." Isn't that kind of the platform this country was built upon? The idea, as I recall, was that we'd be free from both taxes and govt - state and fed - interfering in our lives. I should not be taken to task by some self-centered moralizing states righter when I say I'm a Liberal Republican (I guess that's Libertarian). He should be explaining to me where he derives his platform, because I see nothing in 200+ years of this country to support what either party desires as truly "American" goals. I see a lot of false patriots and people trying to force other people to live under their unreasonable and unwanted rules. That is not "conservative", its un-American.

Caption Contest
 

"Whether or not to blow the whistle in the first place is a judgement call. Depends on if it was hand-to-ball or ball-to-hand and which team has the advantage after the alleged hand ball."

Caption Contest
 

Well then tell me, what is the majority? What does the majority of this country want?

And if a "populist" isn't in favor of low taxes/govt intrusion and greater social liberties, then what do you call someone who is? And what is the definition of a "populist"?

ETA: You got me. I was using the term wrong. I should have been using :liberal republican" in its place.

Caption Contest
 

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/r...s/BushMean.jpg

YOU'RE NOT MY DADDY!

Caption Contest
 

I'm not engaging in substantive discussion until someone posts the picture of the fat Teddy Kennedy.

Caption Contest
 

http://www.enterstageright.com/archi...kennedyted.jpg

Just for you dear.