Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Since when I am your friend?

Dad?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
No. These people are mainly from Chicago and Cleveland. Even my father, a lifelong small government, low taxes but non-religious republican, is highly skeptical of Bush. It's not just the Bay area where people are a little nervous.

And it's not just Democrats. My two most staunch republican friends don't even believe in God, and I know for a fact that they have no morals. But they're nervous, and hope that Bush's supposed and alleged economic benefits outweigh any social intolerance that results from four more years.

Are they a wee bit nervous about the possibility of adding another $2 trillion or so to the national debt?

(Make that $5 trillion or more if Social Security is privatized.)

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by baltassoc
So I keep seeing reports on Fallujah quoting US military commanders answering questions about whether the leadership of the insurgents is still in Fallujah by saying things like "We have every reason to expect that they would have pulled back from the city and are regrouping." This strikes me as odd. Where's the propaganda? Why aren't they saying "Yes, we think they've run like the yellow dogs they are to hide in caves"? I mean, where's the sense of controlling the spin? Why are we not calling these guys out into the street? They think they're such badasses, come on out. Why are we making them seem reasonable?

Thoughts?

Don't worry, the admin will take care of the spin. The people on the ground, regrettably, generally tell it like it is.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Vote with your feet.

Well, you know, I've been thinking about that. At least for voting purposes. 2.8 million votes for Kerry were wasted in Texas. Similarly, there were about a million extra Kerry votes in CA, another million in NY, and about 500,000 extra Kerry votes in IL. We could have used those to win the close race in Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico, with enough left over to win a lot of the less populated red states, like Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas outright, just to make that map look better.

I don't intend to move permanently, just long enough to establish residency to be a legal voter. Maybe, like Cheney, I'll have property in 2 places (a ranch in Wyoming sounds nice). This will take some organization, of course, and it has to be done kind of under the radar so you don't have a bunch over hicks in NYC overstaying their Broadway visits, but I think Josh and Markos would be willing to help with this.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Really, because I thought Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter and Breyer were the people standing between us and a "scary" Court.*

For the umpteenth time, replacing Rehnquist with a conservative does net-zero

* I'm a federalist. We have differing views as to "scary"

Do you advocate the overturning of Roe on federalist grounds or do you object to the practice it allows and couch your objection in terms of federalism to avoid an argument about women's rights?

I honesly don't know where you come from on this - I never asked.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It looks like none of the presidents in the past 16 years can/could legitimately say they have a mandate.

The composition of the Senate has nothing to do with Bush's mandate.

That's not what was being said after Clinton's 1996 victory, but I tend to agree with you on this point, when viewed in isolation. However, when you look at the trends since 1994, the country has moved significantly to the right. The GOP captured the house for the first time in generations. Several years later, the GOP captured the Senate (for good). The GOP expanded its majorities in the 2002 election, and again in the 2004 election. There is currently a GOP president and the GOP currently controls both houses of Congress by a comfortable margin. I'm not sure how this can be read except as a mandate, at least for the GOP as a whole.

But I'll ask the question again to all who disagree. What constitutes a mandate?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Vote with your feet.

I'm more than happy to do so. You think the red staters will agree to stop reaching over the fence and sticking its hands in my pocket?

So far all I hear from "federalists" is "Get your blue state values out of my state's rights, but leave your wallet on the table as you're walking out."

I'm happy to walk, with my money.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by baltassoc
So I keep seeing reports on Fallujah quoting US military commanders answering questions about whether the leadership of the insurgents is still in Fallujah by saying things like "We have every reason to expect that they would have pulled back from the city and are regrouping." This strikes me as odd. Where's the propaganda? Why aren't they saying "Yes, we think they've run like the yellow dogs they are to hide in caves"? I mean, where's the sense of controlling the spin? Why are we not calling these guys out into the street? They think they're such badasses, come on out. Why are we making them seem reasonable?

Thoughts?

Reports from the field say that's what the psychological operations people are doing. They have some Iraqi interpreter on a loudspeaker saying, "hey tough guys, please come out here and kill us like you said you would"....

As for the leadership, there have been several mainstream reports that a senior local leader and al-Zarqawi's top military aide (a Saudi) have been killed in the last 4 days.

Personally, I'm hoping to see a few D-9s razing every structure in Fallujah that has been used by the insurgency. Every single one, and if there's no town left when its over, so be it.

Hello

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's not what was being said after Clinton's 1996 victory, but I tend to agree with you on this point, when viewed in isolation. However, when you look at the trends since 1994, the country has moved significantly to the right. The GOP captured the house for the first time in generations. Several years later, the GOP captured the Senate (for good). The GOP expanded its majorities in the 2002 election, and again in the 2004 election. There is currently a GOP president and the GOP currently controls both houses of Congress by a comfortable margin. I'm not sure how this can be read except as a mandate, at least for the GOP as a whole.

But I'll ask the question again to all who disagree. What constitutes a mandate?

Ragean's defeat of Mondale was a mandate. Reconcile that one to this election.

You can argue all you fucking like, but when almost half the voters vote against you, you don't have a mandate. What you have is shrewd political handlers. Bush's people were miles smarter than the Dems in how they ran the campaign, but their success isn't a mandate. A mandate is when the overwhelming majority of all voters vote for you. That did not happen here.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What constitutes a mandate?

Did you miss the slave shoe diaries?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But I'll ask the question again to all who disagree. What constitutes a mandate?

Margin of at least 5% in the popular vote, and/or a margin of at least 150 electoral college votes (this may seem like a lot, but it really isn't, since the system is built to favor an electoral college landslide).

As much as I disagree with the fact that it was given, Reagan in 1984 had a clear mandate. Before that, I think you have to go back to Roosevelt (the Younger).

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's not what was being said after Clinton's 1996 victory, but I tend to agree with you on this point, when viewed in isolation. However, when you look at the trends since 1994, the country has moved significantly to the right. The GOP captured the house for the first time in generations. Several years later, the GOP captured the Senate (for good). The GOP expanded its majorities in the 2002 election, and again in the 2004 election. There is currently a GOP president and the GOP currently controls both houses of Congress by a comfortable margin. I'm not sure how this can be read except as a mandate, at least for the GOP as a whole.

But I'll ask the question again to all who disagree. What constitutes a mandate?

A significant margin of victory (in percentage terms, not absolute number of votes, christ that's a stupid argument), or INCREDIBLY high approval ratings on various aspects of the presidency (i.e., people have to express approval of the economic (or environmental, or foreign affairs, or whatever) policies of Bush, not just give him an overall good rating because he went on TV last night and talked about how now the alert level is yellow and we are safe).

ETA If you just look at the definition of mandate, it's 'authority' plain and simple and he has that -- he got elected. But you seem to be using it in some other sense that has to do with how much people are behind him, or something.

Now I'm confused. Define "mandate."

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But I'll ask the question again to all who disagree. What constitutes a mandate?

I would say a statistically significant margin of victory in the presidential election.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ragean's defeat of Mondale was a mandate. Reconcile that one to this election.

But Reagan lost seats in the Senate and the House. Is this not relevant?

You can argue all you fucking like, but when almost half the voters vote against you, you don't have a mandate. What you have is shrewd political handlers. Bush's people were miles smarter than the Dems in how they ran the campaign, but their success isn't a mandate. A mandate is when the overwhelming majority of all voters vote for you. That did not happen here.

What is the tipping then percentage wise? 53%-47%? 54%-46%? 55%-45%?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

For the umpteenth time, replacing Rehnquist with a conservative does net-zero

You're reading ahead in the wrong direction.

I agree. I don't care about Rehnquist.

Its Stevens, O'Connor, Breyer and Souter I'm concerned about.