Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I signed up for the Nader e-mails.

This sort of evasion of my spam-blocking software is most troubling. Curse that Nader campaign with their highly effective countermeasures.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

Didn't Clinton sign some anti-gay bill in 98 or 99?

Defence of Marriage Act. Plus "don't ask don't tell." But Hank, DEMs by definition can't be intollerant.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
I signed up for the Nader e-mails.

. ..
You would expect that someone's official beginning shot in the presidential election campaign - a serious candidate, no less - could spell things right in there e-mail.

Don't worry. The version I got yesterday from the RNC had no errors.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Two words for you, SF:

(Well, okay, more than two: )

A. I was responding to your quick and careless whip-out to what (I'm assuming) was a joke. Reflex with "Horton", get "Gore".

B. Gore brought out that specific furlough program with the leading questions. It was clear where he was going. Unfortunately for him, he then dropped out of the race a few days later. He was set to use it. It was D's weakest point, one that was costing him big in his own state already. And, remind yourself - it wasn't a racial thing, it was a crime thing.

So your point is that, if Dems used a fear tactic, and Repubs repeated it, then Repubs didn't use a fear tactic?

Or when someone makes extreme, extremely stupid comments like "Repubs don't use fear tactics", it's obviously a joke?

Or nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah?

'cause I'm not seeing it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Don't worry. The version I got yesterday from the RNC had no errors.

Hi! I'm Bilmore, and I'm setting up a Nader Meet-Up tomorrow! Can I sign you up?! He represents the future of Liberalism in our country, ya' know!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
You would expect that someone's official beginning shot in the presidential election campaign - a serious candidate, no less - could spell things right in there e-mail.

There's no way I'm reading anything that long to look for typos, especially something from the fucking Nader campaign. Where's the spelling error?

And is your use of "there e-mail" intended to be ironic? If it was, that was good. If it wasn't, that was better.

Like ra-a-ain, on your wedding day....

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch


And is your use of "there e-mail" intended to be ironic?
.

I'm still looking for the misused "there" instead of "their"

As noted, my version was clean. perhaps Nader can use the RNC tactic for fundraising by sending letters bearing a "collections agency" above the return address for people from whom they've yet to receive a donation.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And is your use of "there e-mail" intended to be ironic?

I'll probably get yelled at if I call it "ironic", but it was . . . significant.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'll probably get yelled at if I call it "ironic", but it was . . . significant.

Are you presuming that the editorial board of a major newspaper should not be considered a collectivity?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Ahmed Chalabi on the reason why the Bushies have been so insistent on handing over Iraq on June 30:

The whole thing was set up so President Bush could come to the airport in October for a ceremony to congratulate the new Iraqi government. When you work backwards from that, you understand the dates the Americans were insisting on.

linky

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Truly, she is a genius.

Well, now that that's settled:

• Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton is making plans to meet with both the Haitian president and rebel leaders in an effort to help stem the violent unrest in the country.

Sharpton's diplomatic authority derives from his being able to imagine he might be elected president. And he wants all parties to the conflict to know that he's fully prepared to send in the Federal Reserve.

In related news, Dennis Kucinich has offered to step in to solve the labor dispute raging between Grandfather Twilight and the creatures of the forest.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The dems have campaigned on fear for the last several elections "They'll Close the Dept of Educ! . . . . etc.

Well, Reagan and Gingrich both said they'd do that.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
What is different here, and troubling, is the Republicans have never resorted to cheap fear tactics. I am very bothered by this stance, but my point was, it probably will get votes.
"It will get votes" has always been the test the Dems apply- We've only looked at is it the right position to take- thats why we're so botherd today.

Well, Hank, I'm glad you're bothered about this one. But you seem to smart to truly believe what you're saying about how Republicans haven't used "cheap fear tactics" in elections and have always in the past focused on "what is right" rather than "what will win votes."


I don't feel like arguing, so I'll let it stay at that and just promise to provide some examples if you insist.

The bottom line is -- this may be a net plus for Bush because:

(a) This is shaping up to be a close election;
(b) the nation is quite polarized, and most likely voters have already made up their minds (per a poll I saw -- 75% as of Dec.)
(c) thus, there is not much middle to go for in this election, and
(d) success hinges on turnout and mobilizing your base;
(e) the Dem. base was already hot to get Bush; but
(f) much of the GOP activist core has been rather demoralized (between fiscal excess, stem cell research, lack of championing the "culture wars")
(g) so the expectation is this will be more of a net plus with the GOP base than an added mobilizer for the other side.

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

The bottom line is -- this may be a net plus for Bush because:

(a) This is shaping up to be a close election;

How does this issue play in the 10 or so states that matter?

Also, despite our liberal-elites/patch-bumpkins argument, the polls suggest that nearly half the country is okay with gay "marriage" and doesn't think a const. amendment is appropriate. I was surpised teh figures were that high.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

Well, Hank, I'm glad you're bothered about this one. But you seem to smart to truly believe what you're saying about how Republicans haven't used "cheap fear tactics" in elections and have always in the past focused on "what is right" rather than "what will win votes."

S_A_M

I already said the "we don't use fear" was a joke. Obviously you've only read a portion of my work. Now I know how George Orwell feels when Ty starts on about his work.

And to tie everything back together- Jerry Falwell, on gay marriage:

the Surpreme court has made sodomy legal, now states are granting gays marriage- what's next? Polygamy?

Not sure if he is making a constitutional argument there.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How does this issue play in the 10 or so states that matter?

Also, despite our liberal-elites/patch-bumpkins argument, the polls suggest that nearly half the country is okay with gay "marriage" and doesn't think a const. amendment is appropriate. I was surpised teh figures were that high.

Don't know how this plays in the key states.

But. like I said (and like the polls you cite suggest), this stance was not designed to go for the middle. It plays to a fringe on the right and asumes that R's like BB, Club and Hank will vote GOP anyway.

S_A_M