« The Clash of the Titans: The First Presidential Debate | Main | President Asks Bush and Clinton to Help Raise Funds for Tsunami Relief »

November 04, 2004

It's All Over, Folks!

George Bush Wins the 2004 Presidential Election.

According to CNN Election results, Bush won on Tuesday Nov. 2 by 51% to 48% over John Kerry. SoftVote's Presidential Poll predicted the final outcome 49% to 47%.

SoftVote's Presidential Poll was right on track and states that were given to a particular candidate, in the end, were won by that candidate. At first the race was too close to call but Bush managed to gain ground after polls showed that Bush was getting votes from Hispanics, Jews, seniors and women. "It's clear that the Bush campaign worked hard to connect with the Hispanic community and it paid off," said Janet Murguia, executive director of the National Council of La Raza, a nonpartisan Hispanic advocacy group (Read more: http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/ny-uskeys1104,0,7705666.story?coll=ny-election-stories).

SoftVote's Results:

As for SoftVote's position after the 2004 Election, it will still be a place for people to exchange ideas on political issues, expect that instead of being a presidential poll it will be dedicated to being a political blog. Everybody is welcome to post on anything that is related to politics and you can also add your site on SoftVote's links page.

Posted by Elouise at November 4, 2004 11:01 AM

Comments

GOD HELP US

Posted by: d. jones at November 4, 2004 12:18 PM

djones,abel,JM,and yes even Wayne good luck and thanks for the Spiited debate. We must now fall behind this man because the future of America demands it. The election is over and it is time to find common ground and put differences aside.

I am looking forward to hearing from you in this blog in the future. Lets move forward!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 4, 2004 01:19 PM

I for one think that the people have spoken in more ways than one. Not only did they give President Bush 4 more years, but they spoke loud and clear putting more Republicans in the House and Senate.

My personal opinion on Dashal losing his seat was because he masterminded the continious fillabustering that the Senate waged against President Bush's nominees. No real political work could be done, because it seemed like every week the Democrats were fillabustering about something.

I too hope that Congress can come together and work for what's best for this Great Country. Maybe now it can be done since there is no need to try and destroy President Bush. They now know he has only 4 years and can't be re-elected, so maybe, just maybe they can get down to the business of running this country and representing their states better.

I was out of touch for a while but in reading the posts I see they were the same tired old songs.

Guess I didn't miss much.

Good luck to everyone and lets hope that the next time we all meet it can be civilized and keep the name calling out of the conversations.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at November 4, 2004 03:07 PM

This has been a great blog. As we move from the election to the next four years, let's hope we will do so with civility. The time for partisan attacks is over and it's time for both sides to come together and find a peaceful and willing compromise to the problems that face our nation. If we ALL work together we can get the job done. Democrats and Republicans alike have work to do on moving towards a more central view that is beneficial to the whole country.

Let's hope that the voice of the malcontents in this country, like Michael Moore, can be seen as they are, merely constant complainers who see littel good in this country, but let's understand, this is America and his freedom to speak is the same as ours. Let's just not be so quick to take the voice of dissenters as truth and do some homework on our own.

My fear is that the next year is going to be difficult for the President because America has spoken on issues of moral values and the direction we want to see this country move towards. That's not going to sit well with the most extreme liberals and I believe there will be a lot of unsubstantiated verbal attacks in the media, who is obviously trying to shape the will and moral fiber in this country with their overly biased opinions. There's is not the only voice in this country, there is the voice of the people and the majority has spoken through their votes. It's my prayer that the media starts taking note of the voice of the people and reporting in an honest and clear manner.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 4, 2004 03:31 PM

Louis,
I am not one to usually hold a grudge, but after the posts I have read with your name on them I think we deserve more than a speech from you. How bout an apology for starts? On Nov 1st you posted how Bush is the anti-christ.

We can move forward once you have made the proper apologies.

Posted by: Wayne at November 4, 2004 10:21 PM

d.jones,
Nobody likes a sore little loser.
Go cry to Michael Moore.

When will your side learn? Republicans picked up more than just the white house on this one.

Posted by: Wayne at November 4, 2004 10:22 PM

Jim Rodkey,
I have been attacked for months now, I was not running for any office and yet Abel, d.jones, Louis and the extreme left here felt the need to attack me personally.

I can not move forward without some sort of an apology. I really don't care what anyone thinks about this, this is the way I am and will not change.

Posted by: Wayne at November 4, 2004 10:25 PM

d.,

It will be ok, so your guy did not win, does that mean the world will come to an end? Look, the best thing to do now is get behind the President just like Kerry has done. We together can make the USA even stronger and more ready to handle the war on terror. In a symbolic gesture, I am extending my hand in friendship, will or can you do the same? It was a long fight but now it is over, please let's get behind our President and support everything he does as long as it is legal and moral. Let's all be friends and make this country the best it can be!

David M. Lowery
Plano, TX

I posted this on another topic, I just want d. to see it.

Posted by: David Lowery at November 4, 2004 11:45 PM

My view regarding George W. Bush's election? First, I'm not confident that Bush really won the election. I'm not even sure that we even had a meaningful election and that all the votes were collected and counted. One thing that I do know is that I can't ever support a theocratic, lying politican who demonizes opponents during elections. If I did, the entire exercise of having a two party system would be pointless and Democrats would really beome Republicans. Although I recognize that the Democratic party has really been drifting in this direction for the past twenty-thirty years, I would really hate to see our party forget its Liberal and Progressive heritage.

Frankly, if I really wanted to be just another misguided "compassionate" Conservative and advocate so-called moral values above what I consider to be a sane domestic and foreign policy, I'd simply become a Republican. It is truly sad to see a few of my friends espousing the problems that we have in our country and believing that they are the solution. They want to win elections so much that they would become pseudo Republicans to become successful.

Frankly, the truth is that I don't like the direction in which our country is heading. I see moderate Democrats like Senator Daschle being unjustly defeated. Elections are no longer about candidates' positions or morals. They are about Republicans using a wholly owned subsidiary media to shape public perceptions of Democrats and "demonizing" our candidates regardless of their actual record or beliefs. There's no question in my mind that the SwiftBoat Veterans lied about John Kerry and "demonized" him in order to defeat him. There's also no question in my mind that George W. Bush's cronies were behind this effort.

I suspect that our elections are now more about rigged voting machines that shave off Democratic votes in Democratic precincts while at the same time adding votes to the Republican precints. Frankly, I'm afraid that I'm seeing our current two party system turning into a one party system with the help of misguided voters who tell us that our candidates must transform themselves into Republicans if we wish to win elections.

I could never stand for that. I believe that it much more important to promote our Liberal principles as opposed to merely working to get our people elected. Doing the latter is in no way "moral." In my view, without principles, a political party that exists merely to seize power is not a force for positive social change and thus, unacceptable. That is the problem with most Republicans today and why I could never accept the "Republican" view of reality.

I agree with a friend of mine who said, "I don't give a good goddamn who derives pleasure from putting what organ into which orifice of whom. I could care less who marries whom or, for that matter, what. I care about personal liberty. I care about feeding the people. I care about access to medical care. I care about living in peace."

My friend continued, "If these political aims don't square with the moral values of those in the heartland - too bad! Please note that my political beliefs don't require that anyone change his/her sex life, surrender their civil rights, starve, become homeless, give the lives of their children to war or die of treatable diseases. I would never force you to enter in to homosexual marriage, nor bear a child you did not wish to carry to term. If this is unacceptable to those paragons of moral virtue in the heartland - they can pray for me."

My point here is that I will never accept what George W. Bush is about. He's definitely not about the things that are important to me. Frankly, I don't believe that our country is in good hands right now and I'll be concerned for us in the coming years. I used to think that I would accept George W. Bush if he were truly elected by the majority of the American people but now that he has been elected---I think, I still cannot believe it. I'll accept him when he accepts Closed Union Shops in Labor Law and that American workers everywhere, have the right to organize into powerful Labor Unions advocating them.

I have already lived without a President for four years and I guess living the same way for another four years won't be too much of a problem. I'm not too much into praying but yes, I'll be praying for our country these coming four years.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 5, 2004 12:29 AM

I'm not crying, I'm really angry that people made a very foolish decision.

Republicans are just for millionaires and corporate interests, they don't care about the middle class.

Glad you're happy now, Wayne, America will fall apart under a new Bush term. Now we're going to see larger deficits, another terrorist attack, another war, more job outsourcing, and more international anger.

People are fed up with troops dying in Iraq and the lack of jobs so that's why a lot of people wanted him voted out of office. Unfortunately, they cared more about his so-called "moral" values. Please tell me - do moral values include sending people to die in a war of choice, do moral values include losing people's jobs and cutting their overtime pay, do moral values include pandering to the multi-millionaires with big tax cuts, do moral values include holding secret meetings with big oil executives, do moral values include sending one million more people into poverty since you took office, do moral values include ignoring the Bill of Rights and taking away some of our freedoms in the name of the Christian-right? I don't think so. Were people opne to change in the White House? Of course they were. But no the Republicans succeeded into brainwashing millions of ignorant people into thinking that getting your kid back from Iraq and finding a decent-paying job are less important than seeing two men holding hands in Holy Matrimony. If you're wondering why the economy is poor, think about this: when he was Governor of Texas GW JR ran three oil companies into the ground, those oil companies went out of business. No wonder there are so many economic woes.

America - Where only a knucklehead becomes president.

Posted by: d. jones at November 5, 2004 09:43 AM

David, get a grip. Historically, if there were dirty voting misdeeds it is most likely to occur in Il. or PA with busloads of mentally ill being promised candy or drunks being promised booze by union thugs who then try to dissuade conservatives from voting by loading up the lines with people who have already voted. The democrats are lock step in the disenfranchisement movement. Finally, look at the states you lost, many of them were hit hardes financially by the Clinton recession where Unions were most likely to swing the vote. What did the Bush administration do? They got smart and sent more monitors even international monitors to the poll than ever before specifically to the precincts where past has shown the dirtiest tricks...more votes than voters, etc. You need to go lick your wounds and face the facts that people were not going to vote for a vietnam war protestor no matter what you tried otherwise to portray him as.

It is a beautiful day!

Posted by: Christopher at November 5, 2004 10:32 AM

It was really my hope that after the election, people would have come together. I've been watching the news and they keep saying that the anger on the other side is so intense that they will not give in. They will not listen to reason and they will not seek to unite America. I really thought they were wrong and then I read D Jones and Abel's comments.

I guess Wayne is right. All of us who have supported the President have been called all kinds of names. We have argued our points and in the end, those who agreed with us ourweighed those who disagreed. That's called a majority consensus.

Tom Daschele isn't a moderate Democrat, never was. Tom Dascele was an obstructionist and never had a bi-partican bone in his body. The dictomomy of America is changing. The focus is moving away from the liberal views that gained their footage in the sixties anbd have been growing. Americans see the garbage in the movies and on television and they are concerned how it is affecting their children. They see the court system trying to overthrough the Constitution and they don't like it. They see gay marriage being forced on them and they aren't ready for it. That watch and see gays portrayed and nice and normal while people with any Christian values are portrayed as blundering idiots and evil. They've had enough and they've spoken.

I really don't believe that most of us are expecting the liberals to simply sit down and shut up. We would like if they'd stop whining so much and start working with us so that we can find a common ground to move forward. The problem with the other side is that they absolutely can not imagine that they might possibly be wrong. Therefore, as I have learned all to well in these blogs, they will say and do anything to prove their point. Even if that means making things up. While I don't want to believe it, I can't help but feel that somewhere in D. Jones twisted logic, there is hope that they prediction made in the 9:43 blog will happen and they will be happy.

I believe the country will be more secure. I belive that jobs will increase and I believe the economy will get stronger. I trust the President's policies, a lot of informed people agree. You think his policies are bad, there are some who agree with you. In four years, I really belive that, if the Democrats continue with their vendetive voices, more Americans will see the destructive and devisive path they want for America and they will continue to shift away from the Democratic Party. It's not because they are ignorant, as Jones and Able want us to believe, it's because the Democratic Party has left them.

We need to understand that there are some Democrats and some Republicans who don't care about the middle class and are only interested in the corporate world. It's not just a Republican problem. But it's important to remember that the corporate world drives the economy, creates the jobs we need and provides the healthcare (something that to many people think the President does). There is corruption in the corrporate world but all of them are not evil. All the Prsident can do is generate policy that rewards positive action and punishes negative action in the corporate world.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 5, 2004 11:38 AM

Wayne you are proof that enough is enough! You want an appology because Bush wone and you think you were personaly attacked? I do not know you from Adam and could care less about if you think your feelings were hurt.

We need to put the partisan attacks aside and TRY to get along the next four years if we can. Time will tell if the choice that was made was correct or not lets wait and see! We have to try and move this country forward! THis country is facing some very tuff times ahead and it would not be any differnet if was Kerry that got elected.

Put your ego aside, the election is over and helping to heal this country instead of crying about people taking your view differnet and disagreeing with you as personal!

I have a strong feeling that it would be someone like you that wants appology's!

Yes, my feelings for Bush have not changed, I dont trust him but I will try my best to be supportive as an American can be. I am upset that he wone, but I respect the fact that he did.

Time will tell if the country was right by electing him. God help us! Please that is my gut feeling!

So Wayne if I hurt your we little feelings I am sorry! So lets move on!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 5, 2004 12:02 PM

Wayne you know what about all of the Liberal jabs and hate comments from the like of you and some others. You are the first to ask for an appology! Differences exist and people make comments that they should have not have made about one onother on more than one time in this blog, I dont want an appology and I dont feel any different about Bush and I am not going to appologise for anything I said about him, nor will I expect any from you about your comments about Kerry!

Get over Wayne!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 5, 2004 12:06 PM

Wayne so you know what exactly I am! I am not part of the extreme left as you put it! I am more moderate and possibly conservative on more issues than you. I live in a very conservative community of 56000 people that is two thirds republican. I have held public office here for twelve years as a Democrat. I do not think I would have been re-elected 3 times if I was an extreme leftist! I have been called by many more conservative than many republicans here if anything. My roots are Democrat and my beliefs are not liberal. I am a fiscal conservative, more so than Bush and half of the Republican Congress, I am a devote Orthodox Christian with strong moral and family values. I attend church each Sunday with my wife and four children. I am a Democrat! How is that Wayne?

So get off your high horse and get over it! Just because people like Bush wear there religions on their sleeve do not make them better than anyone else. Actions and deeds speak louder than words where I come from, we will see if Bush's actions and deeds follow his claims!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 5, 2004 12:22 PM

Abel,
Why don't you look into the past for the Democratic heritage? You wrote "I would really hate to see our party forget its Liberal and Progressive heritage." How soon you forget. The Democratic party in the early 1900's through the 1950's was anything but liberal and progressive. They ruled the south. The Democrats were the ones who were fighting against CIVAL RIGHTS, not for it. They were called Dixiecrats and were truely hated.

I am a REPUBLICAN and I am not for millionairs, but you know that's like the pot calling the kettle black. Which two candidates had more wealth? Was it Bush/Cheney or Kerry/Edwards? Give me a break. I am a hard working former Marine who loves my country and was and am still willing to give my life for it. I am not wealthy, in fact I have bill collectors calling me every day, but that is my fault for over-extending my credit. I am to blame and I will fix the problem. I did see my income go up during the Bush presidency by 27K. That's 17K more than 8 years under President Clinton. I like what he has done for this country, I like the way he is willing to defend it from terrorism and as I have said before. The loss of life in Iraq is sad indeed, but it is still below 1% of the total personnel who served over there. In a military engagement the acceptable rule is 10% loss of life. We haven't even come close to that and will most likely never get there. We lost more people in 1 hour storming the beaches at Normandy. The men and women serving in Iraq support the President 9 to 1. They believe in what he is doing and are upset with the press coverage back here in the US. It's not nearly as bad as the press makes it seem.

So why don't you and d. jones just get off you're whining butts and at least try and clear the air, put the past behind you and look forward to a new future.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at November 5, 2004 02:22 PM

This post is something for which I will probably be criticized. It is not sour grapes. I wish Mr. Bush success on the one hand, but I don't expect much on the other. During the past election cycle, I tried to think of something that I would consider to be a major accomplishment. Jim Rodkey mentioned the Bush education reform. But yet, I have read the negatives about that, too. I was not able to think of any significant accomplishments for Mr. Bush.

I believe what is happening in this country is truly the vaunted cultural war. I read about the disgust with the Hollywood crowd, but I have to chuckle about this because I wonder how many of the people complaining about Hollywood still go and see the latest flick. I haven't seen a movie in years. I agree that a lot of what we call entertainment appeals to our crudest senses. Personally, I don't pay to see garbage. If there is garbage on TV, I don't watch it (unless its FOX news from which I get some laughs!) We encourage this junk. So, I have to say that as Americans, we need to show some decency when it comes to entertainment. What we allow to be presented to Americans is also presented around the world and it gives foreigners reasons to be negative toward America. This is not a call to government censorship, but a call to self-censorship. Why can't entertainment be more like it was in the 1960's? I still watch repeats of television from that time period because it was done so well. I still laugh at episodes that I have seen several times. We are causing our own problems.

But..., on the political side, we need to be very concerned about a government that seems to be intent on taking some of our personal freedoms away from us. I posted a question about gun control recently that no one responded to. The NRA wants Americans to think that our government will take all weapons away from gun owners, which just makes these members so damn mad that they will consistently vote for the Republican presidential candidate who always mirrors the NRA position. But yet, we had a Republican administration that was taking away some of our personal freedoms through the Patriot Act. Why is it more important to have guns, but not important if we lose some of our other more relevant and important personal freedoms? I don't believe for one minute that our government, regardless of which party occupies the White House, would try to take the guns that hunters use away from them. The concern is automatic weapons, and rightfully so. Why is it that we, as Americans, feel it is necessary to posess automatic weapons? For what are they needed? I really wish that someone would provide a sane answer to this question.

I am a centrist Democrat and I don't see myself switching parties because of any election loss. I have more gumption than that and I would rather fight to change the Democratic party from within. Like Abel, I agree that the Republican party is more inclined to help the upper classes. Anything below the upper classes will be thrown some crumbs to make them feel like they are getting something. The crumbs that the average American received from the Republican party this past election cycle was a small tax return (of which I didn't even get one) and some moral issues propaganda that only further divides Americans. There is a group of people within the country that sees it as their duty to force their opinions on moral issues on the remainder of the population. This is not an issue of presenting their case and allowing you to choose. It is an issue of telling you that you have to follow without a choice. That is a dangerous proposition to all Americans. Like it or not, we are a country of many different ideas, peoples, and cultures, etc. I believe in self-control and its not easy at times. I don't need the moral police telling me what is right or wrong. This situation would be no better than what occurs in Saudi Arabia today. They have a group of people who watch their population to encourage moral discipline. Punishment is given on the spot by the morals police against those that they believe have broken rules of morality. That is not the way that I believe America should be governed.

Also, I agree with Abel on the idea that the Democratic Party was founded as a progressive party. I disagree that anyone who feels that the party needs to be more balanced is no better than a Republican. Time changes things and unless a political party is willing to change with the times, the party will become irrelevant. I think that there are plenty of issues that the Democrats can support and strive for that the Republican party will not. That will be the differentiator. The Democrat party is truly a party of many different faces. The Republican party is the party of mainly white America. I find that interesting as a white male. The white American population is circling their wagons in the Republican party to protect their interests. I understand why this is happening, but one must acknowledge that our country is a mix of many different races. Trying to ignore this fact puts us in peril. Why can't everyone be treated the same regardless of race? Are all Americans not worthy of this? Opportunity for everyone will only make America a safer (and better) place.

I big issue in this election, at least in some states, was the issue of sexual orientation. Homosexuals have been among the population for ages. Many people seem to believe that homosexuality is choice. I think that it is probably biological in nature. What concerns me is that homosexuals are the population that is still looked upon as second class citizens. I agree that many homosexuals present homosexuality in a way that is so bizarre. That only defeats their cause. I know homosexual people who are just like anybody else except that they prefer their own sex when it comes to intimacy. What is sad is that many of these people live a life of confusion and shame because people cannot accept them for who they are. People need to be reminded that God watches the way we treat people, even the ones that you do not agree with and may even despise (that is another issue). We all will be judged when we die and I suspect that God will question us on our negative treatment of other groups like blacks, Jews, homosexuals, etc. that are different from us. Please keep that in mind the next time your are tempted to have negative thoughts about some other group. These thoughts may just be prejudice that you have disguised as some other concern.

One final thought for now. Many Democrats believe in God, too. It is insulting to me for anybody else to say otherwise. Republicans do not have a lock on God. God is above politics, in my opinion, so don't delude yourself.

Posted by: JM at November 5, 2004 02:32 PM

I just wanna take a moment to brag. hahaha.... 55 to 44 senate seat majority. A 30+ seat majority in the House. More Conservative Supreme Court, and Federal Judges...... 44 of 50 state legislations.... Tom Daschle got whipped... 1 more Republican governor, in an already Republican controlled Govenors Association... Life is good... 337,000 new jobs created last month... 20,000 more in september than previously thought....Life is great...

I feel sorry for Abel and D. Jones. Living in a world of denial and mistrust.... Bush recieved a mandate to pursue his conservative agenda... and by golly, I personally can't wait till I can take my social security and invest it myself into collective tech stocks and long term government high income trusts... I can't wait till Bush lowers sends his next tax cut through in late 2005 (as I've been told by the 2nd ranking US senator McConnel will total $700 billion over 6 years...and reduce taxes across the board, revise capital gain taxes, and remove entirely the marriage penalty).... Life is good...

Posted by: Conservatism at November 5, 2004 03:02 PM

Louis,
You hold a political office somewhere? Why can't you spell then? This is truly scary that someone who mispells won, not wone, can be in charge of anything.

You are an "orthdox christian"? Is this why you advanced a theory that Bush is the anti-christ? Let's get real here. You are no conservative.

I don't have anything against liberals, it is the extreme liberals and the extreme conservatives that bother me. You need to get a clue, and don't let the people of fantasy land know how you really feel or you will not be re-elected the all and pwerful Oz next time. The lollipop kids will vote you out.

Posted by: Wayne at November 5, 2004 04:27 PM

Abel,
You will never get it, will you? You have heard the people of America loud and clear and still do not get what they are saying.

Let me translate for you, We are a conservative nation that will back down to no one and nothing. We are strong and confident, we hold our moral and family values high and want someone to protect them.

Any trouble you have in understanding this, let me know and I will help you. This is my compasionate side and in my adopt a liberal program, I have chosen you.

Posted by: Wayne at November 5, 2004 04:40 PM

Louis,
Being as proud as you are of the office you hold, why don't you tell everyone exactly where this office is and what it entails. If you are so conservative you have no fear of being voted out next time around, right? If you are so loved in a republican community let them know what you really think and let them vote for you next time around.

My thoughts? You will not tell anyone what office you hold because you either do not hold any office or you know you will get voted out if they find out what you are really about.

I have never jabbed at a true liberal, I have only attacked those that have attacked me first, and they have been on the extreme left, like yourself.

Posted by: Wayne at November 5, 2004 04:45 PM

Democrats,
Take back your party and oust the extreme left. They are destroying your noble cause. I am speaking to true open minded and open hearted democrats who I beleive are true patriots. Don't let the likes of M.Moore, Al Sharpton and such ruin your fine party. You have hope in Barak Obama, Joe Lieberman and others that want to move the country forward no matter who is the architect.

If the democrats were to offer someone like Barak Obama, they may even get my vote.

Take back your party!

Posted by: Wayne at November 5, 2004 04:49 PM

I'm slowly beginning to feel that the liberal idea of compromise means do it their way or else. They really don't seem to understand that we both have to give a little in a compromise. While we extend the hand of peace to the other side of the aisle, it seems were getting a lot of hateful responses. Not only do they seem to think that all Americans have to do it they way they want it done, they are sore losers as well. Apparently grace and dignity are not on the Democrat agenda as well.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 5, 2004 05:55 PM

Hey all, I know I stopped contributing a while back, but I kept reading, and I kept laughing. Good luck and take care, and GO W!!!! wooohooo!!!!

Posted by: Rick OH at November 5, 2004 05:57 PM

Hey guys,
It's been a fun ride. Luck to you all. Wayne, once again, congratulations! Due to the new Florida Equal Voting Rights Act {FERVA}, now that the migrant citrus workers and whole cemetary plats are registered Democrats, you can register your little one too. Hey, if it works for Pince de Leon... . Jeb will appreciate it two years from now.
To the Band of Brothers (D): (aka the former 'Axis of Idiocy', but now that Bush won, I'm feeling more charitable) You have posted sincerely and from the heart, and even if we disagree, I will never fault anyone for their viewpoint. If it happens to be wrong, well, I tried to straighten you out. We each have our interest and stake in the election, and Kerry supporters had something to lose. Well, I hope it won't be much. Politics is like religion- 99.44% we can agree on, but it's the other 0.65% that causes all the holy wars (and recounts) in history. Oh, and d., give us your first name so we know whether you ride sidesaddle or not. It's a mystery to otherwise plague the rest of us for the rest of our born days. Your comments are worthy of captaining an editorial column. You could be the next Howard Stern of politics. JM and Abel can join you and form a syndicated newsletter called 'the Lost and Disenfranchised'. JM could be Capitol Hill hairstyle fashion consultant, and Abel can track organized crime er, I mean, union lobbiest group activities.
As for me, it probably wouldn't have made a great deal of difference who won, as when it comes right down to it, the Presidency is the elected babysitter to Congress where the laws concerning domestic policy is concerned. I just happen to put a lot more investment in charecter and morality in the candidate, and that is what was Kerry's downfall. Turns out the swiftvets made a difference not by discrediting Kerry, but by challenging his integrety, which is a far different thing altogether. People only looked closer at Kerry by what the Swiftvets said, and made their own decisions. Kerry's reaction shows he is not cool under fire- and voters watched his reactions and rantings about the little inconsequentials and wondered what response another attack would bring. Kerry is transparent; you can just see it in his eyes when he feels he is being backed into a corner, and the voters sensed this. Or so all the 5th quarter quarterbacks tell us. Vulnerability like that is just a gilded invitation to terrorists, and Kerry would threaten our national security by his personal vulnerabilities. I am glad he will rermain a junior mis-representitive for Massachusetts. Next time maybe the democrats will make a better choice. Seems every time they forward a candidate (Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry) they end up scraping the bottom of their barrel every time. And that's no way to run an asylum. ;)

Posted by: Dave at November 5, 2004 07:05 PM

Wayne, you are right in seeking an apology. Ufortunately, the Band of Brothers are not the compassionate, caring, respectful citizenry they proclaim themselves to be. Forgiveness is a sign of weakness. They escoriate you when you dare suggest they have been less than civil. As they have us all.
Let's turn the tables and imagine something here. What would they be saying if the Winter Protestor HAD been elected? Would they be a tenth as conciliatory as they have been acrimonious? You need to look at the source. The liberal mindset is preoccupied with its own discontent and perceived victimization. That is why my brother in law, a surly, disenfranchised union man on the Union Pacific will spend endless hours shuttling 100 miles between Milwaukee and Portage in non-paid union activism while my sister needs to be tended by neighbors. His abuse has made a sweet quiet spirit a danger to herself and others, and he denies his lack of support now and abuse back then instigated her bi-polar disorder. Am I blaming unions? Liberals? No, of course not. Shameful and ridiculous to even imply it. But it is all about himself, the union activism, and the job, and not about his family. He is using his own energies in destructive ways to justify his disenfranchisement. It is self-perpetuating, and lays waste to those things around him that should get in the way. Like my sister. So while I add my prayer that the wounds of divisiveness will heal, for some it is not in their best interest to do so.
I have found the Band of Brothers' comments very revealing here. I ask you all to ask yourself this as your own judge and jury, and be honest with yourself- how are you viewed by your neighbors, in your community? Sullen, mean, withdrawn? More pointedly, how do the neighborhood children charecterize you? Is your house the one sought out, or is it avoided by trick or treaters, or you are known not to participate in such silly neighborhood activities? Whose fault is that? And is not ridiculing someone who has fairly pointed out your inconsiderate and demeaning behavior a sealing testimony of your own self-loathing malcontent being outsiders, always looking in from outside, observing yet uninvited? It is the Brothers' attitude here that is the key. That attitude has destroyed other peoples sanity. I have seen it. It has destroyed families, I have seen it. It has destroyed and will destroy the civil discourse, because it is an attitude of disenfranchisement, not of unity. An attitude of seperation rather than concensus. Embracing this attitude is a choice of concious will, so if they are feeling disenfranchised, they have no one to blame but themselves. Don't look to them for anything. Their riudicule of you, and me, and everyone on this site is misdirected self-ridicule. Their hate of the world and all that is good, and uplifting, and hopeful, and aspiring is only a self confession of hurt and shame. Such hateful people steeped in self-loathing are to be pitied that they can only see me and you as they see themselves. They have made enemies of themselves, and it is impossible to hold another person in higher esteem than they hold themselves. The most tragic thing of all? This is their choice. As much as they may hate others and themselves, it was and remains their choice. More power to them anywhere other than the ballot box, or we will be dragged down into the dark misery they have chosen for themselves. Which is, after all the way they want it. Don't get sucked in. They've made their choices, now they can live with them. Alone.

If any of you 'brothers' respond in kind, (as I know you will), to this post, you will only prove my point. Save it for yourself.

Posted by: Dave at November 5, 2004 08:42 PM

Louis,
I forgot to ask you to tell your constituents thank you for making the Bush re-election possible. If it were not for the large republican town you live in he may have lost.

Thanks for working for Bush!

Posted by: Wayne at November 5, 2004 11:12 PM

If Republicans are the party of White America, why does George Bush have more ethnic diversity in his cabinet than any other President. Haven't you paid attention. Support for the President rose in all minorities, that means Democrats lost some of these people. The Dems don't seem to want to stop and ask themselves why? You claim that the Democratic Party is a voice for all People, yet when was the last time you heard a Democrat at the Convention speak who is Pro-life. You won't because they aren't. Yet, on the other hand you criticize Republicans as being narrow minded. Did you even watch the Republican Convention? Speakers from diverse enthnicty and diverse positions on many subjects.

It is because of the liberal Democratics unwillingness to compromise on anything that this country is divided. It's been divided for a long time. If you understand that the Congress and the Senate is the legislative body then you must understand that Congress and the Senate put laws into action. Dems love looking at the Clinton years while ignoring the the fact that Republicans control those legislative bodies and it was their willingness to work with the President that allowed policy change to make smooth transition. We have seen four years of filibustering on the part of the Democrats and it's likely we'll see four more years but people are watching. More people are paying attention and the more they seen Democrats playing politics while the Republicans try and effect a change for this country the more they will continue to move away from the Democratic Party.

I keep reading the mocking of religion and values in these blogs. Keep it up, and watch the numbers grow in the Republican ranks. Understand this! 86 percent of the American people profess faith. The more the Democrats run from faith and embrace the liberal left and the likes of Michael Moore, the more voters will consider changing parties. Democrats talk about social programs, Republicans do something about it. Democrats continually challenge the constitution, while Republicans support it. The Democratic Party of John Kennedy is almost gone and they've become a part of the Republican Party because Republicans have made it clear that there is no subject that can't be discussed as America continues to grow and as we discuss we learn, me make necessary adjustments and move forward embracing, not trashing traditional values while finding ways to make things work for those who feel they are outside the system. There's a lot of Republicans out there, myself included, that don't have a problem with Civil Unions for gays with full rights of a married couple, but the institution of marriage is a sacred bound between a man and a woman. There are a lot of Republicans, myself included again, that feel that abortion laws need to be changed to protect the life of the innocent. In cases of rape, incest and physical harm to the mother, consideration needs to be made but the wholesale slaughter of innocent children is not a choice, it's murder of the most helpless citizens of this world who have no voice of their own to speak with.

Most Republicans think big government is a mistake. To much money gets bogged down in the administration. In the past, over 40% of all monies given to education and welfare reforms went to administration costs, not directly to those in need. We need reforms but the Progressive Idea of replacing programs that don't work with new programs that don't work isn't very Progressive. Republicans, being more conservative, understand that change is good but we move forward cautiously. We allow studies and test groups and when we see evidence of something that will work, like No Child Left Behind and faith-based intiatives, we move forward. There's been a lot of whining about the funding lacking in No Child Left Behind. Nobody stops to ask why some schools aren't getting the funds. It's because they are being held accountable to what they do with the money and when they don't produce, they don't get the funds. Accountability, the central themes of every Republican policy. If women and men were more accountable, there wouldn't be a need for abortion on demand. If people who could get out and work would, welfare wouldn't be the mess that it is. If tax codes were reformed to entice employers to provide healthcare, keep jobs in America and invite all Americans to invest in their own future, we wouldn't have problems with healthcare, jobs and social security. Accountability, look it up, you might not find it in the liberal dictionary but it's in every Traditional, conservative and Republican dictionary.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 6, 2004 04:30 AM

I am impressed that this site was 100% accurate in showing how each state was voting. It appears that conventional wisdom was incorrect and the undecideds went to Bush which had they chosen Bush at this site the % Bush won by would even be 100% accurate. I am glad it is over and I am glad that I voted for Bush even though I didn't vote for him in 2000.

Posted by: Jeanette at November 6, 2004 08:20 AM

By the way, I am not directing my last post at specific people, just those spiteful ones with the attitude problem. The guilty ones know who they are, and their posts reflected it- not staying on the issues, always slapping down people instead of their ideas. That is what I am referring to. Those who are offended and are guilty of the attitude I outlined, well, now you know how it feels. What goes around comes around.
This is Dave Little and I approve this election. :)

Posted by: Dave at November 6, 2004 02:58 PM

The Democratic party has lost its direction trying to be everything to everybody. This election came down to basic values & convictions. John Kerry may have values but tried to hide them and showed no convictions on the major issues of the day. Bush won more votes by standing on his principals and convictions and was not swayed when it looked like it was unpopular. If the Democratic party wants to win find a canidate that stands for something and will standby his/her convictions

Posted by: wpnsgy at November 6, 2004 06:19 PM

Dave:

You comments are pathetic. You are right, I won't bother because your comments aren't worth any more response than what I have already given.

Posted by: JM at November 6, 2004 06:50 PM

I have a funny feeling that Louis from Canton Ohio will not tell us what kind of office he holds. The reason is he does not have any faith in his beleifs.

Speak up Louis, what political office do you hold?

Posted by: Wayne at November 6, 2004 10:18 PM

My view regarding George W. Bush's election? First, I'm not confident that Bush really won the election.

Abel I read the first two sentences from this comment and immediately knew it was from you. If your not confident in our election system then does that mean we wont have to listen to your political views as you see them. You complained when Bush didnt get the majority of the vote in 2000. Now that Bush got the majority of the votes in 2004 you say that all of your candidates votes were not counted.

One thing that I do know is that I can't ever support a theocratic, lying politican who demonizes opponents during elections.

Abel if you do not want to support our president what this election has proven is that we do not need your support. Does this mean that you will not support America after Bush puts forth his agenda and makes it reality. You may not support it but you will have to get used to it.

They are about Republicans using a wholly owned subsidiary media to shape public perceptions of Democrats and "demonizing" our candidates regardless of their actual record or beliefs

Hey Abel Kerry had all the opportunities to state his record in the Senate during his convention and during the debates. He chose to ignore his record [for obvious reasons] and instead chose to attack Bushes policy.

Abel:Frankly, the truth is that I don't like the direction in which our country is heading.
Please note that my political beliefs don't require that anyone change his/her sex life, surrender their civil rights.

Abel this nation is on the wrong track when people such as the ACLU want to take God out of this country or they want to take the United States Flag and tell you that you do not have that right to fly the flag any way you choose. Are these the Liberals that you want to be associated with or are you saying you are a different kind of liberal .Dont worry Abel the gay marriage was turned down and hopefully abortion or a least partial birth abortion will be overturned and this nation will get back on track.

Posted by: Mike NY at November 6, 2004 10:38 PM

NOW IT'S TIME TO FIX WHATS BROKE. PRESIDENT BUSH HAS SET OUT AN AGENDA THAT WILL BE BOLD. NO OTHER ADMINISTRATION HAS SET OUT TO FIX THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS THAT WILL LEAVE OUR CHILDREN TAXED OUT OF ALL REASON. THE KID OF TODAY SHOULD NOT BE PAYING FOR US OLD FARTS TO THE DETRAMENT OF THEIR FUTURE FAMILIES. WE HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER TO SAVE S.S.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 7, 2004 01:42 AM

FROM NOW ON I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE WAR ON TERROR AND IRAQ ARE DIFFERENT THINGS. THE WAR ON TERROR REFERS TO ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD WHERE WE FIGHT TERRORISTS

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 7, 2004 01:44 AM

The Associated Press reported that a North Carolina Republican Headquarters was broken into and vandalized. This planned and orchestrated event began by 100 people wearing masks staging a protest march to distract a handful who broke into the headquarters to vandalize it. People, this is called terrorism. Anyone who uses this kind of violence to make a political point is a terrorist. The vote was cast and the President won, if you don't like the way America works, then try to change it through a legal process not an act of violence. It's just more proof of the intolerance of the so-called tolerant left.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 7, 2004 02:47 AM

Mike NY,
Do you really think that the hate mongers (Abel, d.jones, Louis and JM) are going to help heal this nation? They are just using this as a tool to pry America apart further. If Kerry won they would be yelling that we have to do things their way now.

I hope you aren't holding your breath for an apology or even compromise. It will not happen.

Thankfully most Americans are reasonable and tolerant and truly are patriotic as was shown on Nov 2nd.

I hope the TRUE democrats take back their party from the likes of M.Moorre and Abel, Al Sharpton and d.jones, Jesse Jackson and Louis, and lets not forget Al Gore and JM.

When the extreme liberals are completely out of power we will be able to heal our nation, with liberal, moderates and conservativers alike. Remember, not all liberals are bad, look at Joe Lieberman for example.

Keep up the good fight.

Posted by: Wayne at November 7, 2004 10:47 AM

I don't think liberals will ever understand what this country is about or what this election said to all elected officials. This was not only about moral values, but about common sense. We don't want the separation of Church and State taken to the extremes defined by the ACLU. We don't want "Under God" taken out of the constitution. We don't want the "Ten Commandments" removed from a courthouse. We don't want "Happay Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". We don't want liberal judges writing law and shoving people's sexual orientation down our throats. We all know Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and will ultimately fail if we don't do something soon. To deny it is stupid. We have had enough of 30 years of terrorist attacks not being dealt with properly. We have had enough of Political Correctness which only seems to apply if Republicans don't abide by the Liberal definition. We have had enough of being called religious nuts, or uneducated morons, or gun toting bible carrying wackos. I am a New Yorker and am not any of those things. We have had enough of liberals saying character doesn't matter, it most certainly does. We have had enough of the left wing hate and telling us there is something wrong with having morals and values. No there isn't. There is something wrong with a party who thinks Hollywood and sex drugs and Rock N Roll is what middle America is. What the hell do they know about Middle America, they all live in LaLa land. We have had enough of a corrupt UN who puts Sudan on the Human Rights Council and then claims there government is committing genocide. We have enough of corrupt Banana Republics, enough of corrupt European countries (France, Germany to be specific), All of who were on the take with the oil for food program. We have had enough of their holier-than-thou attitude when they are nothing but crooks. We have had enough of the Liberal medias condescending attitude towards anyone who doesn't think like they do. We have had enough of the so called all inclusive tolerant Democratic party who belitles and rants and raves about those who have a faith and doesn't agree with their platform. We have had enough of their lack of respect for the leaders of this country and the people who support them. I could go on and on but, to make a long story short - WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH AND ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE. ON NOVEMEBER 2ND, YOU HEARD US LOUD AND CLEAR FROM COAST TO COAST AND YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE FIELD OF RED FROM COUNTY TO COUNTY, NORTH AND SOUTH, EAST AND WEST, FROM SEA TO SHINING SEA. TAKE THAT EUROPE, TERRORISTS, HOLLYWOOD (ESPECIALLY MICHAEL MOORE), AND LIBERALS FAR AND WIDE. IN THE WORDS OF THEERZA H. KEERY - SHOVE IT.

Posted by: Sue at November 7, 2004 01:20 PM

JM- Sorry you feel that way. Atitudes can be changed, but not while they are still embraced.

Jim- excellent posts. It is odd how what Democrats decry and mock are what are perceived as charecter and values. The voting public have begun to really notice this, and that's why the Republican vision was embraced in the White House and in the halls of Congress. Kerry has done this country a great service by showing how desperate the Democrats are in trying to convert the world to their worldview by mocking everyone who doesn't agree with them. In contrast, the term 'big tent' only has been referred to in conjunction with the Republican party, because it doesn't matter what your personal beliefs are, because they are outside the bounds of public policy, and therefore a non-issue. If liberalism wouldn't treat their worldview as a religion and using legislation to convert others by force, they wouldn't find themselves marginalized and seen as extremists. Extremists are always in a minority. They have, so to speak, painted themselves into a corner.

Another factor I believe people caught on to is with Kerry himself. Most people have recognized that Kerry was talking the way he did in 1971- one phrase that he used recently outlining his policy in Iraq is 'establishing a timetable for withdrawl'. Sound familiar? It is not a new theme:
"I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to SET A DATE FOR WITHDRAWL the prisoners of war would be returned.
"I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that".
-- John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971.

Posted by: Dave at November 7, 2004 02:57 PM

Mike, I couldn't agree with you more on the wrong track question. I felt that more people were answering that question from the perspective that they thought the country was going in the wrong direction because of activist judges and an extreme leftist agenda to remove religion from public life completely. Those people felt that George Bush was trying to get the country back on the right track with a more sensible approach and those people helped to get him re-elected. The ACLU has the separation of Church and State Mantra memorized but they do so while ignoring that the Bill of Rights says that the government shall make no laws restricting nor promoting a religious view. For years they've been making laws restricting and now any attempt to take it back to where the country was is interpreted as making laws promoting. It's always been amazing to me that the ACLU people talk about Civil Rights and then do everything they can to deny the rights of those who are Civil while elevating those who seek to violate the law, disgrace religion and corrupt society through so-called art and literature all the while expecting the government to stay out of everything except the funding). Their idea of freedom is that the government should give out free welfare without asking about drug abuse or accountability. They think that pornography as art should have no restrictions and that the government should fully fund them. They fight for the rights of felons, people who have violated federal law, to vote. This is the wrong direction. Accountability is the right direction.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 7, 2004 08:10 PM

Yes, the Republicans won but what did they win? Do they think that the American people are going to unite once more like they were shortly after the 9/11 Terrorist attack in New York City and Washington DC? Well, forget it, that just won't happen. Like I previously said, George W. Bush cannot ever bring us together because he lied to us. We can never trust him again.

I attach the following POST by Debi Smith because she does such a good job at explaining why. She does a much better job than I ever could so I hope that you'll take the time to read her POST.

An Invitation to the Conservative Right from a Liberal Lefty
By Debi Smith
Ashland, Oregon

Contrary to the catchy heading of this letter, I actually rather disparage labels. For one, they really don't paint an accurate and complete picture of who an individual is. We're far more nuanced than that. Right? I could be wrong but I'd bet there's at least one area in your life where you might tend to be at least a little more liberal than conservative. I know I can admit the reverse. In fact I've been accused before of being a closet conservative. But labels shambles. They're like suffocating little boxes. They trap us and our thinking capabilities inside, and perhaps even worse, they create division. Division which is now being reflected in our families, friendships, communities, churches, places of work, and has become a widening chasm threatening to engulf our entire country...no matter what our labels read.

Perhaps the only way we can avoid disappearing into this chasm is to come together and begin dialoguing and listening to each other - compassionately. Not hysterically or with crazed, shrill, frantic voices. Let's leave that to the far left and right talking heads that get paid mass sums to rile us up. This is an invitation to the real people that make up this country. Not the pundits, pollsters, media, politicians, or the corporations that have bought and paid for all of them. No, this is an invitation to regular folk. To the moms, dads, grandparents, sons and daughters - of every color, social status, educational background, and belief system - who, in one unbelievably diverse and amazing tapestry, form the fabric of this great country. I'm almost certain that if we sat down in a room together and each made a list of the things most important to us, we'd find ourselves agreeing on many of them. But how often do we consider that? Perhaps this would be a good place to begin. Discovering what we agree on. What we tend to disagree on is how to go about achieving the things we believe in, a much bigger and inherently more difficult task yes, but one that's made easier by gaining a modicum of understanding into why we each believe the way we do. A task made easier by first recognizing our shared and incontrovertible beliefs, hopes, dreams, and desires. For example, I assume we would agree that we both want access to clean water? How about healthy air? Can you see where I'm headed?

But...before we discover what we agree on, a pressing question looms above all others and begs answering. There are close to 56 million people in this country (or more, if you take into account all the voting irregularities in Ohio alone), along with a large portion of the world citizenry, who are very confused and completely flabbergasted as to why you've just re-elected George W. Bush. If for no other reason than the fact he lied to you regarding Iraq. Not just one lie, but many. Saddam was not involved in 9/11. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States. There were no weapons of mass destruction. And to date, 1145 American Troops and 145 Coalition Troops have lost their lives fighting in this unjustifiable war.

I know you don't want to hear it, but many of us are also wondering about a seeming contradiction of yours. Why do you go around wringing your hands about the sanctity of all life but ignore the murder of thousands and thousands of innocent people in Iraq? Approximately 100,000 Iraqi civilians - men, women, children, grandparents - have been blown to bits by our precision smart bombs and administration lies. And why do you then, to top off this absurd contradiction, re-elect the very person responsible for the murder? If Jesus is someone you admire and look up to, can you imagine him supporting all the lies and bombing of thousands and thousands of innocent people whose only mistake was being born in the middle of the richest triangle of oil on the planet? And if you can't, could you please explain this contradiction? I hope you don't think this is just an angry diatribe. It's just that I can't wrap my head around it and maybe you can help me understand your reasoning. (And in case you think I'm 100% pro abortion, you'd be wrong. One of those nuances I mentioned.)

Okay, so there's one big question off my chest. But before I sign off, I'd like to ask just a few more questions...if you don't mind.

Why did you vote for a man who has the worst job creation/loss record since Herbert Hoover?

Why did you vote for a man who wants to take away your overtime pay?

Why did you vote for a man who doesn't care what kind of air you and your children breathe?

Why did you vote for a man who wants you to pay more for your prescription medications?

Why did you vote for a man who doesn't heed the warnings of scientists regarding global warming?

Why did you vote for a man who has been the worst steward of the land in presidential history?

Why did you vote for a man whose real interest seems to be pleasing his corporate financiers?

Why did you vote for a man who took the largest budget surplus ever and turned it into the largest deficit?

Why did you vote for a man who, in 2001, ignored specific and credible reports that an attack was eminent?

Why did you vote for a man, who at every turn, tried to block credible investigations into the 9/11 attacks?

Again, I must ask, why did you vote for a man who took this country to war on lies?

Why did you vote for a man who sends your children, ill-prepared, to that war and then cuts their benefits?

Why did you vote for a man who has so far spent between 145 and 200 Billion of your dollars on this war?

Why did you vote for a man whose friends are the happy beneficiaries of much of this money?

This is by no means a complete list of my questions, but it's a good start. Perhaps we can meet for coffee sometime, your place or mine, and you can help me understand why you've just re-elected George W. Bush. Then maybe over a second cup of coffee we can begin that list I mentioned. The one where we talk about our hopes and dreams for our children, and their children. About what sort of legacy and world we'd really like to leave them. Maybe from that place where we agree, we can gently move into the less agreeable areas with more respect for each other. We need to define our vision for America. You and I, the regular folks. If we don't, I fear the creaking jaws of the growing divide will one day open big enough to swallow us all. We owe ourselves, and all future generations, here and around the world, better than that.

Looking forward to the pleasure of your reply and hoping you'll take me up on that coffee.

Sincerely,
Debi Smith

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debi Smith - meal making, laundry washing, toilet swishing, bill paying, teen chauffeuring, hug giving, homeschooling, information gathering concerned American - writes from Ashland, Oregon, where she shares a home with her husband, two children, a cat, and a dog.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 7, 2004 08:14 PM

Louis,
I have looked for an elected official with your last name and could not find one. Your last name is Giavasis, isn't it? Or is this a lie in your other post? Come clean and tell us what office you claim to hold.

Posted by: Wayne at November 7, 2004 11:12 PM

Abel Why so bitter? We are both old timers if your post are correct. I have had to put up with the democrates as the majority party several times. Do you think I liked that? But my party did not act as obstructionests, they worked with the democrates tried to moderate them as good as a minority party can but did not philabuster. So stop and think, do you hold the american public in such contemp as to obstruct the refrom long needed for SS or tax law or needed judges. Stop and think about what your doing to the country when you spot such venum. I had to take it now its your turn. I lived through the dark days of democratic dominance you will live through this.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 8, 2004 03:11 AM

Abel,
You just posted someone eles's thoughts AGAIN, from a blue state. It is probabbly safe to say she is a far left person. You forgot to point out one important piece of information. Why you said she is from Oregon, you forgot to tell us that she does not have very far to move to Canada.

And you left out the article about the crazy man that shot himself because Bush won.

Posted by: Wayne at November 8, 2004 07:43 AM

Christopher,

I think you meant to reply to Able, not me. I know the election was fair, there is no way that this election could be contested. Any way I voted for President Bush, I think he is the next best thing to President Reagon.

Posted by: David Lowery at November 8, 2004 11:07 AM

Wayne, you are a miniscule legend in your own mind! Get off of it. Yes I am elected here in my home town. Here Bush won 4 years ago in my county and Wayne he lost this time with a total vote count 89,859 to 92,295.

It does not matter because he won the election and Ohio. You know I would be happy to let you know where I live. Canton, Ohio brother. You can check our web site www.plaintownship .com

As far a Bush being the anti Christ, that was something I pulled off a web site that I thought was funny and how far people will reach to make someone look bad. I did not call Bush the anti Christ and if you took it that way I sincerely apologize.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 8, 2004 01:30 PM

Abel-
Debi Smith - meal making, laundry washing, toilet swishing, bill paying, teen chauffeuring, hug giving, homeschooling, information gathering concerned American - writes from Ashland, Oregon, where she shares a home with her husband, two children, a cat, and a dog.

Is this part of the article, or an extemperanious attempt to lend credibility to her views? It isn't necessary. The presupposition that a person's opinion is not valid unless they have a string of doctorates, or in this case, a detailed assessment of the character, attitude and belief of a loving caring mother does not lend weight to her opinion. At the same time, it neither discredits her views either- a busy, involved mother primarily focused on hearth and home. It's like extolling the virtues of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and Cheetos because they are Bush's preferred lunch. Is Bush wrong because hot sour cream steak strip fajitas are REALLY the best lunch there is? Speaking of that, mine are getting cold...

Posted by: Dave at November 8, 2004 02:17 PM

Jim Rodkey:

It is only your opinion about why people feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. I believe that the reason Bush's low rating scores has much to do with why people feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. They are connected. For those people who you describe as being fustrated with the so-called liberal agenda, (more like an extreme right-wing agenda in my opinion), George Bush is their champion. I highly doubt that these people would rank Bush high in one survey and then say the country is headed in the wrong direction in another. That just doesn't make any sense. Bush can do no wrong in their eyes. He lead the country the past four years, so these people would have to say (if they truly support what he has done), that the country is headed in the right direction, wouldn't you think? To the other HALF of the country, his stewardship has been rather lousy. A 51% to 48% win does not a mandate make. It's barely a majority! George can bluster about his mandate, but I suspect that he is not going to have a pleasant 4 years. A lot of that will be due to his own doing. Now, before you start accusing me of wishing this on him, I don't. I would like our country to head in a positive direction. Since he is our elected President, he is the one that I expect to try to accomplish this. If he doesn't, he can't blame anyone else this time around. The buck stops at his door. Not that it matters, though, because he can't run again if he wanted to.

Abel: Thanks for the post from Debi Smith. So much of what she listed were the reasons why I could not vote for George Bush. The biggest reason, though, was that when I tried to think of any major accomplishment during his first administration, I couldn't think of one.

Posted by: JM at November 8, 2004 05:03 PM

Wayne:

In your post, you state that I am a Liberal. On the contrary, I am a moderate. Just because I haven't agreed with most of what you and your cohorts were posting, does not make me a liberal. I have more of a conservative streak than you will ever know. My politics have changed from extremely conservative to moderate because I chose to do so. I was disillusioned with conservative thought, especially the extreme right wing conservatism. I will never head in that direction again. I prefer the center and I have firmly planted myself there. So... please get over the labeling because you don't know me and I have not written anything on this blog that could pigeonhole me as a liberal. I don't adhere to the principles of communism nor socialism for that matter. I also don't support facism or any extreme right wing philosophies. I am also suspicious of much of the evangelical strains in Christianity, especially since they involve themselves so heavily in presidential politics. I stated the following at least twice before. If someone is born again and feels the necessity to change the world, then they are better off doing this through their church than through running a secular government. Politics corrupt and it is not unheard of for a "religious man" to become corrupted. A christian should frown on lies and politics is full of them.

Posted by: JM at November 8, 2004 05:17 PM

Wayne- try the local humane society. Is dogcatcher an elected official?
Arf!

Posted by: Dave at November 8, 2004 08:09 PM

Wayne, I am not afraid to speak up! You do not intimidate me nor do your repugnant ideologies. You can exalt with jubilation with the outcome of this election now in your petty accusations and insinuations of me and others that disagree with you. Go right ahead Wayne; criticize me or what ever you want, it is really funny reading exactly what you accuse me of doing while you do it yourself. You and your comments are incredulous and disingenuous. That is exactly the reason I am not Republican, people like you can call people names, put them down because they don’t embrace your parties views and at the same time criticize those people for doing the same thing. It is called hypocrisy Wayne and you are text book. I really look forward to reading more of your extrapolations. Wayne, please do not expect me to mollify you because of the supposed epiphany that has taken place within the Republican Party with some type of manifestation called George W. Bush. Wayne before you criticize me on my grammar or anything else I really believe you need to gain or posses an intuitive grasp of reality. This may be an illuminating discovery for yourself and the others like you that wish to continue to profess compassionate conservatism because I do not believe anything you have to say has any felicific qualities. I am sure I will be reading some more of your pedant vainglorious insight about our newly elected theocracy. Talk to you soon Wayne! It may take you a while to look up the meaning to some of these words to uderstand what I have said. But if anything Wayne it will be a learning experience for you.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 8, 2004 08:21 PM

Abel, the reason George Bush can't unite the country has little to do with him and everything to do with all the whining liberals who don't want to work towards a compromise and like you, are unwilling to come together for the good of the country. You keep saying he lied, I asked for proof, you never gave it and now you are still repeating the mantra. Get over it. Kerry lost because more Americans thought they couldn't trust him. I agree. If you can come together after a legal vote and accept the outcome, and then still insist on promoting you misguided version of the truth than I feel sorry for you and all others who WANT to see America divided by their unwillingness to conceed and their unwillingness to work together.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 8, 2004 08:44 PM

This POST is meant for those of you who "won" the 2,004 election for George W. Bush. Read the following POST and find out what you really won.

Me? I have admitted that we made a grave mistake to attack and invade a small nation that never, not even once, threatened us. George W. Bush speaks of others like Saddam Hussein as if they alone are "evil." I accept the fact that we also sometimes make mistakes and do evil deeds.

Personally, right now, I think we should bring our soldiers home. Continuing with all our killing in Iraq surely cannot be God's work. The POST follows:

Aggressive War: Supreme International Crime
By Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 09 November 2004

Associate United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal. In his report to the State Department, Justice Jackson wrote: "No political or economic situation can justify" the crime of aggression. He also said: "If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."

Between 10,000 and 15,000 U.S. troops with warplanes and artillery have begun to invade the Iraqi city of Fallujah. To "soften up" the rebels, American forces dropped five 500-pound bombs on "insurgent targets." The Americans destroyed the Nazzal Emergency Hospital in the center of town. They stormed and occupied the Fallujah General Hospital, and have not agreed to allow doctors and ambulances go inside the main part of the city to help the wounded, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The battle of Fallujah promises to be far more shocking and aweful than the bombardment of Baghdad that kicked off Operation "Iraqi Freedom" in April 2003. A senior Marine Corps surgeon warned that casualties will surpass any level seen since the Vietnam War.

There have already been 100,000 "excess" Iraqi deaths since Bush launched his first strike on Iraq 18 months ago - that is, above and beyond those killed by Saddam Hussein, sanctions, U.S. bombings, and disease, all put together, in the 15 months prior to the invasion.

A study published by the Lancet found that the risk of death by violence for Iraqi civilians is now 58 times higher than before Bush began to liberate them in April 2003.

Bush's war on Iraq is a war of aggression. "Aggression is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this definition," according to General Assembly Resolution 3314, passed in the wake of Vietnam.

The only two situations where the UN Charter permits the use of armed force against another state is in self-defense, or when authorized by the Security Council. Iraq had not invaded the U.S., or any other country, Iraq did not constitute an imminent threat to any country, and the Security Council never sanctioned Bush's war. Bush and the officials in his administration are committing the crime of aggression.

Virtually every Western democracy has ratified the treaty of the International Criminal Court, except the United States. Bush knows that the Court will prosecute leaders for the crime of aggression. Mindful that he and his officials could become defendants, Bush renounced the Court, and extracted bilateral immunity agreements from more than 80 countries.

This year, however, Bush unsuccessfully sought to ram through the Security Council an immunity resolution that would exempt U.S. personnel from the Court's jurisdiction. But shortly after the photographs of U.S. torture of Iraqi prisoners emerged, the Council refused to put its imprimatur on preferential treatment for the United States.

Bush knows that the Court will also punish war crimes. Pursuant to policies promulgated by Bush and Rumsfeld, U.S. forces have engaged in widespread torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Bush admitted in his 2003 State of the Union address that he had sanctioned summary executions of suspected terrorists.

Torture, inhuman treatment, and willful killing are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, treaties ratified by the United States. Grave breaches of Geneva are considered war crimes under our federal War Crimes Act of 1996. American nationals who commit war crimes abroad can receive life in prison, or even the death penalty if the victim dies. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, a commander can be held liable if he knew or should have known his inferiors were committing war crimes and he failed to prevent or stop them.

The first U.S. attack on Fallujah, last April, killed 900-1000 people, mostly noncombatants. It was conducted in retaliation for the killing and mutilation of the bodies of four Blackwater Security Consulting mercenaries. Collective punishment against an occupied population for offenses committed by others also violates the Geneva Conventions.

Bush has sought to cover his crimes by putting an Iraqi face on his brutal war. The New York Times reported: "Thousands of Iraqi troops have moved into position with their American counterparts and are expected to take part ... American soldiers are to do most of the fighting on the way in, clearing the way for the Iraqi security forces to take control once the insurgents are defeated. With this method, Iraqi and American leaders hope for the best of both worlds: American muscle and an Iraqi face."

If Bush were a student of history, he would realize that Iraqization, like Vietnamization, will fail to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

Working hand-in-glove with the U.S. government, interim puppet prime minister Iyad Allawi helped to soften up the rebels by declaring martial law throughout most of Iraq. His authority came from legislation the human rights minister characterized as "very similar to the Patriot Act of the United States." It enables Allawi to conduct extensive surveillance, impose cordons and curfews, limit freedom of movement and association, and freeze bank accounts and seize assets.

"Iraqi confidence in the interim government has plummeted in recent months as the insurgency in Falluja and elsewhere has gained in strength and lethality," according to The New York Times.

And although foreign Islamic extremists have joined the fight, most resisting the American occupation are Iraqi. "Didn't the Americans bring with them the British and the Italians?" asked Suhail al Abdali. "Well, we have multinational forces, too," he said wryly. Then al Abdali added, "They will pay the price with the blood of American sons who came to occupy Iraq. They won't take Fallujah unless they fight street to street, house to house."

Twenty-six prominent Saudi scholars and preachers wrote in an open letter to the Iraqi people: "The U.S. forces are still destroying towns on the heads of their people and killing women and children. What's going on in Iraq is a result of the big crime of America's occupation of Iraq." They stressed that armed attacks by militant Iraqi groups on U.S. troops and their allies in Iraq represent "legitimate resistance."

"The attack on Fallujah is an illegal and illegitimate action against civilians and innocent people," said the Association of Muslim Scholars, an influential Sunni clerics group. "We denounce this operation which will have a grave consequence on the situation in Iraq," declared spokesman Mohammed Bashar al-Faidhi.

Baghdad University political science professor Salman al-Jumaili warns, "What happens in Fallujah will spread out across other Sunni cities, including Baghdad." Al-Jumaili expects the Fallujah offensive will spin out of control, with fighting hop-scotching from one town to the next.

A senior U.S. diplomat agrees. "I would never tell you that violence in Sunni areas won't get worse when you open up a battle," he told the Los Angeles Times, on condition of anonymity.

Following the Holocaust, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing . . . to initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Bush's aggressive war against the people of Iraq promises to kill many more American soldiers and untold numbers of Iraqis. Nuremberg prosecutor Justice Jackson labeled the crime of aggression "the greatest menace of our times." More than 50 years later, his words still ring true.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marjorie Cohn, a contributing editor to t r u t h o u t, is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists.
-------

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 9, 2004 01:00 AM

Name a time when Americans were 'united', pre-9/11? Bush got a majority of the votes this year. The first time a president has done that in 1988. Clinton didn't. Not in 1992, nor in 1996. Gore didn't in 2000. Bush did in 2004. Remember that! The senate is in FIRM control of the Republicans now. 55-44 (1 democratic leaning indy from Dean Country) The house is in FIRM control of the Republicans, by 30+ seats. The courts are in the control of conservatives by a 5-4 margin, and most likely 6-3 by 2008. The federal courts are in control of conservatives. 44 of 50 state legislations are controlled by republicans. The majority of the governorships are in control of Republicans. The subcommittees and committees are in control of Republicans. The military is in control of Republicans, and they voted nearly 4-1 in favor of Bush according to several large polls. The list goes on...... If the conservative agenda is wrong for you, then there's a LOUD majority of Americans that disagree, or else Republicans wouldn't control everything in the country. I hate to think that you're turning a blind eye to the wants of this nation, and calling the 60 million strong... wrong. This nation begs for leadership, they voted it into office all across our land on Nov. 2nd. Don't forget that....

The headline is still unchanged: Bush leads!

Posted by: Conservatism at November 9, 2004 01:07 AM

JM, I stated it was my opinion when I posted my thoughts on the wrong direction issue. I am also aware that there are a lot of others who believe the way I do. To be fair, when the question is asked simply as do you think the country is headed in the right or wrong direction, you are going to get a lot of people saying the wrong direction for a lot of different reasons. I was polled before the election by two different polling groups, both times I rated Bush high and then answered wrong direction to right/wrong answer. If you go back over the history of the Bush Presidency you will see a similar trend in the right/wrong direction question even when the President was in the 80's in the approval rating.
My point is simple, there are activist judges who are attempting, at every chance they get to quiet the voice of the majority and overturn state and federal laws and constitution. These activist judges operate from a liberal bias. Many Democrats are now pointing to Newsome's decision to allow Gay Marriage in San Francisco as a defining moment in the loss of John Kerry because people saw the country going in the wrong direction. I saw the President three times in Pennsylvania and all three times he got the loudest applause when he spoke of frivilous lawsuits and activist judges. Again, a sign that the people supported the President and had hopes he would take us back on the right direction. Poll after poll is showing that voter turnout had a lot to do with a concern for values again supporting a believe that the President will take the country back in the right direction supporting more traditional values.

One more time-How many times do we all have to say that we thought that President Bush made mistakes but still thought that he was the better of the two candidates? Bush can do wrong, Bush has done wrong. But even with the mistakes, I still believe that he makes a better President that John Kerry. The problem was the opponent for most of us. Many of us would have considered Dick Gebhard or Joe Lieberman. I certainly would have, especially Joe Lieberman. He was tough on the terrorist and has a more centrist view of most issues, which I believe is critical in helping support the unity of this country but he can't get his party to support him because he isn't liberal enough.

It seems to me that the Democrats aren't willing to learn from their mistakes. Thinking of replacing Terry Mcauliffe with Howard Dean has to be a joke. They aren't really serious are they. That's not a step forward, that's taking major steps backward.

I agree with you that the President isn't going to have an easy 4 years. He's made a lot of major promises and he's going to be expected to live up to them. He's also going to be expected by the Republican Party to lay the groundwork for a successful campaign for a relatively unknown future Republican Candidate for the Presidency since Dick Cheney isn't going to run. This will be a chance for the Democrats to show that they have the best interest of the country at heart and that's NOT Hillary Clinton. They will have to come with a candidate that is more centrist in their views and one who doesn't have the checkered past of someone like John Kerry. I don't see that happening from all the rhetoric and division within their own party.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 9, 2004 01:34 AM

Louis,
I visited the site you provided and saw your picture. Your a handsome guy.

With that being said, your big words do not make you any smarter. I may not know what every one of them mean but I get their point. You may think you can confuse me with big college words and intimidation techniques, but I assure you it will not work.

Back when we first started to post to each other, I beleive it was you and your buddies that started the mud throwing with me. I have treated people with the same respect they have shown me. All I have asked for is an apology and in return have given one for anything that was said out of line.

You have not given an apology to anyone you have insulted and yet you call yourself a leader? You do not know the meaning of that word. You state you have been elected and re-elected to a trustee position. I am sure this is an important position to hold in your community and I respect you for it. I also respect the fact that you let me get a hold of your e-mail address through the web site you provided and will not stoop to the level of sending you stupid e-mails.

Can we put this behind us? All you need to do is apologize and we are off to the races. I apologize for anything that I said that was out of line. It is now up to you. All it takes is a sincere "I am sorry" on your part.

Let's see your compassionate liberal side.

Posted by: Wayne at November 9, 2004 08:14 AM

Jim Rodkey:

I don't believe Howard Dean is the right choice either. As far as Hilary Clinton is concerned, I don't know why people are so against her. I don't think she is as left of center as others want you to believe. Sometimes serving in public office makes you move more toward the center to keep the majority happy. I believe that she has done that. I would prefer a different Democratic candidate for 2008. One choice would be Senator Joe Biden from Delaware. Although I really like Joe Lieberman, I don't think that he could win against a charismatic opponent. But I would vote for him if he were to run.

Posted by: JM at November 9, 2004 11:49 AM

Abel, What was illegal was the senseless slaughter of ove a million people under Saddam Hussein. The attack on Fallujah is not an illegal conflict because it is being supervised by the now current government in Iraq to rid their country of terrorists who are trying to regain control of the country. When Iraq is free and the people have a democracy in that country and peace begins to take hold in the Middle East, will you continue this nonsensical bashing of a movement to bring peace into the world.

This is war like never before. Terrorists are civilians so yes, civilians are going to die in this conflict. Bad Civilians. Civilians with an evil intent against free people all over the world. Your side will say anything to discredit the work of this adminstration and military and it's getting pretty dull and monotonous. The alternative, the other view on this war has never been an option to anyone who wants to see peace in this world. Ignore the Terrorists, give them freedom to move about the world attacking and killing innocent people and then warn them and say don't do that again. If we could reason with these people, it would have stopped years ago. They can not be reasoned with because they are unwilling to allow people to be free. I am, quite frankly, sick of all the journalists who think it is there purpose in life to discredit any attempt to bring peace to this world using military force to silence an enemy who will not come to the bargaining table with honest intent. Your side was the first to cry that the President didn't do enough to prevent 9/11. Now that he is doing everything to prevent a future attack against our country, you still whine. Get over it. Again, a journalist who isn't involved in the fighting, a journalist who doesn't really understand what the people of Iraq really want, a journalist who doesn't care that the insurgents are made up of more than just nationals-but people who want to destroy the chance of freedom for all Iraq people. These terrorists aren't to far removed from people like you who just can't stand the fact that the majority has spoken and they lost and now are willing to do and say anything to discredit the work and integrity of those who want to make America a better place.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 9, 2004 02:56 PM

I just can't let Abel's article go unanswered. The liberal lies of this purtid article needs to be exposed for everything that it is. The claims in the article come out of the Terrorist supported network and from the hospital that reported that civilian deaths are increasing based on the hospitals figures. It totally ignores the hundreds of thousands that never saw a hospital and were buried in mass graves just like Hitler did during the Holocaust. The numbers include terrorists as civilians because they are not an organized army supported by a country. What they don't say in the article is far more revealing than what they do say. Hundreds of terroists are dead, thanks to the actions of American and the new Government in Iraq. The article lays claim to 26 scholars and ignores the thousands of Iraqi's who are thankful for the toppling of Suddam and hopeful for a day when terrorism no longer has a stronghold on their country and they can be a free country.

They, like us, want this war to end. They, like us, want American's to go home, but not before the job is done and their country is secure. They, more than any whining liberal journalist in this country, understand the horror of terrorism and it's affect on their country and their children. It's journalist, like Marjorie Cohn, that disgrace the good people of Iraq and the true nature of this war.

Any war is an act of agression, even on the country who is attacked. It was American aggression in Europe that helped to end World War 2 and brought an end to the horror of Hitler. Before the War America sat idly by and allowed the Nazi party to rise and gain strength, in part because of journalists who wrote that it wasn't out war and we had nothing to do with it. Then came Peral Harbor. We learned from history, but not to well. We have sat and negotiated with terrorists, we have replaced dictatorial regimes with new dictators. And then came 9/11. NEVER AGAIN. We should never sit idly by and allow the horrors of a man like Saddam to stay in power and we owe it to the world to never again allow this sort of madness to go on.

I am proud of my vote for George Bush in spite of any ridiculous post Abel is going to find on his liberal anti-American sites. I am proud of the actions of the troops in this totally Legal war and their just and moral actions against terrorists ANYWHERE they are found in the world. I will continue to denounce those who would call this war illegal and thereby call our troops War Criminals. In America you are free to complain about anything, but don't forget that these people you want to identify as War Criminals are the ones who are sacrficiing everything to give you that freedom. Also, don't forget, if you hate it so much here in America, YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 9, 2004 03:13 PM

Truthout and polls are used by liberals to bolster their arguements a lot on this site, and they are bunk. According to the polls, I would be against Bush because the economy isn't the way I want it, my income isn't what I'd want it to be, I don't like the fact that innocent Iraqui civilians are being killed alongside terrorists from collateral damage. According to those results, I would be an opponent of Bush and his policies. The truth is that Bush does not control the economy, my job compensation or health care benefits, nor can he be held accountable for the actions of the terrorists. Were not there ectasies of joy when the tax rebate checks came out and filled our wallets, and were there not equal scorn and people calling Bush 'yellow' immediately in the wake of 9/11 for not going in and flattening the middle east looking for the terrorists? Well, now those tax cuts and rebates are being blamed for the quivering economy, and that flattening is costing an enormous investment in funds and lives. You don't have to like it, but it's what we wanted. Truthout is the same way, and that seems to be a favorite of Abel's to legitimatize his position. I haven't referred to one poll to bolster my views because like most conservatives, I don't need anyone else, especially nameless people I don't know and will never meet, to bolster my owwn views. Liberals look to other people to validate their opinions so they can't be held accountable when they are flat-out wrong. Lemmings! All of you! Lemmings!!

Posted by: Dave at November 9, 2004 03:28 PM

Today's history lesson:

Liberals and Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early human ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That is how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as "The Conservative Movement".

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the "Liberal Movement". Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as 'girleymen'.

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the trade union, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years, conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jacka**.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting revolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men.

Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, soldiers, athletes, and generally anyone who works productively outside government. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to "govern" the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans are. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tame and created a business of trying to get MORE for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history

Posted by: Devil Dawg at November 9, 2004 04:20 PM

JM,
How can you claim to be a moderate when you supported the biggest liberal in the senate? I do not think Bush is far right wing, do you? I assumed you were liberal and maybe I was wrong. I am sorry if I was, it just seems to me that if you supported Kerry you were either liberal or not informed, and since you seem very well infromed I thought you were on the liberal side.

Don't get me wrong, I think we need liberals in this country so the conservatives don't go to far right. And in turn the conservatives hold the liberals from going to far left. I hope the democrats have learned this lesson and choose a candidate that is more center in the future.

America deserves two really good candidates next election, someone who does not just say they are for the middle class but actually are for the working family.

I hope we can continue to debate our issues in a civilized manner. Have a good day.

Posted by: Wayne at November 9, 2004 04:51 PM

Louis,
Just for the record, does the election of a president receiving 51% of the popular vote make it a theocracy? Or a democracy? If Kerry received 51% would it still be a theocracy? Or would everything be OK in Canton Ohio under the candidate you were routing for?

I am not trying to pick a fight here, but you were talking about hypocrisy and it sounds like we wouldn't be having this conversation if your guy won. What do you call that? What happened to moving forward under our president? Your last post does not sound like you want to move forward and heal this nation.

I am not trying to intimidate anyone here, just point out that for months you and Abel and d.jones have attacked me for my beliefs in Bush and now I am supposed to forget about how I was called brain washed, dumb, close minded and every other name thrown at me. Why? Why would I just let that go without an apology? Why would anyone?

When you posted about Bush being the anti-christ you never stated it was a joke, and for that matter, is that something that is funny to joke about? Would you like it if someone thought you were "real good buddies" with Gov. Jim McGreevy? That would not be funny either.

What is funny is the way Bush trips over his own toungue, the way he murders the english language, but calling him the anti-christ? Not funny.

Louis, we can go back and forth here, you can overwhelm me with big college words, and I will tell you I did not attend college, I have a HS diploma and work hard for a living. Your big words do not mean you are smarter than me, only more educated.

Posted by: Wayne at November 9, 2004 05:02 PM

Rudy For President in 2008.

Posted by: Queens,NY at November 9, 2004 05:03 PM

Abel, that’s it, I am voting you off the island. Your long rambling posts filled with venom, it's just too much. President Bush won the election get over it.

JM, like ya buddy but you are a liberal, I feel bad for ya too. Your posts don't lie and the fact your polite sets you apart from most liberals on this message board, but you are liberal. I am conservative, and proud to say so,you should be proud to say your a liberal if you believe what you post.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 9, 2004 05:34 PM

Wayne,

Nothing has changed and I tried to tell you that prior to the election. So George W. Bush is supposed to have won the elction---and I still cannot believe that he did but that's another story. That doesn't change anything, even if he did---the fact is that George W. Bush lied to the American people and invaded another country without provocation.

Bush lied to make it look like there was some provocation but a lie is still a lie. Are we supposed to accept his lies just because he won his election? Forget it, that's not going to happen. Lets remember that Richard Nixon won his reelection with a huge majority and soon resigned to avoid impeachment.

George W. Bush used God to help him in his election and that's a sin. That was enough for me to vote against him but I'm sure that others will claim that he only did what was right.

One more thing, there's nothing that you or I can do to "heal" our country. Lets just try to survive George W. Bush for another four years. That doesn't mean, however, that George W. Bush should be allowed to have his way all the time. We, as citizens, messed up in allowing him to invade Iraq and we should never allow him to do something like that again. That's a responsibility that all of us carry.

You say, "for months you and Abel and d.jones have attacked me for my beliefs in Bush and now I am supposed to forget about how I was called brain washed, dumb, close minded and every other name thrown at me." Well, what did you expect? We only called you what you were---what's wrong with that? You need to learn to live with those descriptions if you refuse to change. You certainly don't rate an apology until you change your way of viewing reality.

I don't know about calling George W. Bush an anti-Christ. I never called him that although I don't consider him as being very Christian due to all the innocent men, women and children that he has murdered during his illegal Iraq "mis-adventure."

Your misguided POST follows:

"Louis, Just for the record, does the election of a president receiving 51% of the popular vote make it a theocracy? Or a democracy? If Kerry received 51% would it still be a theocracy? Or would everything be OK in Canton Ohio under the candidate you were routing for?
I am not trying to pick a fight here, but you were talking about hypocrisy and it sounds like we wouldn't be having this conversation if your guy won. What do you call that? What happened to moving forward under our president? Your last post does not sound like you want to move forward and heal this nation.
I am not trying to intimidate anyone here, just point out that for months you and Abel and d.jones have attacked me for my beliefs in Bush and now I am supposed to forget about how I was called brain washed, dumb, close minded and every other name thrown at me. Why? Why would I just let that go without an apology? Why would anyone?
When you posted about Bush being the anti-christ you never stated it was a joke, and for that matter, is that something that is funny to joke about? Would you like it if someone thought you were "real good buddies" with Gov. Jim McGreevy? That would not be funny either.
What is funny is the way Bush trips over his own toungue, the way he murders the english language, but calling him the anti-christ? Not funny.
Louis, we can go back and forth here, you can overwhelm me with big college words, and I will tell you I did not attend college, I have a HS diploma and work hard for a living. Your big words do not mean you are smarter than me, only more educated."
Posted by: Wayne at November 9, 2004 05:02 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 9, 2004 09:26 PM

JM, Hillary Clinton would be a bad choice because even Democrats describe her as polarizing. It would result in another election that divides the country. Joe Biden is a fair choice but he's going to have to be on guard for some of the inflammatory comments he's made against Republicans. I really like Evan Byah and think he would make a great Democratic Candidate. While being centrist on most issues, he remains respected in the Senate, is not marred by any scandal that I'm aware of and is also know for working with both sides of the aisle to ge the job done. I agree that Joe Lieberman isn't charismatic enough but I still believe he'd make a great President.

There's a lot of talk about the demise of the Democratic Party and it's that sort of arrogance that will bring about a Republican defeat. The extremism of the Right will hurt the Republican Party as much as the Extremism to the left has hurt the Democratic Party.

I am really longing for a 2008 election that is about issues and substanceand a lot less mud-slinging. I would like to see two candidates that have strong moral clarity, can openly explain their positions without contradiction and really give Americans a choice, not of the best of two lesser candidates, but the best of what this country has to offer. Wasn't it Walden that said, those who aspire to political office don't deserve it? I'd really like to think that's not true.

One final thought on Hillary. While I personally don't have anything against a woman running for President, I'm not sure America is ready for it. I'm not as rabid against her as many conservatives, but I do think it would only serve to be devisive and wouldn't be in the best interest of the country and that has to be part of the process of selecting a candidate. There's more to running for President than believing you party has the right slant on the issues, you need a candidate who doesn't bring the baggage of corruption with them. That's always going to be hard when you run a Senator because there's often the implication of trouble because of lobby support. A strong Governor like Bill Richardson would also be another good choice as a Democratic Candidate. He's not from a noted nothern liberal state, he's a moderate, he would be strong in Hispanic support and he has the respect of many Republicans and the media.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 10, 2004 01:36 AM

Dave,

I think that the thing that I carried with me the most from John Kerry's Senate testimony in the 1970's was his statement that the current adminstration's policies were creating monsters in Vietnam who were going to bring their actions back to this country. He seemed to be saying that the actions of violence forced on the soldiers in Vietnam were creating people who would continue to commit these crimes of violence when they came home. It never happened. Why? Maybe because he was lying and it really wasn't the administration's policies to create violent monsters. They were good people fighting in a war they could not win because they lost the support of the political representatives in Washington. As I've watched the Iraq war, I sense that certain politicians and many in the media are trying to do the same thing again. Turn the public opinion against the war so that it loses it's support with the people back home. The real difference between Vietnam and the War in Iraq is that it is all about terrorism and if they win in Iraq, they aren't going to stay there, they are going to do what they've done in the past and continue their attacks. No matter how hard they try, you can't turn Iraq into Vietnam, and they do try. It is really going to be interesting to see what they say after the elections next year. It's is going to be really interesting to see what they say where there is peace in Iraq and it pressures other nations who support terrorism to yeild to the pressures of a free society. I really do believe this is the true path to peace in the world, a peace that might even be realized in our children's lifetime.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 10, 2004 02:00 AM

Wayne I am sorry! Okay. I tried the day after the election to say that. I also said if you go back and read that we need to get behind this president as much as we can and move on. The election is over and lets move on. That does not mean I am going to agree with everything he does. But he does deserve support.

Lets get off to the races like you said.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 10, 2004 09:20 AM

Abel, you said One more thing, there's nothing that you or I can do to "heal" our country.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The only way this nation is going to heal is if we, as individuals, step up to the plate and work towards that healing process. Are you expecting a law that requires us to heal or some big government program to come along and make this possible. The only way this country can heal is if you and I and everybody else sets aside our own petty differences to work for the common good of all Americans, not just special interest groups, not just agenda driven pundits who like that this country is divided so they have issues. It's time that America looks at the big picture and that means all Americans.

I still can't understand why you keep calling the war illegal and keep repeating that George Bush lied. I asked you for the quote, been asking you for the quote to show me where he lied and still all I get is newspaper aticles and your opinion.

The President said he was going to take the war to the terrorists, we agreed. He did that and now some think we shouldn't have. You have a right to feel that he was wrong, but let's not turn it into things it isn't. Can't you understand that everytime you say the war is illegal, you are calling our troops war criminals. If you do a little research into American papers during World War 2, there were people writing articles saying exactly what you are now quoting and saying yourself about our involvement in Europe. They called the actions illegal because Europe didn't invade us. There are articles saying we never should have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Hagasaki because of the innocent lives that were lost but never once do these articles talk about the thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands who would have died as the war lingered forward.

No country can be allowed to support terrorism. No country can place the security of the world above their own desires to inflict death on outher people because of ideological differences. Sometimes, because of an unwillingness of a violent group of people, war becomes necessary to end an evil in this world. It was necessary to stop Hitler, it was necessary to stop slavery but it was only necessary because there were those who would not listen to reason and lived in their own little worlds thinking they could do what they want to other people without fear of retribution. The success of the war depends on two things, the will of the Iraqi people to rise up and defend themselves (a difficult task because their culture is based on retribution imposed on them from the ruling class) and the support of the American people to win, not the war, but the peace in Iraq.

As long as the Iraqi people read the newspapers you quote from and as long as the Iraqi people watch satellite broadcasts of our news programs they are going to believe that American's do not have the will to win the peace in Iraq and are going to be reluctant to step up to defend their land for fear that the terrorists will regain power in their country, because they are thinking only about their personal safety for the moment. That short sited vision mars the possibility of a better world for everybody. It is that short-sited vision that I belive mars your own ability to understand why this war is necessary. You will only change your mind when you begin to allow yourself to read what the supporters of this war are saying and not just the detractors, to listen with reason to the arguements on both sides.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 10, 2004 12:12 PM

I think Abel is joining up with the "Blue-State" islamic terrorist, whatever his name is, and building bombs in his basement as we speak.

You don't want to make senile liars like Abel angry. They tend to go off the deep end.

Posted by: Paul at November 10, 2004 01:43 PM

Wayne, My response to you was not insinuating that I was more intelligent or better educated; it was because you pointed out that I misspelled something’s in a previous entry. Like you I am not a college graduate, I also work hard full time and hold asecond job that is an elected position. I know you feel like you have been attacked and personally insulted and if I have been part of that I truly apologize for it because I did not intend to do that to anyone personally. The one thing about politics I can not stand is that it often brings out the worst in people and things are said that should not have been and in many cases because of the highly emotional involvement in elections people take things that are not intended to be personal.

The election is over, and now it is time to find common ground if it can be done. You see a lot of politicians carry partisanship ideology beyond the elections and that is why for the most part nothing gets done. If this country and our politicians can learn to put partisan ideologies aside and try to work together we all would be a lot better and more would get done to address the many issues and concerns facing this country and in our individual communities.

Of course that will never happen unfortunately because of egos and the inability to see things differently or from another prospective. Thus we have this big divide in America and we are now considered red and blue, liberals and conservatives, left or right instead of just all being Americans.

There is no sense of trying to place blame on any one group; it is going to take a huge turn on both sides of the isle to bring this country back together. It has to start in Washington. Washington has gone too far to the right and to the left and we need to come back to the center where I believe most of America sits. The election was only a week ago and the National Media, Fox included are already starting to draw lines and pick and choose who it is going to be that runs, Rudolph vs. Mrs. Clinton, or is going to be who ever? Who cares! What are we going to do about now, what are we going to decide to do about increased property tax’s, the financial strain on the schools in our communities, the cost of prescription drugs, health care reform, tort reform, unemployment and the loss of manufacturing and industrial job’s and most of all campaign reform. These are the things that need to be talked about. Don’t get me wrong social issues are important but Abortion, Gun and Gay Rights are a minute issue in this country compared to the other things I mentioned that need addressed and solved now.

The 527’s are out of control for lord sakes the democratic candidates’ campaign has not even gotten cold yet and last night on Fox I saw Bill Hannity still talking to the guy that was the head of the swift boat for truth group talking about bringing out more crap against Kerry! When is enough going to be enough?

What is going to bring this country together? It starts with our National Leaders and filters on down to the State and Local ones. We need to work together in between elections to get done what we are elected to do serve our constituents and not our political parties. Maybe if this starts to happen and leaders become what they are supposed to do is lead the rest of the country will follow instead of following the path we are now on of division and irreconcilable differences. We seem to have lost a lot more in this last election than civility toward one another we have lost our sense of direction because neither side is willing to concede to tolerance and difference’s in one another and work together for the common cause that is what is best for every American not just one side or the other in it.

I look forward to having meaningful dialog with you in the future and yes maybe even robust debate as long as we can do one thing, agree to disagree at times and not take it personal. I only hope Washington can do the same in the next four years and lets worry about 2008 3 years or so from now.

Take care!
PS. I am glad you visited my communities web site and thanks for the compliment. Please feel free to email anytime you wish now that you have found my address.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 10, 2004 03:43 PM

Abel

George Bush did not "use God to get elected". He let the american people know clearly who he was and how he see's the state of the country. He is a man with faith, I am sorry that worries you, but that says a lot more about you than it does President Bush.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 10, 2004 04:40 PM

Abel,
What about the innocent children murdered here from partial birth abortioin?

I do deserve an apology from you, you have judged me for months now. I do not agree with you but do I think you are close minded? Brain washed? A liar? Well, yes you are a liar, and I have proven that.

You are the type of extremist that the democrats need to take their party back from.

Your post;
I don't know about calling George W. Bush an anti-Christ. I never called him that although I don't consider him as being very Christian due to all the innocent men, women and children that he has murdered during his illegal Iraq "mis-adventure."

Posted by: Wayne at November 10, 2004 04:52 PM

Louis,
I guess that is my apology, right? If it is, I accept. I think that is the best I will get from you. Thanks for being you again.

Posted by: Wayne at November 10, 2004 04:53 PM

I can't help myself here, I am laughing to myself. Does the left side of America know how to apologize or admit they are wrong on anything? Just funny stuff.

Abel,
You are the funniest. I used to think you were serious, now I know your a joke.

Posted by: Wayne at November 10, 2004 04:59 PM

I just love it when I find a "gem" that I know you pro-Bushites would love to read. Well, I found another one and I have POSTed it below: I really hope you'll enjoy reading it. Bye for now, ---Abel

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2004/11/10/notes111004.DTL&nl=fix

www.sfgate.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We Are All Dubya's Doormat
News flash for ordinary Repubs and born-agains: Bush doesn't care about you, either
- By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, November 10, 2004

This just in: millions of moderate Republicans and gay-terrified evangelical Christians and intellectually numbed conservative parents who thought they were doing some sort of good by blindly voting for Dubya and hence protecting their wee ones from swarthy Islamic evildoers who want to steal their kids' Kraft Lunchables and nuke Disneyland all should be emerging from a deep fog of savage denial any minute now.

Wake, they will, to the increasingly obvious fact that their beloved smirkin' president, the one who seemed to care about them so deeply just a couple weeks ago and who reached out to them and promised them the gun-happy gay-unfriendly moon in exchange for full access to their civil rights and a blank check to do whatever the hell he likes, he apparently doesn't give a damn about them. Not anymore.

The truth will soon be hitting much of the conservative nation like a redneck smacks a dog: now that the fear-saturated Right has handed this failed oilman four more unrestrained years to do his dirtiest deeds and a deeply contaminated, well-greased Congress to do it with, he no longer needs their support and he couldn't care less about their "moral values" or their positions on Social Security reform or the war in Iraq or just what the hell he meant about spending the "political capital" he claims he's earned by winning the election (by the slimmest margin of any incumbent president in history).

Oh, sure, Bush reached out, didn't he, Mrs. Moderate Republican? He made you a believer. He promised more intolerance for gays and more Bible classes in the White House and more laughably irresponsible tax breaks you don't really need and more dumbed-down, black-and-white, good-versus-evil perspectives that take all the pressure off of having to, you know, think.

And because he unconditionally refused to acknowledge any sort of mistake, any sort of massive error in judgment or policy related the appalling Vietnam-grade quagmire that is Iraq, because he stayed "on message" and never fired Rumsfeld for gross incompetence and because he let the lower-rank military plebes take the fall for Abu Ghraib and never once wavered in the most disgusting of lies about why we needed to invade Iraq and kill over 100,000 of their people in the first place, why, he "earned" your vote.

It's so true, isn't it? Despite proof after proof and report after report and dead U.S. soldier after dead U.S. soldier, you thought Bush would do better than Kerry in "defeating" terrorism. No matter that Bush's very actions, his ugly little war, his very poisonous foreign policy that has so violently destabilized the Middle East, no matter that this is what has, in fact, amplified the terror threat a hundredfold and made the U.S. more detested than ever. Ahh, irony. It's what's for dinner.

And now, your reward. You get to be as misrepresented, as tossed aside, as openly ignored as the rest of us. Isn't politics fun?

We are all suckers, all losers in this election. Are you a Democrat? Republican? Doesn't matter. The line is no longer liberal/conservative. It is no longer tax 'n' spend versus cut 'n' deficit, Toyota Prius versus Ford Expedition, happy godless heathen sodomite versus Mel Gibson.

It is now ultrawealthy, power-hungry Bushite CEO versus, well, the rest. Do you see? News flash to conservatives: Bush just pretended to care about you, because he had to, because Karl Rove told him to, because he needed your fear and your blind faith to win another term. You matter about as much as a U.S. soldier in Fallujah, now.

Oh how you will be disappointed from here on out. Oh how you will gnash your teeth and sigh your sighs and wonder what the hell happened to your fearful leader, why you feel so abandoned as your schools implode and your health-care costs explode and your air quality suffers and your jobs vanish and your women get smacked back to 1953 and your kids die miserable and forgotten in Iraq.

Because now you get to sit by with the "liberal elite" as we watch in bitter satisfaction as Bush will now have to wallow in his own nasty, vicious mess, lie in his own snide and war-torn and economically gutted bed for four more years, as much of the country sits deeply ashamed and the international community sits stunned and horrified at our sheer ignorance and gall.

But wait, there's more. See, we know that Bush has never been so beautifully set up than now for a cataclysmic, Nixon-like fall. This most secretive and corruption-filled and Rove-stained administration in history, with its 9/11 cover-ups and well-documented stack of fumbles and flubs and murderous misprisions leading up to the Iraq mess, it is positively bursting at the seams with potential impeachment-level calamity. You think the Nixon tapes were ruinous? Just wait for the Bush mumbles.

Every sign points to the fact that history will look back on Dubya Dubya II as one of the worst-run, least accountable and most abusive, warmongering, homophobic, environmentally unfriendly presidencies in American history. Which means either one of two things: there is a very slight chance that Dubya will now try to ease off some of his party's more heartless and voracious of policies, if just to try to create a more appetizing and appealing "legacy."

But don't bet on it. If Rove's recent spittle-filled announcement that Shrub will again seek a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is any indication, Bush might very well go the other direction entirely, making history the cold-blooded, autocratic way: through policies so hollow and self-righteous and smirking, history can't help but be impressed. After all, neofascism makes great textbook fodder.

What else? Well, now BushCo has no one to blame but themselves. The neocons own the White House and Congress. All fingers of blame for most impending disasters and war ills and social meltdowns point straight back to the GOP. Furthermore, the U.S. has already crashed through the $7.3 trillion debt limit, thanks to Bush. Unless Congress raises the debt ceiling ASAP, as BushCo so desperately demands they do, the U.S. government will run out of cash. We are, in NASCAR parlance, running on fumes.

This, then, is the sour truth for the Repubs and the born-agains, and the sliver of bittersweet solace for the liberals. Will it not be laughable, in a soul-deadening, kill-me-now sort of way, to watch BushCo try to pin the imminent economic implosions and cultural backlashes and catastrophic social-service breakdowns this nation now faces on, say, Bill Clinton? Will it not be horribly amusing to watch this administration sink into its own self-made quicksand?

Will it not be, in short, just all sorts of tragic fun to watch the cancer eat itself?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thoughts for the author? Email him at mmorford@sfgate.com

Mark's column archives are here http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/a/

Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SF Gate, unless it appears on Tuesdays and Thursdays, which it never does. Subscribe to this column at sfgate.com/newsletters.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2004/11/10/notes111004.DTL

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 10, 2004 06:35 PM

Louis,
I spoke too soon and now have only open my mouth long enough to change feet. I accept your apology and in return offer one for my impatience and judgement I handed down on you. You are very well spoken and your attitude will go a long way to heal America. I hope I can follow your example and help this process.

Thanks for the invite to e-mail you, maybe someday I will drop you a line.

Posted by: Wayne at November 10, 2004 10:15 PM

Is Abel a real person or just a machine that recites the devisive garbage that is fed into him? Clearly unable to come up with an original thought for himself, all he apparently knows how to do is repeat the diatribe. The last post is just more of the American hating clap-trap from the extremist liberal left. If John Kerry had won the election, few Republicans would have relished with glee the downfall of America as the author of Able's article does. What will they say when they find they are wrong? Will an apology ever follow? Vietnam Veterans have been waiting for 30 years to hear the words I'm sorry from John Kerry and it hasn't happened yet, I doubt that an apology for those who only wish ill on America to prove their point is way to much to ask. All that's left is name-calling, but then that was pretty much all Able has had for the last two months. The new mantra is homophobic but I'd like to ask the liberal extremist what they are afraid of. I'd like to ask the liberal extremist when Jesus and religion became bad words. How many Republicans wanted to flee the country when Bill Clinton became President? How many Republicans needed therapy because an election proved they back a candidate that lost? Is there a word for a fear of the truth, or a fear of moral values.

I got news for Mark Moford. It wasn't the stealing of some kid's lunchables by a terrorist group that America was concerned about. To even jokingly compare what happened on 9/11 to a day at Disneyland is repulsive to those who lost family and loved ones and to all those who stood silently shocked in horror as we watched the turmoil of that day unfold. It wasn't simply the gay marriage issue, it wasn't simply and one issue the liberal extremist want to point at it was a collection of things. For to long the liberal extremist have been getting their own way and like spoiled little children they can't stand being told no. They throw their temper tantrums, they lash out with vitriolic words of hatred, they stomp their feet and call people names, and they they think we should put them in charge. Not a chance!

I, like many others like me, voted for George Bush because I thought he was the better man to do the job. We could be wrong, a majority vote doesn't make us right, but if the tables were turned and John Kerry would have won I also know I wouldn't be wishing harm and disaster to fall on anyone in the world because I choose the losing candidate. That anyone would want America to fail to prove a point is beyond my comprehension. I just can't hate that much.

As for Louis, JM and others who are sharing their own thoughts, concerns and hopes for a better future, I want to thank them for their posts, even when I disagreed. I also want to thank them for those times during the last several months when they got under my skin and made me think about my views a little bit harder. In reading some of these posts, I think my own apology is in order for the times I've been so angry that I lashed back harsher than I should have. Presidential elections have a way of bringing out the best and the worst in us. Now that the elections are over and we move forward let's hope that we all can listen to a voice of reason and come to a point where we can agree to disagree but still seek a rule of law that represents this great land and is most beneficial to all American's. It begins by living the words of a truly great Democrat, by asking not what our Country will do for us, but what we will do for this great Country of ours. It will take hard work and some sacrifice but I believe that healing can come to this divided country and that I can make a difference in that healing process.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 11, 2004 01:15 AM

Paul,

Aren't you the "Paul" who was arguing with Wayne in the last BOARD of this BLOG? What happened? You're calling me a liar now? Are you sure you're a sane/normal person? Your POST below sure looks "nutty" to me. I advise you to get immediate medical help if you're feeling stranger than normal.

Your POST follows:

"I think Abel is joining up with the "Blue-State" islamic terrorist, whatever his name is, and building bombs in his basement as we speak.
You don't want to make senile liars like Abel angry. They tend to go off the deep end."
Posted by: Paul at November 10, 2004 01:43 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 11, 2004 01:19 AM

Abel,

Write your own stuff, no one reads your boring posts of leftest claptrap.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 11, 2004 04:12 AM

Wayne there you go again insulting abel! And another point it will not be funny to watch this administration sink into quick sand. If it does we all as Americans will pay the price we need to pull together as a Nation and get us out of this quick sand we are standing on the edge of. I am not saying we have to agree with Mr. Bush but we need to stick together and help this country out of this mess. The Election is over and lets all get beyond the cr** that happened during it!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 11, 2004 10:01 AM

Abel,
I don't know what other "Paul" you're talking about, but that wasn't me. I went back and read a lot of the garbage you talk before I came to my conclusions.

Sadly people like you make us sane and normal Democrats look like complete idiots. No wonder the Republicans won the election, with kooks like you on the Democrat side. Please join some other political group, like the Socialist party or the Reform party, and leave us logical Democrats alone.

Posted by: Paul at November 11, 2004 12:24 PM

Wayne,Jim Rodkey, Paul, Dave, I am glad to have read some of your last comments. I truley believe what Jim wrote in his last post and it could not have been better said.

"Now that the elections are over and we move forward let's hope that we all can listen to a voice of reason and come to a point where we can agree to disagree but still seek a rule of law that represents this great land and is most beneficial to all American's. It begins by living the words of a truly great Democrat, by asking not what our Country will do for us, but what we will do for this great Country of ours. It will take hard work and some sacrifice but I believe that healing can come to this divided country and that I can make a difference in that healing process."

I hope we can all be part of the healing process and most importantly we need our leaders in Washington to do the same. This is the first thing that we and the rest in this country should demand from all of them. Both sides of should quit the partisan bickering and get to work and start doing the countries business. They need to be leaders and if they can do that the country will follow.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 11, 2004 12:43 PM

Abel it is time to move past your partisan posts the election is over, I know you are upset about Bush winning but that is now a fact and reality.

I was not any happier about it than you are but it is over. It is time to try and find common ground and move this country ahead. We need to fall behind our President as much as we can; the political hate is only going make things worse and that goes from both sides.

We are at war whether we agree with why we are or not that is a fact, it would not be any different if our candidate of choice had won (Kerry)we would still be at war. We would still have a sluggish economy in many areas of the country, health care reform, prescription drugs, medical insurance, social security, jobs and unemployment issues that need to be addressed. We need to find the common ground and so do our National Leaders. We need to demand that our Leaders address these concerns for the nation as a whole on a bipartisan level.

Abel ask yourself what can you do help in your community to make things better and act on those things that can be productive and not the partisan hate and feelings you are holding onto from this election. Doing that will only be counter productive to yourself and others around you.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 11, 2004 01:02 PM

Paul,

Thanks for telling me that the other Paul (who makes sense)is not you. Now I understand and what you're saying about me is something I would expect any dumb pro-Bushite Republican to say.

You say, "Sadly people like you make us sane and normal Democrats look like complete idiots." Sorry, but I disagree---I have nothing to do with making people like you look like complete idiots---you do that all by yourselves. The question is whether or not you are really a Democrat? I'm not even sure that you voted for John Kerry, did you? Tell the truth, now!

About me joining another party---until we reform our present-day two party system, only an idiot would vote for a third party candidate and I'm not an idiot. Now, what's your answer in regards to my question about how you voted?

Don't you realize that this last election was also a very close election? If John Kerry had carried Ohio or Florida, he would be President come January 2005. Surely you must know this. John Kerry ran a good race and he should be very proud of himself. Only an idiot thinks otherwise.

You also say, "I went back and read a lot of the garbage you talk before I came to my conclusions." Tell me, what exactly did I say that was garbage in your view? You need to learn to inform people about any "garbage" that I'm advocating so tell us about it. Wouldn't that be "doing your duty?" Once again I'm reminded about what President Harry S. Truman once said, "I never give 'em Hell, I tell the truth and they think it's Hell." In your view, are the truths I advocate, the "garbage?"

Your POSTs follow:

"Abel, I don't know what other "Paul" you're talking about, but that wasn't me. I went back and read a lot of the garbage you talk before I came to my conclusions.
Sadly people like you make us sane and normal Democrats look like complete idiots. No wonder the Republicans won the election, with kooks like you on the Democrat side. Please join some other political group, like the Socialist party or the Reform party, and leave us logical Democrats alone. Your total idiocy insults all Americans.
When Green Day sings about the "American Idiot", they're talking about you."
Posted by: Paul at November 11, 2004 12:24 PM

"They are stupid, Wayne, I don't care if it's 200 million people they thought that who you sleep in bed with at night matters more than seeing your son come back from Iraq and getting a good-paying job that doesn't pay less. The majority of this country is brainwashed they don't have their priorities straight. Was I talking to you by the way? Just mind your own business."
Posted by: Paul at November 7, 2004 10:35 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 11, 2004 02:48 PM

Louis,
I thought we had patched things up here, but I sense that there is still some unresolved issues with us.

Abel started with the insults and has continued with them. Do you think I am close minded, a liar, a hero hater, brainwashed? Is this how you view me as well? Abel is a joke, he regurgitates anything that is against Bush without any research or common sense. I know he agrees with you and your party, does this make everything he digs up right? This is the kind of attitude that has cost the democrats 3 national elections.

Democrats, take your party back. It is beyond red state/blue state now. It is getting very sad to watch this party go down the tubes.

Louis, I hope you know I am not trying to insult you and the democrats here. Abel is a cancer that is eating your party alive. The likes of him and d.jones will kill your party. Look at the last 3 national elections and tell me your party had a good showing.

I hope your party pulls it together.

Posted by: Wayne at November 11, 2004 05:40 PM

Abel,
Paul from the other site has a website attached to his name. It is relatively possible that there are 2 Pauls in the USA. It is also faintly possible that 2 people named Paul visit this site on a rare occasiion.

Take your meds!

Posted by: Wayne at November 11, 2004 05:42 PM

To Wayne, Bruce, Jim, Mike, Dave, etc.

Hey, you guys need to learn to control yourselves, I'm holding back and restraining myself so that the "healing" process can take place but I can only take so much. Surely you don't want me to start "blasting" you guys again. I shouldn't have to be telling you this---just keep it up and I'll have no choice but to begin retaliating soon. It's up to you guys---don't bring the negative stuff upon yourself.

You question my POSTs but I am only doing them to demonstrate what other Americans are posting on the internet. Surely you can't blame me for what other American citizens are saying. I'm just playing the role of messenger here, so lets not be guilty of blaming the messenger too! Be smart for a change. Some of you guys are also making the mistake of thinking that I don't know how to "blast" on my own and that can be a huge mistake. Surely you must know me by now. Just remember that I am an independent thinker and I have never allowed others to "brainwashed" me.

There's also no need to ever tell me that "nobody" reads my posts. Those of you who have expressed that should first learn to speak for yourself. In any case, I only post "stuff" for the ones who want to read and perhaps learn and my Posts are never meant for everyone---certainly not for "close-minded" people.

As always, my warmest regards to d. Jones, Louis, JM, and all the other proud Liberals and Progressives who visited this BLOG from time to time. All of you have every reason to be proud of your vote and for all the work you did during this past election. Don't ever allow anyone---not anyone to ever make you believe otherwise.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 11, 2004 06:20 PM

It's All Over, Folks! Or is it?

A little article I thought some of you might have missed and thought all of you might want to read. If anyone doesn't want to read this article, that OK with me. No apologies are necessary. As always, my warmest regards to all! ---Abel

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/000795.php

Action Alert! Ohio To Be Recounted
By Delton Murphy
11/11/04

Yesterday at 2:00 pm (PST) Green Party Presidential Candidate David Cobb confirmed that he would demand a recount of all the votes cast in the Presidential Election in the state of Ohio. Since David Cobb's name appeared on the Ohio ballot, it is his legal right to ask for a statewide recount.

Every vote counts. Find out how you can help make sure Ohio is recounted!

The Electoral College have yet to validate the general election held on November 2, 2004 and in the week since the election a plethora of reports and allegations of voting fraud, intimidation and improprieties, namely in Ohio, have surfaced. This throws into the question the authenticity of George W. Bush's 133,000 vote lead in Ohio.

The rush to declare a winner in a close race where exit polls showed a John Kerry victory seems quite absurd. Although Kerry conceded the state the day after the election, the results have not yet been officially declared pending the counting of the state's outstanding provisional ballots. Depending on the news agency reporting, the provisional ballots number somewhere between 465,000 and 155,000 ballots. If Ohio's 20 electoral votes go to John Kerry he would win the presidency.

The Green Party is in the process of raising the $113,000 necessary to force a statewide recount to proceed in Ohio; that comes to about ten dollars per precinct. The deadline to demand a recount occurs after Ohio's Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, who is also co-Chair of the Bush-Cheney Campaign in Ohio, deems the results official. The official announcement won't take place for a few more days.

It Ain't Over!

Whether or not this changes the election is less important that ensuring that our elections are safeguarded, audited, authenticated and verified and the only way to do that is by making sure all the votes are counted.

Click Here to hear an interview with David Cobb about the Ohio Recount with M.T. Karthik on Pacifica's KPFK 90.7 FM Los Angeles.

You can help ensure that there is a recount in Ohio by DONATING to the national Green Party or you can send a donation in any amount to:

Green Party of Ohio
PO Box 754
New Albany, OH 43054

Or send a payment through Pay Pal the email address: treasurer@ohiogreens.net

Visit: http://www.gp.org/index.html to learn more about the Green Party.

Our fight for peace and justice will continue despite the outcome of the election but guaranteeing the validity of our elections is a crucial foundation of our democracy that we cannot afford to lose or take for granted.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 11, 2004 10:04 PM

Abel,
Send your money, get other nuts to send their money. Then you can blame Bush for being broke. This is the "new" American way, right? Bush is always to blame for someone else's poor judgement and dumb mistakes.

Posted by: Wayne at November 11, 2004 11:41 PM

By the way Abel,
I do not read your posts that you steal from other websites. I do read your posts that you think out for yourself, they are really funny. At the current rate of hate I predict your head will explode in 2 months.

Posted by: Wayne at November 11, 2004 11:51 PM

Abel, would it be unreasonable to ask you to post a link to the article you want us to read and then post YOUR TOUGHTS. I'm more interested in discussing these things with you as you see and interpret the news you read and less interested with politcal mantra's. I think most of the posts here are attempting to be reasonable and most of the posts here are attempting to communicate with one another. Everyone seems to have extended their olive branches and wants to move forward for the good of the country except you. Haven't we learned anything from Florida, millions of dollars were spent investingating the so-called illegal election and not a shred of real evidence? Now we are going to go through this in Ohio. Have you been following the continuing counts, as absentee ballots and provisional ballots are coming in, the gap between Kerry and Bush is widening. I don't say this to gloat, I say this because your desire to keep the country divided with conspiracy theories and casting unaccountable doubt on the legitamcy of the Presidency is distrubing. Perhaps it would help if you would read toher articles by some of the people you are cpoying and pasting. Some of them are so out of touch with any sense of reality that it's frightening. Still people who like to hear bad news about America will flock to them and disregard the innacuracies in their reporting just they have somebody to agree with them. Please, your thoughts, your views and your interprestations of what you read are important. Anybody can fill these blogs with copy and pasted articles. Any Conservative could to what you are doing with Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to make points but I think the thing we are all interested in is real thoughts from those contributing to this blog.

Thanks Louis for your kind comments. Looking forward to debating and discussion things as the next for years moves forward.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 12, 2004 12:04 AM

Hi Abel:

Keep on posting! I have to admit that there is a little bit of smugness being expressed from SOME of the Republican supporters. I saw your post about an Ohio recount. I don't know what to think about it, but anything is possible. We witnessed Florida 4 years ago. All I can say is that it better not be proven that some hijinx occurred there because there will be trouble beyond compare. I am actually hoping that there is nothing because our democracy needs to be as pure as it can be in order for it to have any relevance.
Abel, I am sure that you have seen people refer to me as a liberal. I know that you proudly wear that label. I don't have any problems with that. I do have to say that I am not a liberal, no matter what people want to call me. I am honestly a centrist in most of my beliefs. I was very conservative as a teenager and youn adult, but I am past that phase now and never intend to return to it. I do believe that the extreme on either end of the political spectrum is not good so I try to keep toward the center on most issues. I may deviate from time to time. I do believe, though, that George Bush is not for the average person regardless about how many times I have read otherwise. I do believe that we will see this in the future, but again, I am not wishing anything on anybody. I am hoping for the best even though I believe America has not chosen the best to lead us. I live in the Northeast. I am having some difficulty understanding how some people, for instance in the central part of the country, consistently side with Republicans. They seem vote rich, but live poor. Values do mean something, I agree. But values cover a broad range of ideas. The Democratic party at this time hold the values that are more favorable to average Americans in many respects with the exception of the "Hollywood" crowd. I don't care that famous people make endorsements, but sometimes the moral direction that Hollywood takes only hurts us. I honestly don't go to movies because so much of them are things that I would rather not spend money on. I am smart enough to show my disdain for immoral entertainment by not spending my money on it. That is all that needs to be done, people. Vote with your wallet. When Hollywood sees that people aren't buying, then things will change on the morals issue that people are "so concerned" about. I just don't understand how people chose the moral issue over pocketbook issues. I suspect that there is a relationship between the economy and morals. As the economy sours, there is stress placed on the moral fiber. This is just my opinion.

Posted by: JM at November 12, 2004 08:45 AM

Hi Jim Rodkey:

One thing about your post that I need to respond to. When Bill Clinton was president, I was under the impression that come hell or high water, the Fepublicans were going to push him out of the presidency regardless of what happened to our country in the mean time. They could care less about the turmoil they were causing and that really bothered me. The hate that they espoused was shameful. I hope that you realize that much of how some Democrats feel today can be traced back to the Republican shenanigans from not that long ago.

Posted by: JM at November 12, 2004 08:54 AM

Hi Jim Rodkey:

Another thing, people are fond of quoting JFK. His moral issues were kept private. He was a good leader with some moral issues. There was none of this mean bashing that seems to be "all the rage" today. I bring Clinton back into this discussion because regardless of what people think about him, he was a decent President. The US did well under his term and I will not forget that.

Posted by: JM at November 12, 2004 08:58 AM

Don't fault Abel for saying the Iraq War was illegal. In a technical sense it was illegal. Here is something from last year pertaining to this:

-------------------------------------------------
Title: War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".

Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.

"They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only when the law suits them that they want to use it."

Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event.

Certainly the British government, he said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq".

The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view between the British govern ment and some senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law".

Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defence. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the threat from Baghdad.

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat.

Coalition officials countered that the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to give a complete ac counting of its weapons programmes.

Advertiser links
Taos: "A Top 10 Ski Resort."
Skiing magazine declared Taos, New Mexico one of America's...

skitaos.org

Ski Westgate Park City Resort And Spa
Experience luxurious accommodations at Westgate Park City...

floridavacationstore.com

Gliding Snowshoes
Yupi Skishoes. The mountain bike of crosscountry skiing.

yupiskishoes.com
Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued that the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war, which was ended only by a ceasefire.

"I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty," said Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it was illegal.

"And, interestingly, I suspect a majority of the American public would have supported the invasion almost exactly to the same degree that they in fact did, had the administration said that all along."

The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defence policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board.

Meanwhile, there was a hint that the US was trying to find a way to release the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay.

The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said Mr Bush was "very sensitive" to British sentiment. "We also expect to be resolving this in the near future," he told the BBC.

Special report
Iraq

Posted by: JM at November 12, 2004 09:07 AM

Recount? Abel let it die! Let it die it is over quit holding on to this false hope. I know you wanted Bush to lose and so did I, it is over. Try to move ahead and focus your energy on making this country better. The Democratic Party will have another shot but alot needs to be done in the next four years. Starting with pulling the Party together and back to the center and working to get some serious problems solved in this country. And that means we have to work with the Republicans and show tolerence and be able to compromise. I hope the Republican leaders will be willing to do the same. This days of our way or no way are done. I believe the entire country will be watching what Congress does in the next two years and over the next four. If there is an unwillingness to change and work together there will be a shift.

I am not a liberal Abel, I am a moderate Democrat and proud of my position on issues facing this country. If the Democrats would come back toward the center we will stand a better chance next time. The Party needs to take the position of the likes of Obama, a message of not just giving hope, but a clear outlined message and a plan on getting it done. That is what was missing from the Democratic party this time.

I dont know if you have ever listened to the speach Obama gave at the Democratic Convention, that is what the Party needs. I think even the Republican's in this blog would even agree with me.

Put the hate aside Abel and lets move forward.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 12, 2004 10:45 AM

JM,

I don't believe that anything will come from the Ohio and/or Florida recounts but I mentioned them only to demonstrate the "closeness" of the election. The pro-Bushites are thinking that they have a mandate because George W. Bush "won." The truth is that they have absolutely no mandate what-so-ever and they need to realize it. Some of them get angry because we haven't "disappeared." They think I'm being bitter about the election but the truth is that I feel sorry for them. Isn't it clear by now that they're unhappy about "something."

Yes, I also know exactly what you mean about being "labeled." I have written several posts regarding the "unimportance" of labels and apparently the pro-Bushites don't believe me when I say that I'm a Conservative. Well, I really am but I'm willing to accept whatever label they pin on me, and I do it proudly. If they say, I'm a Liberal, I'll accept it proudly. I know you have heard them saying that most Liberals are ashamed to be what they are and I want to demonstrate they're wrong on that score too.

As for what happened in Florida, there's no question in my mind that the 2,000 election was stolen from the American people. They hate it when I say that---especially when I add "stolen from the American people." I'm still learning about the 2,004 election as there appears to be some "questions" about it too.

I know what you mean regarding the South too. The truth is that all these Republicans in the South used to claim themselves to be Democrats but they abandoned and betrayed the Democratic Party once it started representing Black Americans. I used to call them pseudo-Democrats. These "Republicans" which include the pro-Busites, now claim they were abandoned by the Party and not the other way around. What they are really saying is that they're racist but don't have the guts to admit it. Oh, how these "Christians" hate to hear the truth, especially where it concerns them.

Lyndon Johnson said it well, that once Democrats passed the Civil Rights bill, that the South would be lost to the Democratic Party for generations. President Johnson spoke the truth. We lost the Southern White man's vote in the South and there's nothing we can do about that. I know that Southern Whites vote against their own economic interests but they refuse to "see" this reality and all we can do is to continue to tell the truth to the best of our ability and that's all we can do.

Look JM, I know how you're trying to work to make the "healing" of our country take place and I sympathize with your efforts. But realize this, that no matter how you picture it, George W. Bush misled our country and continues to mislead and even though he won the election, this has not changed---so, I ask you, how can there be any healing? Are we going to begin to accept being misled? All of us have to make this decision and I have already made mine. I will tell the truth---I will continue to tell the truth even though it hurts.

You end your post with, "This is just my opinion." Well, let me add that your opinion is what counts so, no matter what they say, never allow others to trample on it. Defend it as if your life depends on it because it does. Our opinions are the only reason our lives "count."

Your POST follows:

"Hi Abel: Keep on posting! I have to admit that there is a little bit of smugness being expressed from SOME of the Republican supporters. I saw your post about an Ohio recount. I don't know what to think about it, but anything is possible. We witnessed Florida 4 years ago. All I can say is that it better not be proven that some hijinx occurred there because there will be trouble beyond compare. I am actually hoping that there is nothing because our democracy needs to be as pure as it can be in order for it to have any relevance.
Abel, I am sure that you have seen people refer to me as a liberal. I know that you proudly wear that label. I don't have any problems with that. I do have to say that I am not a liberal, no matter what people want to call me. I am honestly a centrist in most of my beliefs. I was very conservative as a teenager and youn adult, but I am past that phase now and never intend to return to it. I do believe that the extreme on either end of the political spectrum is not good so I try to keep toward the center on most issues. I may deviate from time to time. I do believe, though, that George Bush is not for the average person regardless about how many times I have read otherwise. I do believe that we will see this in the future, but again, I am not wishing anything on anybody. I am hoping for the best even though I believe America has not chosen the best to lead us. I live in the Northeast. I am having some difficulty understanding how some people, for instance in the central part of the country, consistently side with Republicans. They seem vote rich, but live poor. Values do mean something, I agree. But values cover a broad range of ideas. The Democratic party at this time hold the values that are more favorable to average Americans in many respects with the exception of the "Hollywood" crowd. I don't care that famous people make endorsements, but sometimes the moral direction that Hollywood takes only hurts us. I honestly don't go to movies because so much of them are things that I would rather not spend money on. I am smart enough to show my disdain for immoral entertainment by not spending my money on it. That is all that needs to be done, people. Vote with your wallet. When Hollywood sees that people aren't buying, then things will change on the morals issue that people are "so concerned" about. I just don't understand how people chose the moral issue over pocketbook issues. I suspect that there is a relationship between the economy and morals. As the economy sours, there is stress placed on the moral fiber. This is just my opinion."
Posted by: JM at November 12, 2004 08:45 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 12, 2004 01:20 PM

Abel is not only liberal, he is conservative, moderate and progressive. Right Abel?

Posted by: Wayne at November 12, 2004 04:14 PM

The following information is for the benefit of supporters of George W. Bush's who "wish" that our invasion of Iraq be considered "legal." Unfortunately, our invasion could never be considered "legal" and we must learn to accept the fact that our beloved president has made "war criminals," of all of us.

I sincerely hope that none of us "Christians" will mind being designated and described in this manner. No, I had nothing to do with this information either. I have not made any of this up nor is it only my opinion. I'm just acting as a messenger once again and my purpose is solely to provide you with this important information. Now, where's the outrage? Surely it's not going to be aimed at the messenger. Unfortunately, the war crimes that we have committed are even worse than I have described here. The following is only part of the story. Do your own research if you don't believe me. My warmest regards to all ---Abel

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2004/1104torture.htm

Systematic Violations of the Geneva Conventions by the U.S.

But systematic violations of the Geneva Conventions by the U.S. hardly started with 9/11. Indeed, they are characteristic of virtually every conflict the U.S. has been involved in since the end of World War II. The following are just a few examples:

According to a 1999 Pulitzer Prize winning series by Associated Press, it was the official policy of the U.S. military to fire on South Korean civilians during the Korean War. U.S. bombing also obliterated virtually every civilian target in North Korea.

In Vietnam, civilians living in "free fire zones"-most of the country-were considered valid targets, and civilians were overwhelmingly the victims of bombing during the Indochina war. Then National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger instructed the U.S. Air Force to bomb "anything that moved" in Cambodia. From 1967 to 1970, the "Phoenix Program" assassinated some 60,000 to 70,000 civilians in South Vietnam. A U.S. Congressional study found that the Program "appears to have violated the 1948 Geneva Conventions for the protection of civilians."

Bombing attacks in the first Gulf War and the Kosovo War systematically targeted power plants and grids, railway stations, refineries, communication networks, sewerage treatment facilities, and water purification plants, in spite of Article 54 of the Geneva Conventions which prohibits attacking any objectives "indispensable to the survival of the civilian population." One could even make a case that the use of hundreds of tons of Depleted Uranium Ammunition (DUA) in Kosovo and the two Gulf wars constitutes a war crime. The Conventions clearly require the victorious party to assume responsibility for the conquered civilian population and to clean up the chaos of war. DUA has poisoned water supplies in Iraq, parts of Kuwait, and Yugoslavia, and birth defects and cancer incidences are far higher in areas where DUA was used. The U.S., however, claims that DUA poses no potential health risks, and therefore it doesn’t have to remove the low-level radioactive debris.

It is not only a record Americans should be ashamed of; it is one that should make us afraid. The Geneva Conventions and other international laws were not drawn up by bleeding heart liberals, nor were they designed to protect weaker nations. They were a response to the enormous numbers of civilian casualties inflicted by World War II, and as a practical way to shield everyone's armed forces from humiliation, torture and death at the hands of an adversary.

If we are cavalier or dismissive about international law, it will encourage others to be so as well. The most likely victims of that policy will be we civilians, as well as our own uniformed forces. If we torture prisoners and hide them from the eyes of organizations like the Red Cross, why shouldn't others do the same to our soldiers and civilians?

In a recent commentary in the Financial Times, Jakob Kellenberger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, wrote: "The struggle against terrorism cannot be legitimate if it undermines basic values shared by humanity. The right to life and protection against murder, torture and degrading treatment must be at the heart of the actions of those engaged in this struggle. The struggle will lose credibility if it is used to justify acts otherwise considered unacceptable, such as the killing of people not participating in hostilities."

Apart from the inhumanity our actions engender, as an entirely practical matter, to do anything less than Kellenberger suggests is to place our own people in harm's way.

About the Author: Conn Hallinan is a foreign policy analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus and a Lecturer in Journalism at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 12, 2004 06:40 PM

Louis,

Louis, I have already said in a POST to JM that "I don't believe that anything will come from the Ohio and/or Florida recounts but I mentioned them only to demonstrate the "closeness" of the election. The pro-Bushites are thinking that they have a mandate because George W. Bush "won." The truth is that they have absolutely no mandate what-so-ever and they need to realize it. Some of them get angry because we haven't "disappeared." They think I'm being bitter about the election but the truth is that I feel sorry for them. Isn't it clear by now that they're unhappy about 'something.'"

Yes, I agree with you that we have to work with Republicans and be able to compromise...but we also have to learn to distinguish Republicans from the pro-Bushites. Just like the Democrats have different "ranges," the Republicans are the same way. Many good Republicans make sense and we need to align ourselves with them and not the pro-Bushites.

I hope you don't believe that "all" Republicans liked and supported George W. Bush. Well, obviously that's not true and some of them even voted for our candidate John Kerry although they won't admit it publicly for political reasons.

You mention, "The days of our way or no way are done." You should already know that Democrats have never been that way. We have open minds---we listen, we learn and we are never afraid to change and begin to do things differently. We are not going to have to change or beome any different than we already are. Actually, the only thing we have insisted on is that we serve middle class workers and average American citizens first and not just the wealthy and the powerful interests.

You're right about Senator Barack Obama from Illinois. I know that many good Repubicans would support him. He's a good man and, unlike George W. Bush, would make an excellent President. On the other hand, I hope you don't expect the pro-Bushites to support him, because they won't. The pro-Bushites are just lying to you when they suggest that.

Listen Louis, I have already posted regarding what I think of labels and I won't repeat myself here but rest assured that I'm like you regarding this matter. I simply never pay attention to the pro-Bushites and what they label me is just fine and dandy with me. If they want to call me a Liberal, that's fine with me too. Whatever they want is fine with me---The truth is, I just ignore them.

One final thought. You say, "Put the hate aside Abel and lets move forward." Don't worry about me, there has never been even an ounce of hate in me. I believe in "love" and there's a lot of that in me. Like I said, I agree with you that we must "show tolerence and be able to compromise," but that's a trait that we have always shown so you really have no reason to be concerned. The Democratic Party is more united now than it has ever been and it'll stay that way but don't expect it to begin blindly following the likes of George W. Bush. I don't believe that'll ever happen either.

Your POST follows:

"Recount? Abel let it die! Let it die it is over quit holding on to this false hope. I know you wanted Bush to lose and so did I, it is over. Try to move ahead and focus your energy on making this country better. The Democratic Party will have another shot but alot needs to be done in the next four years. Starting with pulling the Party together and back to the center and working to get some serious problems solved in this country. And that means we have to work with the Republicans and show tolerence and be able to compromise. I hope the Republican leaders will be willing to do the same. This days of our way or no way are done. I believe the entire country will be watching what Congress does in the next two years and over the next four. If there is an unwillingness to change and work together there will be a shift.
I am not a liberal Abel, I am a moderate Democrat and proud of my position on issues facing this country. If the Democrats would come back toward the center we will stand a better chance next time. The Party needs to take the position of the likes of Obama, a message of not just giving hope, but a clear outlined message and a plan on getting it done. That is what was missing from the Democratic party this time.
I dont know if you have ever listened to the speach Obama gave at the Democratic Convention, that is what the Party needs. I think even the Republican's in this blog would even agree with me.
Put the hate aside Abel and lets move forward."
Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 12, 2004 10:45 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 12, 2004 10:09 PM

Devil Dawg

Your history lesson was outstanding!! I hope you don't mind that I emailed it to all of my friends.

Great analogies.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at November 12, 2004 10:28 PM

Wayne

Abel is a man for all political seasons. LOL

Posted by: Calamity Jane at November 12, 2004 10:29 PM

Louis,
Well put. I am a republican and was an independent up untill 2001. I chose the republicans because I felt they were more center. This does not mean I would not vote for a democrat. If the democrats would move more center they would win hands down. I am sorry to say that it does not look like that will happen anytime soon.

I hope the democrats get the message because America deserves to choose between 2 good candidates. I wish your party the best of luck and pray that it all works out.

Posted by: Wayne at November 12, 2004 10:38 PM

Abel:

Per your post to me, I was surprised to see the comments on race. I also believe that there is an underlying current of racism in the Republican party. I believe that the party was abandoned by white southerners because of their disdain for the Democratic party's support for equal rights for ALL Americans. I'll be honest with you. I say good riddance to these people. I have always thought that God does not see color. Many Southerners consider themselves to be devout and morally correct Christians. I am not calling all Southern whites racists. What I am saying is that I don't think it can be denied that Southerners felt betrayed in some way by a Democratic Party was trying to be all inclusive. Since the party didn't play by their rules, they bolted. Again, good riddance. They do vote against their economic interests. Live poor and vote rich. I see nothing wrong with equality for everyone. The people who espouse racist dogma need to look deep within themselves and come to an understanding that their beliefs are in conflict with Christianity.

Posted by: JM at November 13, 2004 12:06 AM

Abel:

I haven't said anything about "healing". I, too am not interested in kissing butt because it will never happen. I speak what I feel. My only thoughts about Bush is that I hope he doesn't screw anything up any worse than he has already. I do wish, though, that the nest 4 years go smoothly because I don't want to see anything bad happen to this country or this country's citizens.

Posted by: JM at November 13, 2004 12:10 AM

Abel,
The democratic party is more united than ever? Why did you lose than? You show tolerance? It shows in your posts how much tolerance you have. Now you are being asked by your own supporters to lay off the hate. Sounds united to me.

Abel, look around you. I want this nation united as well. If everyone had your attitude we would have a civil war here.

Posted by: Wayne at November 13, 2004 09:34 AM

?Nino Scalia for chief justice. Let the healing begin.? That?s the mixed message that Democrats hear no matter what?s being said, because it?s crazy-making time, that period when the other side has won but has not yet signaled how much pain will be inflicted on the losers: Chief Justice Scalia (or Clarence Thomas), more tax cuts, more deficits, more invasions -- both of the privacy and war kind.

If my stack of invites is any indication, Democrats are booking most of the conference rooms in Washington to confront their fears (and write fund-raising letters based on them) and ask, ad infinitum, ?Whither Goes Our Party?? Oh, the recriminations, the breast beating, the soul searching -- to the extent Democrats have one to search.

For Democrats, it?s been a bumpy road from ?I Have a Dream? to Kerry?s ?I Have a Plan.? Democratic senators from red states up in ?06 should think hard about their every vote or they will find themselves Bushwhacked by a challenger loaded up with saddlebags of Pioneer dollars. Rank-and-file Democrats feel a political Rapture coming that?s likely to leave them in a bad place.

Of course, Democrats are operating on a dearth of information. The president has done little to tip his hand, except say things like ?I earned capital in the campaign -- political capital -- and now I intend to spend it. It is my style,? which actually cost him some capital to say. Yes, nude-statue-shrouding and Geneva-Convention-ignoring John Ashcroft will be leaving the Cabinet, presumably because Bush asked him to. There?s nothing to be read into Commerce Secretary Don Evans leaving, except it?s time to return to the private sector. Bush must be pleased with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, despite Paul Bremer?s admission that Rumsfeld sent too few troops to secure Iraq and despite Abu Ghraib, because the president made it clear in his first postelection news conference that Rumsfeld was not leaving soon.

Worrying is one way for Democrats to fill these slow postelection days. But as much as I like seeing a party that?s disappointed me berate itself, I don?t think it?s going to be as awful as its members fear. Well before Democrats find themselves some good ideas, Republicans may find that some of theirs are bad as they, in fact, have to deliver to their various constituencies. Part of the agenda will be stopped by reality: Unless Bush has a few trillion stashed away, he doesn?t have the money for Social Security privatization, healthcare savings accounts or making those tax cuts permanent. It also takes money to extend the flawed No Child Left Behind (that?s why so many children have been).

And the anchor of the agenda -- right-wing appointments to the Supreme Court -- may well be stopped by Republican fear of a splinter in their own coalition. The court presents a dilemma for Republicans. It?s a zero-sum game. If evangelicals win, moderates lose. Until now, there?s always been a reason why the Bushes couldn?t do more than regret abortion. The Bushes finessed the pro-choice voters with a wink from Barbara and now Laura, which signaled that nothing threatening was going to happen on their watch. There?s no quicker way for soccer moms to be reborn than to convene a 5-4 pro-life vote on the Supreme Court. Surely if Karl Rove is smart enough to find and roust out all those underperforming rural voters, he?s smart enough to remember those millions of less voluble but more numerous Republicans who know the way to their suburban voting booths without any help and whose desertion would be a catastrophe. It?s why Bush talks more about a ?culture of life? than about a culture of pro-life.

Democrats don?t have much to give shape to their dread. The only event so far is how Bush treated Sen. Arlen Specter when the Pennsylvania Republican suggested that the president should maybe send up reasonable nominees for the Supreme Court or face filibusters that a 55-vote GOP majority couldn?t overcome. You?d think Specter had said he liked foreign-policy maven Barbra Streisand?s music. Smacked down -- he was threatened with missing out on his rightful claim to chair the Judiciary Committee -- Specter backed down.

But if Specter gets his chairmanship -- and Orrin Hatch, who?s rarely wrong on such matters, says he will -- I?d score one for the moderates and a sign that Bush sees the peril in delivering the court to his right wing. To those Democrats belaboring their lot in overheated hotel rooms, there are advantages to not having to actually govern. You can watch the other side make choices that splinter its coalition while you rebuild yours. So plant yourself in front of C-SPAN and watch the drama. It?s mostly beyond your control but may not be beyond your advantage. Stay tuned. And let the healing begin.

ANY COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE? JUST FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 13, 2004 10:00 AM

I did not say follow George Bush blind Abel. Mr. Bush is one person.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 13, 2004 03:07 PM

Devil Dawg you are ignorant! Keep that frame of mind. I suppose all of the women in this blog enjoyed that because it seems that they were left out of your conservative message except for being provided for. I do not know about your wife Devil Dawg but my wife would be very offended by your comments. She would tell you she does not need to be provided for and is more than capable of making her own decisions.

I do not know how the rest of you feel about Devil Dawgs world history lesson, it sounds like it comes from the days before women were allowed to vote and work for a living.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at November 13, 2004 03:18 PM

JM:

Face it, George W. Bush, being who he is, will "screw up" again. Hopefully, the American people will be able to survive these coming four years and make some progress to remedy the evil that George W. has "accomplished."

You say, "... I don't want to see anything bad happen to this country or this country's citizens," as if you are talking about two different things. The truth is that American citizens make up our country so you're really talking about the same thing. To be clear, land alone does not a country make.

Above all, all of us need to remember that our citizens are soverign here in the good old USA. Just like our citizens "activated" our Constitution, our citizens could, if they wanted to, "un-activate it," and nobody or nothing could stop them from doing it---if they wanted to do it. Let me be clear here, that I'm not advocating that this be done in any way, shape or form. I'm merely "recognizing" the power that American citizens have---power that not even a US President can dream of having.

In any case, the point I want to make is that I'm fully confident that Americans will make the right decisions and make sure that our country continuous to make progress no matter who is or isn't president. To make things more clear, I think that the American people do not even require any "healing" to take place. Whether or not we are able to see it, as a people, all of us are already united.

What I'm currently doing may sound contradictory but the truth needs to be told. I'm just telling it exactly like I see it and I'm not going to ever stop doing this. Believe this, telling the truth will only make our country stronger. I sincerely believe that our country can stand more of the truth and less of the lies that have been told to us by, "you know who." Can you believe that some folks here still don't believe that lies have been told to us or that we have been misled?

Your POST follows:

"Abel: I haven't said anything about "healing". I, too am not interested in kissing butt because it will never happen. I speak what I feel. My only thoughts about Bush is that I hope he doesn't screw anything up any worse than he has already. I do wish, though, that the nest 4 years go smoothly because I don't want to see anything bad happen to this country or this country's citizens."
Posted by: JM at November 13, 2004 12:10 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 13, 2004 03:48 PM

Just able to get back. So this is where everybody is! Read Abel's accusation of Bush leading us into an unwarranted war. Well Abel for your info, the North Korean's never attacked us and we had the Korean War. 34,000 American servicemen lost their lives in three years- an average of 11,333 lives a year. North Vietnam never attacked us, and we went to war with them. 58,000 lives lost over ten years. An average of 5,800 a year. What about Kosovo? They never attacked. Clinton went to war there. None were approved by the U.N. and shouldn't have needed to be. What about Somalia? We take some casualties and pull out. Typical Democratic leadership decision. Made us look weak in the eyes of the terrorists. The 1992ombing of the Twin Towers. Clinton did nothing. The embassies and the USS Cole. Clinton did nothing. What does that portray to terrorists? Weakness. Let's do 9/11! And they did. Now we have a president like Reagan that's taking it to them. No attacks since 9/11. Hmm, wonder why? It's like when you're in a bar. The littlest guy keeps slapping you around, and will keep doing it until you get up and slap him down. That's what we're doing. Look at the results. What about the last Democratic President? Jimmy Carter. Iran held american hostages for 444 days. Reagan vowed to rescue them if elected. The day Reagan was sworn in, they were released. Carter thought the old Democratic party idea of 'touchy, fuzzy, feel good, let's talk' works. It doesn't. It works on 'Leave to Beaver', but not in the real world of terrorists. I know whereof I speak. It's obvious my post to you on one of the other forums written to you was not read, or you would have responded. I'll post it again here. You're a good man, I'm sure Abel. But you have to open your eyes and see the real world of terrorism. It's insiduous and scary. If we don't do what we're doing today, we'll lose, pure and simple. And just because it's not on the 6 O'clock news, doesn't mean it's not being fought with vicious, ferocity. There's more going on than you know.

Posted by: NavyVet at November 13, 2004 07:34 PM

Abel, this is my reply to you on Nov.7. I wouldn't post it again except for you calling me a coward. Here it is:

Abel,

You wrote: You are a true coward from Cuba who if you were a man, you'd be there fighting against the Fidel Castro whom you hate.
I wrote telling you I fought him in Grenada. Before that I was in Lebanon fighting terrorists and after the Grenada incident, one day later, I I went back to Lebanon. You know, I don't brag and I NEVER claimed I was a hero. I was doing my job. Like a butcher, a baker, an office worker or anybody else. It was my job. I chose it. And I did it well. But I'm not a hero. I did my chosen job and wanted to be the best. I think I was. And in my job as a civilian I want to be the best. I think I am. In everything I do, I want to be the best. When I'm an old man and retired, I will be the best old retired man in the world. That's me, and I strive be the best in everything I do. I've fought in South America several times, but most of my combat time has been in the Middle East even when you weren't aware there was fighting. I was fighting terrorists when you weren't even aware they were around. Can you say Hezbollah and Intifadeh? They've been there and active before '81 when I was fighting them. See, that's the part that drives me crazy, people think if it's not a major war there is no problem. The fight against terrorists is and has been fought on a daily basis. It's not news. You have a team of 6 to 10 guys doing their job, putting their life on the line, saving people, and no one knows or cares. Several teams of these Spec Ops people, Delta Force, Green Beret, Recon Marines and all the SEAL teams. You think these guys sit in a barracks until the 6 0'clock news says there is a war? There is a micro war going on every single day in this world, and our guys are there! These are the 'Secret Wars' and you'll never know about them. Medals? I have medals. And not just from 4 months of combat. Something you have to understand is SEAL teams are fighting even when there are no 'formal wars'. I have no purple hearts because I didn't screw up! You get three purple hearts in four months, you screwed up big time. I would never want a screw-up like that on my team. He's a danger to himself and me! He's a maverick, clear and simple. I had fourteen years of service and about 11 years cumulative combat. My medals:
Navy Cross
Navy Distinguished Service Medal
Silver Star
Bronze Star
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Joint Service Commendation Medal
Combat Action Ribbon
Navy Presidential Unit Citation
Some of these are multiple awards, actually, most are. Of course, that's 11 years of service, not 4 months. I have others, but they are run of the mill medals and ribbons. These are accolades. Doesn't make me a hero. Nice to have. Your boss says good job. Everybody wants a pat on the back. Makes you feel good.But hero? No. A hero is someone that goes above and beyond the call of duty. I didn't. I did my job. But I will brag one time and say I did my job exceptionally well. I was respected by the men above me and below me. But a hero, no. But a man that did the best he could for his country, yes. A man that did the best for himself, yes. A man that did what he did for selfish reasons yes. But I feel even though I did what I did for selfish reasons, it benefitted other people and my country. I believe this to be true. Thank God Bush won. He's the next Ronald Reagan! When Clinton got in office, I left the service. I saw he wasn't committed. But, food for thought, as I was fighting these terrorists out of sight, during the Reagan years there wasn't 1 attack on Americans. Think, during the Clinton years they started again. '92 the Trade Towers were hit. What did Clinton do? Nada. The USS Cole, embassys and all the others you all know about? Then 9/11. Since then with Bush in office? 3 days before the election OBL sends us a tape because he can't send a bomb! 'Nuff said.

Posted by: NavyVet at November 13, 2004 07:41 PM

JM,
You wrote:
The people who espouse racist dogma need to look deep within themselves and come to an understanding that their beliefs are in conflict with Christianity. You also said: I also believe that there is an underlying current of racism in the Republican party. I believe that the party was abandoned by white southerners because of their disdain for the Democratic party's support for equal rights for ALL Americans. So, you making a vague statement like that about a whole race of people and a political party isn't racist?
I'm white, but hispanic. I'm born and raised in the south. I don't have the racist values you espouse. So you can see what I feel and what motivates me and everyone on this forum? It seems to me, you're the racist. To even just bring it up proves it. I think you're the first person to bring up race. Too bad. I never saw this election about race, just ideals and positions and different points of view.

Posted by: NavyVet at November 13, 2004 07:53 PM

KERRY WON OHIO
JUST COUNT THE BALLOTS AT THE BACK OF THE BUS
In These Times
Friday, November 12, 2004

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=393&row=0

Most voters in Ohio chose Kerry. Here's how the votes vanished.

By Greg Palast

This February, Ken Blackwell, Ohio's Secretary of State, told his State Senate President, "The possibility of a close election with punch cards as the state’s primary voting device invites a Florida-like calamity." Blackwell, co-chair of Bush-Cheney reelection campaign, wasn't warning his fellow Republican of disaster, but boasting of an opportunity to bring in Ohio for Team Bush no matter what the voters wanted. And most voters in Ohio wanted JFK, not GWB. But their choice won't count because their votes won't be counted.

The ballots that add up to a majority for John Kerry in Ohio -- and in New Mexico -- are locked up in two Republican hidey-holes: "spoiled" ballots and "provisional" ballots.

OHIO SPOILED ROTTEN
American democracy has a dark little secret. In a typical presidential election, two million ballots are simply chucked in the garbage, marked "spoiled" and not counted. A dive into the electoral dumpster reveals something special about these votes left to rot. In a careful county-by-county, precinct-by-precinct analysis of the Florida 2000 race, the US Civil Rights Commission discovered that 54% of the votes in the spoilage bin were cast by African-Americans. And Florida, Heaven help us, is typical. Nationwide, the number of Black votes "disappeared" into the spoiled pile is approximately one million. The other million in the no-count pit come mainly from Hispanic, Native-American and poor white precincts, a decidedly Democratic demographic.

Ohio Republicans, simultaneously in charge of both the Bush-Cheney get-out-the-vote drive and the state's vote-counting rules, doggedly and systematically insured the spoilage pile would be as high as the White House.

Vote spoilage comes in two flavors. There are "overvotes" -- too many punches in the cards, and "undervotes." Here we find the hanging, dimpled and "pregnant" chads created by old, dysfunctional punch card machines, in which the bit of paper covering the hole doesn't fall out, but hangs on. Machines can't read these, but we humans, who know a hole when we see one, have no problem reading these cards … if allowed to. This is how Katherine Harris defeated Al Gore, by halting the hand count of the spoiled punch cards not, as is generally believed, by halting a "recount."

Whose chads are left hanging? In Florida in 2000 federal investigators determined that Black voters' ballots spoiled 900% more often than white voters, mainly due to punch card error. Ohio Republicans found those racial odds quite attractive. The state was the only one of fifty to refuse to eliminate or fix these vote-eating machines, even in the face of a lawsuit by the ACLU.

Apparently, the Ohio Republicans like what the ACLU found. The civil rights group's expert testimony concluded that Ohio's cussed insistence on forcing 73% of its electorate to use punch card machines had an "overwhelming" racial bias, voiding votes mostly in Black precincts. Blackwell doesn't disagree; and he hopes to fix the machinery … sometime after George Bush's next inauguration. In the meantime, the state's Attorney General Jim Petro, a Republican, strategically postponed the trial date of the ACLU case until after the election.

Fixing a punch card machine is cheap and easy. If Ohio simply placed a card-reading machine in each polling station, as Michigan did this year, voters could have checked to ensure their vote would tally. If not, they would have gotten another card.
Blackwell knows that. He also knows that if those reading machines had been installed, almost all the 93,000 spoiled votes, overwhelmingly Democratic, would have closed the gap on George Bush's lead of 136,000 votes.

JIM CROW'S PROVISIONAL BALLOT

Add to the spoiled ballots a second group of uncounted votes, the 'provisional' ballots, and -- voila! -- the White House would have turned Democrat blue.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 13, 2004 08:46 PM

Louis,
As scary as this may sound, I agree with you that Devil Dawg's comments were uncalled for. I am not a liberal, but I do think that there is a place for liberals. They keep the conservatives more center. Although we may disagree about many things, I like to think of myself as more center than right leaning. I can see that you are more center than left leaning as well. My respect for you has grown recently and think that your opinion is valuable.

Talk to you soon.

Posted by: Wayne at November 13, 2004 11:07 PM

Abel,
Kerry lost. Plain and simple. It is over.

Keep up the copy and pastes that I do not read. I know that others do not read them as well, but I only speak for myself. Maybe others will tell you they do not read them as well.

Whoever does not read Abel's copy and pastes,let him know.

Posted by: Wayne at November 13, 2004 11:08 PM

NavyVet: You, my friend, are brainwashed... something that the military does rather well with its recruits.

Posted by: JM at November 13, 2004 11:39 PM

NavyVet,

Thanks very much for the information that you have provided. I apologize and take back what I said about you being a coward. You are obviously not that and have never been. You have obviously been placed in danger more than once and, to me, you are definitely a hero.

My concern has been more about the foreign interests that we are supposed to be protecting. I have become aware that our "interests" are about foreign businesses, oil, other minerals, foreign money investments and other money-making foreign products than about the hard pressed American people. I'm not sure that those interests are or should be protected because while far too many in our military are dying, very few Americans tend to benefit. The American tax-payer is paying too high a cost and I just don't believe that's right.

I believe all Americans should begin to question why we are all around the world protecting these "foreign interests" that we protect. You say, "There is a micro war going on every single day in this world, and our guys are there," and I don't doubt that for a minute but the question should be "who's benefiting" or making money out of what we're protecting? All of us should begin to consider why we're over there when obviously "they" are not over here---at least not before the tower incidents, etc., in '92 and in 9/11.

One thing that I will say is that I have always been aware about what our country has been doing all around the world. I have also been aware that not everything has been "a positive" regarding what we have been doing around the world including some of our "struggles" in South and Central America. You need to remember that we do the "defining" and groups that "fight" us are automatically designated as "Terrorists." We need to question these definitions and consider who among us is making profit from what we call, "defending our national interests."

Certainly we must know by now that the more powerful our government becomes, the more corrupt it tends to be. We need to question what our government is doing all the time, that is, if we expect to continue being a free people. I believe that if we don't question it, we'll lose our precious freedom for sure. My best wishes to you.

Your POST follows:

"Abel, You wrote: You are a true coward from Cuba who if you were a man, you'd be there fighting against the Fidel Castro whom you hate.
I wrote telling you I fought him in Grenada. Before that I was in Lebanon fighting terrorists and after the Grenada incident, one day later, I I went back to Lebanon. You know, I don't brag and I NEVER claimed I was a hero. I was doing my job. Like a butcher, a baker, an office worker or anybody else. It was my job. I chose it. And I did it well. But I'm not a hero. I did my chosen job and wanted to be the best. I think I was. And in my job as a civilian I want to be the best. I think I am. In everything I do, I want to be the best. When I'm an old man and retired, I will be the best old retired man in the world. That's me, and I strive be the best in everything I do. I've fought in South America several times, but most of my combat time has been in the Middle East even when you weren't aware there was fighting. I was fighting terrorists when you weren't even aware they were around. Can you say Hezbollah and Intifadeh? They've been there and active before '81 when I was fighting them. See, that's the part that drives me crazy, people think if it's not a major war there is no problem. The fight against terrorists is and has been fought on a daily basis. It's not news. You have a team of 6 to 10 guys doing their job, putting their life on the line, saving people, and no one knows or cares. Several teams of these Spec Ops people, Delta Force, Green Beret, Recon Marines and all the SEAL teams. You think these guys sit in a barracks until the 6 0'clock news says there is a war? There is a micro war going on every single day in this world, and our guys are there! These are the 'Secret Wars' and you'll never know about them. Medals? I have medals. And not just from 4 months of combat. Something you have to understand is SEAL teams are fighting even when there are no 'formal wars'. I have no purple hearts because I didn't screw up! You get three purple hearts in four months, you screwed up big time. I would never want a screw-up like that on my team. He's a danger to himself and me! He's a maverick, clear and simple. I had fourteen years of service and about 11 years cumulative combat. My medals:
Navy Cross
Navy Distinguished Service Medal
Silver Star
Bronze Star
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Joint Service Commendation Medal
Combat Action Ribbon
Navy Presidential Unit Citation
Some of these are multiple awards, actually, most are. Of course, that's 11 years of service, not 4 months. I have others, but they are run of the mill medals and ribbons. These are accolades. Doesn't make me a hero. Nice to have. Your boss says good job. Everybody wants a pat on the back. Makes you feel good.But hero? No. A hero is someone that goes above and beyond the call of duty. I didn't. I did my job. But I will brag one time and say I did my job exceptionally well. I was respected by the men above me and below me. But a hero, no. But a man that did the best he could for his country, yes. A man that did the best for himself, yes. A man that did what he did for selfish reasons yes. But I feel even though I did what I did for selfish reasons, it benefitted other people and my country. I believe this to be true. Thank God Bush won. He's the next Ronald Reagan! When Clinton got in office, I left the service. I saw he wasn't committed. But, food for thought, as I was fighting these terrorists out of sight, during the Reagan years there wasn't 1 attack on Americans. Think, during the Clinton years they started again. '92 the Trade Towers were hit. What did Clinton do? Nada. The USS Cole, embassys and all the others you all know about? Then 9/11. Since then with Bush in office? 3 days before the election OBL sends us a tape because he can't send a bomb! 'Nuff said."
Posted by: NavyVet at November 13, 2004 07:41 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 13, 2004 11:48 PM

Abel
nonsense

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 14, 2004 01:37 AM

Their still dreaming of a President Kerry. Give it up and stop with the, Bush has to act like Kerry to heal the country. Bush won, I am sure President Bush, will accept right thinking democrates in policy making. But we are not going to accept liberal nonsence, we won, are ball, and are rules. Now tell me thats not the way it's always done by the winner.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 14, 2004 01:50 AM

What does everyone do to support our troops?

Posted by: Wayne at November 14, 2004 04:03 PM

Did GW use God to win the election? On Aug 10, he went into private chambers (no, not the throne room)and prayed that he would be able to win the election without a Florida recount.
Suddenly a light filled the room while the President was on his knees and an angel stood before him, saying, "God is plased. In fact, he wants to help your campaign".
"H-how?" a thunderstruck Bush quavered, looking up to this Enlightened Appirition, fear being replaced with hope- and thanksgiving.
"He will send them the four winds of the Apocolypse to test your people. The first will arrive in three days, the next in three weeks, and the final two in the weeks following. And this will humble the arrogent and thankless amongst them. Shower them with ice, recovery programs, and relief aid. And you will win".
So George Bush didn't have to settle for just lawn signs and bumper stickers. This election did not need to be a mandate. It was HIS will.

I am Abel Ochoa and I believe this message.

Posted by: Dave at November 14, 2004 05:51 PM

JM, I agree with you that there were many Repubilcans out to get Bill Clinton and did everything to bring him down. Some of this was fueled by the anger of party loyalists who saw Democrats using the No New Taxes promise of Bush 41 used against him after a democratic lead house forced him into a compromise. That's not an axcuse, because there was no excuse for what happened, just a reason used by Party loyalists. It was wrong then and it is just as wrong for Democratis loyalists to be doing the same thing today. The problem with loyalists on both sides is they only care about what's best for the Party and not for all America.

Today as I read these posts to catch up, I amdisenheartened by the allegations of stealing ballots without any credible source of accountability for the stories. People like Able read these unfounded stories and for them, myth becomes reality. This fuels their anger against ruling authority and that to becomes a reason, but it is also a reason without excuse because it is unfounded in the real principles of truth. While party loyalist spread their lies and dissentions further perpetrating the myths and innacuracies in a time that is definately tumultuous for this country and the world, our soldiers in Iraq have demonstrated why this war is necessary and why the operation in Fallujah offers some hope for a better tomorrow because of the war.

The troops found strongholds with weapons and bomb making devices as well as beheading chambers in rooms covered with blood for those who would oppose the insurrgents. As Thanksgiving comes closer, my heart and my thanks go out to those brave men and women who are serving our nation and our world in their struggle to win the peace and the hope of a better tomorrow for our children. The sacrifice they make is both a cause for celebration and a cause for pain. That people exist who would be willing to lie, cheat and disgrace humanity for a hateful ideology and to prove that they are right even if it means the death of any free person who challenges their thoughts shows that we have a long way to go but as freedom comes to the world in the form of democracy and choice in their government, I think the hope of humanity is still there and that others will come and embrace the cause for which we are fighting.

Can the UN keep silent after the exposure of the oil for food scandal? Can France and Germany still turn a cold heart away from the war against terrorism that they received blood money for? What is in the past is there and does not need to be lived again, only remembered so we do not make the same mistakes. It's time for the whole world to call for the stop of terrorist activities and say enough. It's time for the world to stop making a profit, politically and monetarily in the cause of support of terrorism. It's time for the whole world to hold these terrorists accountable for their actions and for us to move forward in an attempt to bring peace to the world.

There will always be those who refuse to face the promise of a better tomorrow, there will always be those who want to cling to their anger and the pain of their past. There are those who see war only as retaliation and not a last resource in an attempt to bring peace and order to the world and such people are necessary because they help keep war from being a way of life, but until these acts of terrorism cease, the world will always be at war and the world will always live in fear of the next attack and since they are unwilling to yeild in their acts of violence, we are forced to the only other option. Thank God again for those brave men and women for keeping me safe in a land that is still free enough to speak my mind and not fear for my life. Thank God for a country that still holds free elections that most would not dissparage with their deceitful lies. Thank God for those who oppose my views that I might be more informed and challenged to think. Thank God!

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 14, 2004 10:56 PM

JM,
Why do you feel the need to insult NavyVet? Did he do or say something to you to deserve this personal attack?

Posted by: Wayne at November 14, 2004 11:11 PM

Abel, According to your Mr. Palast, the Civil Rights Organization discovered thousands of ballots cast by minorities that were simply thrown away and that, supposedly, the Republicans did the same thing in Ohio and Mexico. I find this very odd since a month before the election, The Civil Rights Commission group went public with their findings on the Florida elections and disclosed that after 4 years of extensive study and research, the Florida Election was legtimate and there was no substantiated evidence that anybody willfully tried to suppress the black or other minority vote. They cited problems with the ballot (which was designed by Democrats) and lack of staff in predominantly Democratic counties but that was it. Now some journalist in England writes an article about minority vote suppression, doesn't state any reports to back his claims and boldly and brazenly calls the Civil Rights Commission Report a pack of lies by ignoring there collective research and then conveniently forgets to include the thousands of military ballots that were not counted becaue Al Gore and his league of lawyers blocked them.

The Village Voice said "Much of the guts for [Michael] Moore's opening screed on how Bush stole the 2000 election came from investigative reporter Greg Palast." Moore's film has been torn to shreds by real evidence and you should try watching Fahrenhype 9/11 and Celsius 41.11 before you try to jump to the ridiculous conclusions that Palast promotes. Apparently Mr. Palast thinks he is above depending on Commission reports, studies and real research and likes to crete the news himself.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 15, 2004 11:43 AM

WITH WISCONSON GOING BLUE THEN RED AT THIS LATE DATE, WILL WE SEE HE FINAL NUMBERS AFTER ALL LATE AND QUESTIONABLE VOTES ARE FINALIZED?

Posted by: JON MARSHALL at November 15, 2004 11:51 AM

The end is near. Red staters repend, blue-staters: find the nearest redneck and thank them for this hell by beating them into a pulp.

Posted by: Paul at November 15, 2004 12:56 PM

Wayne

I don't read Abel's cut and paste either.

And Paul - get a grip will you? What end is near? And in what seventh circle of hell have you found yourself? Life is good in my world.

With Bush re-elected, Arafat dead, our troops taking Fallujah. Things are looking up.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at November 15, 2004 02:04 PM

You know the Democrats have really hit bottom when bigshot liberals like James Carvel start telling gay jokes on Meet The Press.

I guess they've given up on the "compassionate, caring" liberal Bu||$h/t.

It's actually refreshing to see the liberals speaking their minds for a change. They always did hate the gays, they just never would admit it.

I'm sure no one will take offense to Carvel's gay bashing, but I bet it would be front page stuff if a Republican said the same thing.

Double standards are so apparent, and the American people are really starting to catch on (finally.)

Posted by: Diane at November 15, 2004 02:27 PM

Paul,
Are you saying that the blue states should beat up the red states?

Posted by: Wayne at November 15, 2004 04:01 PM

Abel, I don't read third-party copy'n'paste more than 20 lines long. Who cares what some opinionated hack reporter wrote? Doesn't prove anything except somebody else agrees with you. Or that you own stock in truthout.com.

Posted by: Dave at November 15, 2004 04:57 PM

Bring it on!!!!!

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 15, 2004 05:36 PM

Wayne:

It wasn't a personal attack. I think in this case you are really stretching.

Posted by: JM at November 15, 2004 07:33 PM

What happened to Michael Moore's attempts at filming Republican Voter Fraud in Florida? A few days before the election he was bragging about how he was going to catch this on film and I haven't heard anything since then. Now he's going to make a sequel to 9/11 to be released right before the 2008 election. That ought to be real good. I wonder how much truth he's going to distort this time. I've also been following the complete tallies here in Pennsylvania. It looks like after Governor Rendells failed attempts to keep the military vote from being counted, the gap between Bush and Kerry is closing. Kerry took Philadelphia by 400,000 votes but the tally now shows that Bush is behind by about 130,000 votes. There's no official count yet (not until December) but it's going to be interesting to see how these results play out around the country. My guess is that the vote margin is going to increase for Bush once the counts become official. It's funny that not a single news story on television is letting us know this.
Meanwhile, as Able and others alledge voter fraud, using the exit polls as their excuse, they all seem to be ignoring the puch for early voting this election. It's estimated that three out of every ten voters cast their vote early which would have thrown off the exit poll data. That's not counting those voting by absentee and provisional ballots. It's amazing the extent to which these conspiracy theorists will go just so they don't have to admit that they backed the losing candidate. They discover they lost and then fall on the floor and throw temper tantrums like spoiled little children crying to get something they can't have.
Paul's answer is that Bush's victory is the result of redneck's and that they should find them and beat them to a pulp. I wonder how they would respond to a similar comment made had Kerry won blaming the victory on homosexuals, blacks or feminists. Apparently the extreme liberal leftists thinks it's okay to commit acts of violence for their cause. I've seen enough of their rhetoric to know that this alarmist attitude is dangerous, just as dangerous as the extreme right reactions of hatred. It reminds of those days back in the 60's when the peace generation was demonstrating and calling for peace while they threw rocks and rioted in the streets calling the policemen pigs and our vietnam vets baby killers. Peace can come, but only when all parties, including the peace activists demonstrate a willingness to act peacefully and reserve their bigoted hatred by the assumption that rednecks are the reason for this countries woes. For me, I'll take the redneck humor of Jeff Foxworthy over the vindictive hatred of Al Franken and Janeane Garafolo anyday.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 16, 2004 04:08 AM

That's a typical liberal for you- the mouth is mightier than the sword. Can you imagine Colmes trying to take down Sean Hannity? Peter Jennings trying to tear up Bill O'Reilly? Even Paula Zahn b***h-slapping Ann Coulter? Hey, let's give Paul what he asks for. A chance at da Guv'nah Ah-nold . Anyone taking bets?

Posted by: Dave at November 16, 2004 03:47 PM

Diane, I agree with you on the double standards in the news media. LIberals can do and say anything and it's not cosidered hate speech but let a republican conservative say something like that and it's all over the news for weeks. I'm really sick of the media and their openly biased reporting. Most of them don't even try to hide it anymore. Keith Olbermann on MSNBC actually boasted about a fraudulent election and the stealing of votes on his show. It didn't matter that he had no facts to back it up, he just has to say and it becomes news. It makes you wonder how far they will go in thier attempts to rip this country in half so guys like Paul begin looking for excuses to beat up on people because they think differently than him. It's becoming more and more evident that it is no longer the tolerant left, but rather the right that is the more tolerant. Most of us don't care what goes on the privacy a somebody's home but the left doesn't want it to be private, they want it to be public and a matter of national policy and a rule of law.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 16, 2004 05:23 PM

JM,
Calling someone brainwashed and degrading their service to this country is not a personal attack? No wonder your party does not win anymore.

Posted by: Wayne at November 16, 2004 05:28 PM

I just finished reading the AP reports on the Marine who shot a wounded rebel and how this is turning into a media-hyped atrocity. The marine had been shot in the face, had just seen a friend blown to bits by a wounded insurgent who booby-trapped his own body. Now we have to read the comparisons to Abu Ghraib. The incident was filmed by an NBC new reporter who apparently turned the tape over to the Al-Jazeera network because its was news. It didn't matter to him that Al-Jazeera is the biggest piece of propaganda in the terroist network. His actions are tantamount to giving information to the enemy and are inexcusable. Talk about an act of treason. If anybody should be investigated, it's the war correspondent who is aiding and abetting the enemny by providing them with fuel to inspire more hatred for our soldiers who are laying their lives on the line in our defense.
It seems we've forgotten all about the candidate who was awarded a medal for shooting an enemy combatant in the back who was running away from the scene of a conflict. Not only was Kerry honored but he used the incident as part of his Vietnam hero approach to try to win the election.
Looks like NBC is going on the blocked channel list in my home! Get a clue, the insurgents are all civilians. I'd like to know the marine's name so I could write him a letter and thank him.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 16, 2004 05:39 PM

Former G.I.'s, Ordered to War, Fight Not to Go

Visit following web site for complete story:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041116/ZNYT02/411160663

By MONICA DAVEY
New York Times
The Army has encountered resistance from more than 2,000 former soldiers it has ordered back to military work, complicating its efforts to fill gaps in the regular troops.

Many of these former soldiers - some of whom say they have not trained, held a gun, worn a uniform or even gone for a jog in years -object to being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan now, after they thought they were through with life on active duty.

They are seeking exemptions, filing court cases or simply failing to report for duty, moves that will be watched closely by approximately 110,000 other members of the Individual Ready Reserve, a corps of soldiers who are no longer on active duty but still are eligible for call-up.

In the last few months, the Army has sent notices to more than 4,000 former soldiers informing them that they must return to active duty, but more than 1,800 of them have already requested exemptions or delays, many of which are still being considered.

And, of about 2,500 who were due to arrive on military bases for refresher training by Nov. 7, 733 had not shown up.

Army officials say the call-up is proceeding at rates they anticipated, and they are trying to fill needed jobs with former soldiers as they did in the Persian Gulf war of 1991.

Still, the resistance puts further strain on a military that has summoned reserve troops in numbers not seen since World War II and forced thousands of soldiers in Iraq to postpone their departures when their enlistment obligations ended.

Tensions are flaring between the Army and some of its veterans, who say they are surprised and confused about their obligations and unsure where to turn.

"I consider myself a civilian," said Rick Howell, a major from Tuscaloosa, Ala., who said he thought he had left the Army behind in 1997 after more than a decade flying helicopters. "I've done my time. I've got a brand new baby and a wife, and I haven't touched the controls of an aircraft in seven years. I'm 47 years old. How could they be calling me? How could they even want me?"

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 16, 2004 09:42 PM

NavyVet,

You really have JM all wrong. I plead guilty of first bringing up the "race" word. I POSTed one of the following POSTs on November 12, 2004---look for it on this BOARD if you want to see the complete POST. JM was merely responding to me.

That some of the pro-Bushite Republicans are raciest is a historical truth. Some of them even want to return to the "good old days." I imagine that means the time when having slaves was legal. Look at to what degree they fight having strong unions in the south. They want to see all American worker become "At Will." They want to be able to immediately fire all workers when it suits them.

Minus a union, southern workers are condemned to work for peanuts and few, if any, job benefits. Surely you must be aware of what goes on in the south and what I'm saying shouldn't surprise you. The harsh truth is that an American worker is almost a slave and not really free unless he works under a strong union contract and cannot be fired arbitrarily or capriciously. All workers can do minus a job contract is leave if they don't like the way they are being treated. Yes, like George W. Bush, these pro-Bushites also believe in the "It's my way or there's the highway theory." Hopefully you don't agree with them on this issue.

Your POST to JM follows:

JM,
You wrote:
The people who espouse racist dogma need to look deep within themselves and come to an understanding that their beliefs are in conflict with Christianity. You also said: I also believe that there is an underlying current of racism in the Republican party. I believe that the party was abandoned by white southerners because of their disdain for the Democratic party's support for equal rights for ALL Americans. So, you making a vague statement like that about a whole race of people and a political party isn't racist?
I'm white, but hispanic. I'm born and raised in the south. I don't have the racist values you espouse. So you can see what I feel and what motivates me and everyone on this forum? It seems to me, you're the racist. To even just bring it up proves it. I think you're the first person to bring up race. Too bad. I never saw this election about race, just ideals and positions and different points of view.
Posted by: NavyVet at November 13, 2004 07:53 PM

Pertinent part of my POST follows:

"...I know what you mean regarding the South too. The truth is that all these Republicans in the South used to claim themselves to be Democrats but they abandoned and betrayed the Democratic Party once it started representing Black Americans. I used to call them pseudo-Democrats. These "Republicans" which include the pro-Busites, now claim they were abandoned by the Party and not the other way around. What they are really saying is that they're racist but don't have the guts to admit it. Oh, how these "Christians" hate to hear the truth, especially where it concerns them.
Lyndon Johnson said it well, that once Democrats passed the Civil Rights bill, that the South would be lost to the Democratic Party for generations. President Johnson spoke the truth. We lost the Southern White man's vote in the South and there's nothing we can do about that. I know that Southern Whites vote against their own economic interests but they refuse to "see" this reality and all we can do is to continue to tell the truth to the best of our ability and that's all we can do..."
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 12, 2004 01:20 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 16, 2004 10:20 PM

Diane

Well said the double standards on social issues are still in our conservitive faces. Republicans say it bam, slap Woop. Democrates say it there just kidding. Main streem meida will never cover a conservitive in a good light.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 17, 2004 02:16 AM

Can Republican moderates find the nerve to fight back against the neocons (pro-Bushites) who have hijacked their party?

For Answers, read the entire article at:

http://www.alternet.org/election04/20522/

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 17, 2004 10:36 AM

I'm not much on politics, but can someone tell me why the Democrats are always against black people who do well, as well as against women who excel?

They tell everyone that they are for equality, but they don't portray that in reality.

Maybe there is no answer to that question, but I was just curious.

Posted by: Jane T at November 17, 2004 12:44 PM

Abel,
Your reprint on November 16th, 2004 of the Washington Post article is intriguing.

Now for, as Paul Harvey would say, "The rest of the story".

The U.S. Military has been under strain since former president Bill Clinton initiated troop reductions IAW armament treaties signed by the U.S. and Russia. President Clinton even authorized early retirement in order to move senior enlisted and senior officers out of position so junior enlisted and officers could see some career progression. Unfortunately the military did not see the type of new recruit numbers it had anticipated when these policies were put into effect.

When Sr. Enlisted and Officers retire from the military, they don't truly retire. The pay they receive on a monthly basis is also, for lack of a better word, a retainer until they reach the age of 65. Their 65th birthday is their Manditory Retirement Date (MRD) and only a select few people are granted waivers on this date.

Enlistment in the military use to be a 6 year obligation (active + IRR, Reserve-Guard + IRR, active + Reserve-Guard time, or any combination other than IRR + IRR). It then went to an 8 year obligation, and now, depending on the job skill, it is again a 6 year obligation. That is, unless you stay in and attain high rank, then your under the call-up policy stated above.

Officers have the same type of obligation, but when you become an officer you do so with the understanding that your branch of military can call you up again after "retirement" any time they wish until you reach 65. After 65, Congress can un-retire a retired officer 65 or older only if they have a specialized skill-set that other officers of equal or greater rank do not have who are actively serving.

The IRR is being dissolved and will not exist any longer. The military is finding that approximately 70% of those people who go into IRR status from active or reserve/guard status fail to report to training excersises during their IRR tenure. It's like a business allowing someone to perform work at home and they find out that the person has not been working for them but working for someone else. The obligation has not been met and, therefore, a breach in fudiciary duty by the employee. The IRR will not exist in the next three years. All people coming out of active duty will be required to drill at a TPU (reserve or guard unit). They may elect, however, to stay on active duty. But failure to report to duty during war is still AWOL and a capital offence.

Yes, your story was intriguing, but it was slanted (who would guess, coming from the Washington Post). I have listed the facts above.

Now, for an update on the war from where I sit (in the sand box):

We are still seeing civilians and treating them on a humanitarian basis. I can honestly say that the time I spend here is some of the best time I have served anywhere in the military. I am seeing real results. The people of Iraq are very friendly to us. Our hospital has even received some volunteer civilian support to guard us from terrorist activities when the infantry and MPs left for other missions. When the infantry and/or MPs came back, the civilians relinquished their posts and allowed them to do their jobs. But they, the civilians, are always around, bringing us food and other comfort items. We have moved our operations 3 times since I have been in country, but the responce is pretty much the same everywhere. I don't get to watch TV very much, too many people to serve and, when I do get a chance, the usually is a movie playing that someone's parents/spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend or other significant person sent to the soldier in their most recent care package. It's ok. Joe/Jane Soldier needs the release. The last thing I saw last night was about 15 minutes of a cartoon movie called Fern Gully. I haven't seen that since my 12 year old was 5. It brought back memories. I could tell the soldiers were enjoying it. They need the release. We work 12-16 hours a day in a mobile trauma center and the days are even longer when we jump to another location.

I haven't seen CNN/FOX or any other news cast, but that should change pretty soon. My oldest said he bought me a little black and white TV from a local department store, so I should be able to get something - even if it is Al Jazeera.

Too many stories of hope, faith, and good will to tell about. Maybe sometime in the next week or two.

Take care everyone.

Posted by: Robert at November 17, 2004 01:24 PM

Abel, the respected senator in the article you recommended (Arlen Spector) is not as respected here in Pennsylvania as you might expect. Most of the Republicans in this community that I know voted for him because he has tenure in the Senate giving the Republican voice more streength than his republican opponents. Most Republicans actually think of Spector more as a Democrat wearing a Republican title for election purposes only. And as evidenced by the recent fray over his appointment in the judiciary committe, he can be controlled. The author of the article appears to have a problem with conservative religious values having a voice in politics. Liberals are waging an active war against religious conservative values-they have been for years by misrepresenting the separation of church and state issues and ignoring what the founding fathers who framed those words wrote (rather extensively) on the subject at the time. It was never intended to be used as it is today, it was intended from a government sanctioned denominational control, not the exclusion of religious view. As I stated before, the ammendment reads no law restricting or promoting. For the last 30 years they have been making laws restricting religious observance and now that the saw called neo-cons are asking for a return to the more conservative values, liberals are screaming separtion issues with no regards to intention of the amendment. History is valuable. Most Americans don't know the story of our countries founders as eivdenced by the number of people who ask the author of the play 1776 "Is it true?" That this question is even asked shows a lack of understanding about our founding fathers and the government they framed in the constitution and the Bill of Rights. It also shows a failure in the Educational system of not providing you children with an accurate portrayal of the birth of this country. That which poses as modern liberal journalism has little in the roots of democracy and is more about socialism, virtually every founder warned against that agenda, even the most liberal of them like Franklin and Jefferson. Of course, if it was taught, Americans would know and no longer give credance to the voice of modern media.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 17, 2004 04:08 PM

Able,
Thanks for just posting the web address and not the whole site. It makes it easier to skip over your posts. LOL

Posted by: Wayne at November 17, 2004 08:27 PM

I barely got my message out about the liberals making jokes about gays, and now we've got liberal cartoonists making racist and sexist cartoons about Dr. Rice.

Let me get this straight: Liberals are racist, homophobic, and sexists. Isn't that what they call the Republicans all the time?

Oh wait, that's the biased media who says that, isn't it? I'm glad we now know the truth.

I'm also glad so many people see it the way I do. Thanks for the support guys.

Posted by: Diane at November 17, 2004 09:10 PM

ABEL

TALK ABOUT A FRING GROUP RUNNING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IT'S GARBABE. NO THE WIDE EYED LEFT HAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BY THE THROAT THATS A TRUE STATEMENT. PRESIDENT BUSH IS TOO MODERATE FOR MY TASTE BUT THATS JUST ME.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 18, 2004 04:50 AM

To the pro-Bushites,
I found the following jewel by unknown author and thought I'd share it with you. You pro-Bushites think that we Liberals, Progressives, Democrats are bitter about the election results but we're not as this poem clearly shows--that we're willing to hug your elephant, if...
--Abel

Democratic Unity

The election is over, the results are now known.

The will of the people has clearly been shown.

We should show by our thoughts and words and deeds

That unity is just what our country now needs.

Let's all get together. Let bitterness pass.

I'll hug your elephant.

You kiss my a**.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 18, 2004 09:04 PM

Abel,
You have shined again as an example for your side, and have shown them the way to lose yet another national election.

The poem was funny, but for some reason, I think this is how you really feel.

Posted by: Wayne at November 18, 2004 11:01 PM

Come on Diane, admit it. You're really Ann Coulter, aren't you?

Posted by: JM at November 18, 2004 11:51 PM

The exit polls for the states of Florida and Ohio each showed John Kerry was favored by a majority of each state's electorate. I understand that much voting occurred early, and I assume those people cannot be part of an exit poll. I think the fact that the exit polls were wrong is a bit fishy. Now I read below something that is very interesting and very disturbing. I want to hear what happens with this and I hope someone that is impartial on this site is also following this. I can't help but remember George Bush confidently saying that he was going to win this election (as if he knew that it was going to be in his favor regardless of how people voted). If it is determined that there was widespread fraud, the country is going to be in for a lot of trouble. I, a mild-mannered person by nature, am not going to be that way if evidence indicates that this election was tainted significantly enough to throw it to George Bush. We need fair elections in this country or our image as the promoter of democracy will forever be tarnished. I don't care for whom a person voted. What is important to me is that the vote is counted and counted properly. We shouldn't have this BS happening in this country.
-------------------------------------------------
The article starts now:

Published on Thursday, November 18, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
'Stinking Evidence' of Possible Election Fraud Found in Florida
by Thom Hartmann

There was something odd about the poll tapes.

A "poll tape" is the phrase used to describe a printout from an optical scan voting machine made the evening of an election, after the machine has read all the ballots and crunched the numbers on its internal computer. It shows the total results of the election in that location. The printout is signed by the polling officials present in that precinct/location, and then submitted to the county elections office as the official record of how the people in that particular precinct had voted. (Usually each location has only one single optical scanner/reader, and thus produces only one poll tape.)

Bev Harris of www.blackboxvoting.org, the erstwhile investigator of electronic voting machines, along with people from Florida Fair Elections, showed up at Florida's Volusia County Elections Office on the afternoon of Tuesday, November 16, 2004, and asked to see, under a public records request, each of the poll tapes for the 100+ optical scanners in the precincts in that county. The elections workers - having been notified in advance of her request - handed her a set of printouts, oddly dated November 15 and lacking signatures.

Bev pointed out that the printouts given her were not the original poll tapes and had no signatures, and thus were not what she'd requested. Obligingly, they told her that the originals were held in another location, the Elections Office's Warehouse, and that since it was the end of the day they should meet Bev the following morning to show them to her.

Bev showed up bright and early the morning of Wednesday the 17th - well before the scheduled meeting - and discovered three of the elections officials in the Elections Warehouse standing over a table covered with what looked like poll tapes. When they saw Bev and her friends, Bev told me in a telephone interview less than an hour later, "They immediately shoved us out and slammed the door."

In a way, that was a blessing, because it led to the stinking evidence.

"On the porch was a garbage bag," Bev said, "and so I looked in it and, and lo and behold, there were public record tapes."

Thrown away. Discarded. Waiting to be hauled off.

"It was technically stinking, in fact," Bev added, "because what they had done was to have thrown some of their polling tapes, which are the official records of the election, into the garbage. These were the ones signed by the poll workers. These are something we had done an official public records request for."

When the elections officials inside realized that the people outside were going through the trash, they called the police and one came out to challenge Bev.

Kathleen Wynne, a www.blackboxvoting.org investigator, was there.

"We caught the whole thing on videotape," she said. "I don't think you'll ever see anything like this - Bev Harris having a tug of war with an election worker over a bag of garbage, and he held onto it and she pulled on it, and it split right open, spilling out those poll tapes. They were throwing away our democracy, and Bev wasn't going to let them do it."

As I was interviewing Bev just moments after the tussle, she had to get off the phone, because, "Two police cars just showed up."

She told me later in the day, in an on-air interview, that when the police arrived, "We all had a vigorous debate on the merits of my public records request."

The outcome of that debate was that they all went from the Elections Warehouse back to the Elections Office, to compare the original, November 2 dated and signed poll tapes with the November 15 printouts the Elections Office had submitted to the Secretary of State. A camera crew from www.votergate.tv met them there, as well.

And then things got even odder.

"We were sitting there comparing the real [signed, original] tapes with the [later printout] ones that were given us," Bev said, "and finding things missing and finding things not matching, when one of the elections employees took a bin full of things that looked like garbage - that looked like polling tapes, actually - and passed by and disappeared out the back of the building."

This provoked investigator Ellen Brodsky to walk outside and check the garbage of the Elections Office itself. Sure enough - more original, signed poll tapes, freshly trashed.

"And I must tell you," Bev said, "that whatever they had taken out [the back door] just came right back in the front door and we said, 'What are these polling place tapes doing in your dumpster?'"

A November 18 call to the Volusia County Elections Office found that Elections Supervisor Deanie Lowe was unavailable and nobody was willing to speak on the record with an out-of-state reporter. However, The Daytona Beach News (in Volusia County), in a November 17th article by staff writer Christine Girardin, noted, "Harris went to the Department of Elections' warehouse on State Road 44 in DeLand on Tuesday to inspect original Nov. 2 polling place tapes, after being given a set of reprints dated Nov. 15. While there, Harris saw Nov. 2 polling place tapes in a garbage bag, heightening her concern about the integrity of voting records."

The Daytona Beach News further noted that, "[Elections Supervisor] Lowe confirmed Wednesday some backup copies of tapes from the Nov. 2 election were destined for the shredder," but pointed out that, according to Lowe, that was simply because there were two sets of tapes produced on election night, each signed. "One tape is delivered in one car along with the ballots and a memory card," the News reported. "The backup tape is delivered to the elections office in a second car."

Suggesting that duplicates don't need to be kept, Lowe claims that Harris didn't want to hear an explanation of why some signed poll tapes would be in the garbage. "She's not wanting to listen to an explanation," Lowe told the News of Harris. "She has her own ideas."

But the Ollie North action in two locations on two days was only half of the surprise that awaited Bev and her associates. When they compared the discarded, signed, original tapes with the recent printouts submitted to the state and used to tabulate the Florida election winners, Harris says a disturbing pattern emerged.

"The difference was hundreds of votes in each of the different places we examined," said Bev, "and most of those were in minority areas."

When I asked Bev if the errors they were finding in precinct after precinct were random, as one would expect from technical, clerical, or computer errors, she became uncomfortable.

"You have to understand that we are non-partisan," she said. "We're not trying to change the outcome of an election, just to find out if there was any voting fraud."

That said, Bev added: "The pattern was very clear. The anomalies favored George W. Bush. Every single time."

Of course finding possible voting "anomalies" in one Florida county doesn't mean they'll show up in all counties. It's even conceivable there are innocent explanations for both the mismatched counts and trashed original records; this story undoubtedly will continue to play out. And, unless further investigation demonstrates a pervasive and statewide trend toward "anomalous" election results in many of Florida's counties, odds are none of this will change the outcome of the election (which exit polls showed John Kerry winning in Florida).

Nonetheless, Bev and her merry band are off to hit another county.

As she told me on her cell phone while driving toward their next destination, "We just put Volusia County and their lawyers on notice that they need to continue to keep a number of documents under seal, including all of the memory cards to the ballot boxes, and all of the signed poll tapes."

Why?

"Simple," she said. "Because we found anomalies indicative of fraud."

Posted by: JM at November 19, 2004 12:00 AM

Excuse me Diane, but the biased media? When are you people going to give that charge a rest? I see so much more right wing garbage on television these days. What this country needs it true unbiased reporting. I think the PBS stations outdue their counterparts in this regard. You conservatives always fall back on the so-called "biased" media. That is a hoax that you all perpetuate. Give it up already!

Posted by: JM at November 19, 2004 12:04 AM

ABEL

SUCH HARSH WORDS. YOU ARE BITTER. YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN AND WE REALLY SHOULD TRY TO FIND COMMON GROUND.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 19, 2004 04:52 AM

Folks

WHERE IS d. jones?

BAWAAWAAAAWAWA

Posted by: Calamity Jane at November 19, 2004 01:11 PM

JM, The article you cite is alarming but I was wondering, if the election was rigged for Bush to win, as is suggested, why did he lose the county they are investigating. The results in Volusia County were 111,544 Bush, 115,319 Kerry. In the 2000 elections Volusia County was one of the counties were deliberate attempts were made in stonewalling the election recounts. The county sued to have the re-count date extended in total disreagrd of the Florida Constitution. Bev Harris is neither non-partisan nor unbiased and has been part of a focus group to try and stop "black-box" voting machine, or computer based voting in America.
While I understand that we should invetigate and the concerns over voter fraud should be a priority, virtually ever case of alleged vote tampering happened in Democratic Party controlled counties where the voting official was a Democrat. Why would these people rig the machines to win for George Bush.
To fix many of the problems of voting in this country we have to begin with some method of proving who you are when you go to vote. This isn't intimidation, it's just common sense. A form of ID, a driver's liscence or some other ID should have to be shown when you vote. A paper ballot receipt is a common sense idea and I don't understand why the people who design the programs don't want them. Exit Polling should be banned. it hasn't given accurate results in the last four elections. This year was extremely poor since 86% of the people polled were women. Not everyone is asked, but to assume that 86% of the voter were women is ridiculous.
While conspiracy theories are rampant this year, nobody is stopping to ask how it is possible for a Republican ground to infiltrate thousands of Democratic Party Countrolled Counties across America in a conpiracy attempt to overturn an election and the group is so secretive that nobody knows who they are and how they do what they do.
Bev Harris raised similar concerns during the 200 election and has been on a campaign of raising levels of conspiracy theories in voter fraud ever since. If she finds an anamoly and the anamoly is explained, she dismisses any and every explanation, no matter how many professional people counter her claims. In her investigation, she dismisses the 3,000 college students who registered as mostly Republicans only to discover they were never really registered. Those students trusted a process that disenfranchised their votes. Fake registration was rampant this year and we hear very little about it. In Pennsylvania we had phone registrations-People calling the elderly to see if they were registered taking information down about them over the phone and then they were told their registrations would arrive in the mail. I know of 6 people in my home town personally that this happened to. The registration card never came and it was to late to register.
Americans have to start taking the responsibility of their vote more seriously. We have to start understanding that this priveledge is a cherished priveledged and any instance of voter fraud or intimidation should be uncovered. But we also have to understand that this great priveledge can be diminished by people who are investigating voter fraud and are so instant of it actuallity that they create conspiracy theories that are not factual and can not be proven. There is a great mistrust in computers in America because of all of the hacking and virus problems so computers are an easy target in the media. A lot of American's already mistrust them. The real fraud in this election began months before, the willful registration of illegal immigrants, the addition of deceased in the voting registrations and Democratic Counties that had more people registered than lived in their districts.
Here's an alternate conspiracy theory. Why are the Democrats so silent this election in the invetigations of voter fraud? Perhaps it's because they afraid what the invetigatiosn will yeild-deliberate attempts by Democrats to register illegal voters in places like Chicago where 2000 people in one county voted twice (all democrat votes). They got busted because you can't hide those kinds of conspiracies for long.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 19, 2004 04:13 PM

Calamity,
He fights with me on the swift boat part of this site.

Posted by: Wayne at November 19, 2004 07:43 PM

I'm back. If anyone besides Wayne ever wants to challenge me, I accept.

Posted by: d. jones at November 20, 2004 01:04 PM

Maybe we'll give the biased media a rest when it stops being so biased. The sad thing is that I don't think it's deliberate. The reason for the bias is a view of the world created by the world in which journalists live. Over 80% of all journalists admit to being liberal and their world is such that it reflects a dominant liberal view. By not getting out and in touch with the real world they don't really have a clue that the bias exists. It also interesting that amoung Republicans almost 80% believe that the mainstream media is biased but less that 30% think their is a bias on Fox News. The statistics are just the opposite For Democrats. The truth is that all media is biased because most journalism is focused on opinion editorials rather than real news or journalism. Today, speculation, innuendo and supposition stands in the place of real news. With 24 hour-a-day broadcasts, how else can they fill the void. Rather than get out and research stories, to many TV journalists are just sitting in their news booths and having the nes come to them in the form of guests who pontificate their own viewpoints and often stray heavily from the facts. In history, the Gallop poll has been the most reliable for election prediction and yet, very few nes organizations relied on Gallop but rather turned to Zogby which had a definate Kerry slant. The Associated Press what caught in several deliberate attempts in changing the facts of the news in their election coverage this year and so was the New York Times. Since many news organizations use their wire services, those slants are going to affect the reporting.
None of this takes talk-radio into consideration, which is rarely news and almost always opinion editorials. All to often, talk radio inspires division and anger rather than simply reporting the news as it happens. The News Media has always had way to much power in swaying public opinions because they can control what real facts get out to the people. Watch Citizen Kane, it was a problem back then, it's still a problem today.
If you really don't believe there is a bias, why do most soldiers returning from Iraq find the coverage of the war apalling and void of truth> The ones who are there, the ones involved in the fighting are telling a vastly different story from the news we get on Television.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 20, 2004 02:00 PM

Jim Rodkey: What disturbs me is that many counties vote totals could have been skewed. It doesn't really matter if Bush lost the county. What matters to me is that every vote needs to be counted fairly and correctly. Honestly, I don't care who wins as long as the vote is counted fairly. That is the most important thing for me. A democracy is based on a fair vote, but there is too much intervention going on. Unfortunately for everyone, politics can be dirty.

As far as counties are concerned, I don't agree with you that every county that had a problem with voting was a Democratic county. Democrats paid special attention to the counties that had large Democrat populations and basically ignored (at their own peril)the counties that typically vote Republican. I don't put it past any of these people to add a vote here and there because no one would suspect anything because the result would still be as expected, albeit the totals would be skewed. Adding votes to pad a candidates total (just in case) is despicable. By the way, if Democrats are doing as you say, they should be held responsible for voter fraud, too. It is not a one-sided issue. Unfortunately, the BS that happened four years ago in Florida has tainted the election process in the US for years to come.

Posted by: JM at November 20, 2004 05:23 PM

Jim Rodkey:

Another reason to distrust electronic voting machines is because of statements like the one made by the president of the Diebold company that manufactures these machines. When you have a statement like "I will do whatever I can to make sure George Bush wins Ohio" is not something I want to hear from someone who has their hands on these machines.

Posted by: JM at November 20, 2004 05:26 PM

No, JM, I am not Anne Coulter, but I'm flattered you think so.

Posted by: Diane at November 21, 2004 11:39 AM

There's nothing to talk about in here anymore. I'm not that angry anymore with the election results because it's time to move on. All you Republicans and GW Jr supporters have your fun in the sun right now but it won't last forever. We shall meet again in four years.

Posted by: d. jones at November 21, 2004 08:34 PM

Diane,

You're dead right about the biases in the media, especially CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN. As for newspapers, the New York Times and Washington Post don't even pretend to tell the truth anymore. It's been going on long before Dan Rather used forged papers to try to slander the President, but things are slowly changing for the good.

People like JM don't see the bias, but that's not his fault. You see, it's been going on so long we've become accustomed to being lied to. Clinton once said that if you tell the lie long enough everyone will believe it as the truth. He was indeed a wise politician.

Now that we have the internet to check on news reports and with the popularity of the extremely successful FoxNews, we're starting to see the other side of the arguments.

I've heard some liberals (mostly ones that don't watch the show) complain that FoxNews is right-wing. This is because the other media is so far left that anything in the middle feels right-wing to them.

The reason FoxNews has a higher rating than all the other news shows combined is that the general public is wising up, and that's a good sign. They want to hear another point of view before making up their minds about a subject. Afterall, this is still a free country, isn't it?(but, only until 2008 when Hillary becomes totalitarian ruler of the Americas Union (after the FTAA joins North and South America) and then we can kiss FoxNews and all our freedoms goodbye forever.) ;-)

Posted by: John at November 21, 2004 10:18 PM

John Kerry recently said that he's not shutting the door on 2008. Why does he still want to be president? He may look like a president, with that hairstyle and 6'4" stature, and his face resembles that of Abraham Lincoln, but his views are too liberal for the South. This doesn't make him a bad man but the size of his bank account is enough to make somebody like George W. Bush jealous of him. Bush may be the president, but Kerry makes him look like a damn pauper with Teresa's ketchup fortune for God's sake. Don't forget his middle name is "Forbes", as in the magazine of multimillionaires and billionaires. This sort of wealth might have turned some voters off.

Posted by: Oliver at November 21, 2004 10:55 PM

JM,
Your side wants every vote to count? Why did Gov. Rendell(D) from Pa not want to extend the acceptance period for soldiers fighting overseas? Pa sent out bad ballots with Nader's name on them and when it was clear that the new ballots would not have time to make ot to the soldiers and back he did not want to extend the time for receiving them.

Don't you think our troops votes should be counted first? Shouldn't they have a say? It is their lives at risk in order for us to have the privilege to vote, so why discount theirs?

I can't wait for your response.

Posted by: Wayne at November 21, 2004 11:09 PM

It's amazing at what people will be flattered by.

Posted by: JM at November 21, 2004 11:19 PM

John,
You sound like you seem to know all the answers, well explain this to me. Why is it that George W. Bush and most of his Republican friends don't want to see the American working people organized--I don't mean in a political party either, I mean in independent labor unions?

I always bring up the Polish labor leader Lech Walensa and his union Solidarity which began the break-up of the Soviet Empire in Poland. Visit:

http://www.ilw.org.pl/english/otfundr.html

and:

http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/walesa.html

"Lech Walesa
Poland's brash union organizer stood up to the Kremlin and dealt the Eastern bloc a fatal blow
By TIMOTHY GARTON ASH

Intro: Our Century ... and the Next One
21st Century: The Shape of the Future"

"Monday, April 13, 1998
Lech Walesa, the fly, feisty, mustachioed electrician from Gdansk, shaped the 20th century as the leader of the Solidarity movement that led the Poles out of communism. It is one of history's great ironies that the nearest thing we have ever seen to a genuine workers' revolution was directed against a so-called workers' state. Poland was again the icebreaker for the rest of Central Europe in the "velvet revolutions" of 1989. Walesa's contribution to the end of communism in Europe, and hence the end of the cold war, stands beside those of his fellow Pole, Pope John Paul II, and the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev."

Tell me, if the pro-Bushite Republicans and George W. Bush are such a good thing, why don't they advocate strong labor unions in the US? Telling me that about union corruption doesn't cut it anymore either as there is corruption everywhere including the political parties, HMOs, corporations, etc.

The truth is that the main reason I dislike George W. Bush and pro-Bushite Republicans is because of their anti-unionism and I distrust all who fight against allowing American workers to organize.

Another truth is that workers who work without a strong union contract are almost slaves. If they don't like the working conditions, all they can do is leave. George puts it this way, "It's going to be my way, or there's the highway."

Of course, slaves in the South, couldn't leave so it's not quite that bad but the working conditions, wages and benefits are very bad in comparison to other areas here and in the world where unions are allowed to grow and get strong.

Now, what George W. Bush wants is to do to the rest of the country what was done in Texas where they have what they call, "Right-to-Work Laws."

If you think you like what George is doing, you had better read-up fast--do some real learning and see what all American workers will lose if we continue with the likes of George W. Bush as President and the Republcan Party in power. I honestly believe that you and your children deserve better.

Your POST follows:

"Diane, You're dead right about the biases in the media, especially CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN. As for newspapers, the New York Times and Washington Post don't even pretend to tell the truth anymore. It's been going on long before Dan Rather used forged papers to try to slander the President, but things are slowly changing for the good.
People like JM don't see the bias, but that's not his fault. You see, it's been going on so long we've become accustomed to being lied to. Clinton once said that if you tell the lie long enough everyone will believe it as the truth. He was indeed a wise politician.
Now that we have the internet to check on news reports and with the popularity of the extremely successful FoxNews, we're starting to see the other side of the arguments.
I've heard some liberals (mostly ones that don't watch the show) complain that FoxNews is right-wing. This is because the other media is so far left that anything in the middle feels right-wing to them.
The reason FoxNews has a higher rating than all the other news shows combined is that the general public is wising up, and that's a good sign. They want to hear another point of view before making up their minds about a subject. Afterall, this is still a free country, isn't it?(but, only until 2008 when Hillary becomes totalitarian ruler of the Americas Union (after the FTAA joins North and South America) and then we can kiss FoxNews and all our freedoms goodbye forever.) ;-)"
Posted by: John at November 21, 2004 10:18 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 22, 2004 08:45 AM

Wayne:

As I stated, I don't care who in monkeying around with the votes. It is wrong! Now, if there are laws that have been instituted to prevent people from voting, they should be rescinded. If there are valid laws that are made to make sure that voting goes smoothly, then they should be followed. I am asking for fairness for everybody!

Posted by: JM at November 22, 2004 11:07 AM

JM, The debacle of the Florida election has tainted the voted process but the real problem with the vote in Florida is that, time after time in count after count it always came out the same, Bush won Florida. For four years, activist groups have been doing everything they can to disparage the vote in Florida and after all the investigation even the Civil Rights groups admitted that there was nothing irregular in the vote. Some people are unwilling to admit that Bush won Florida and now those same groups are raising their voices about Florida elections once agin and extending that voice to the Ohio vote. My point is that investigations aren't the problem but these groups sound be silent until they have proof of fraud instead of allegations. They create an image that becomes truth to some people who hear the allegation and nothing more afterwards. Now that more blacks are voting conservative, many of these advocacy groups are making it sound as though the Black vote is not counted creating disillusionment which diminishes black voter turn out.
Abel, if you really want to honor Lech Walesa, learn how to spell his name. It was Bush 41 who worked closely with Walesa and honored him with the Presidential Medal of Honor and that administration worked closely with Walesa. He was vitually ignored by the Clinton administration. Bush isn't against organized labor, Bush is for the will of the people and if people want to organize that's fine. While Organizers ran to Kerry the majority of the Union Vote, including Police and Firemen backed Bush. Kerry had a problem because he made promises to Union voters that he betrayed as a Senator. While the leadership was willing to ignore this the average worker in the Union was not. Leadership keeps their jobs, it's the workers who suffer and they know that. Consider the way the election really played out-Kerry won the bigger cities but Bush won almost all rural areas where most Union workers live and work. You might have bought the myth that Republicans are opposed to Unions, just like the myth that they are only for the rich. Thankfully, most Americans know that it is only a myth. There is no reason for John to explain the President's position that "most of his Republican friends don't want to see the American working people organized" because it's not true. John made some solid points that you didn't debate or attempt to refute, you just re-entered your owrld of illusion and came up with something totally different and untrue. Remember it was Bush who extended the sanctions that allowed Steelworkers in West Virginia to keep their jobs, a sanction Kerry voted to repeal.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 22, 2004 12:15 PM

One of the many reasons the Democrats are setting themselves up for another fall!

Recently the liberal agenda has been to promote Condoleezza Rice as a black pawn in the Bush Administration. Painting her with such predjudicial statements as an "Aunt Jemima" and Prissy from Gone with the Wind. Liberal radio talk-show host John Sylvestor said that calling Rice Aunt Jemima was an insult to Aunt Jemima and that Bush's appointment of Rice was nothing more that the "illision of inclusion." While doing everything in their power to discredit a woman who is is a role model for all Americans, not just blacks. The liberal Media thinks nothing about their comments in terms of racism and bigotry yet it is obviously the worst kind of bigotry. She is targeted because she is black and powerful, holding one of the highest offices in the Bush Administration. She is respected by many Americans who will easily see her as a target by white liberal racists who want to suppress any nothing that a black person can hold a powerful office. While ignoring the fact that she has clashed with Rumsfeld on many issues in the past, she is being painted as a Bush puppet disgracing her true character as a strong-willed, independent think woman who also happens to be a person of color. I say keep it up liberals, keep trashing Condi, you are only going to make the conservative vote stronger. Keep up your racist slurs, keep on trashing the conservative religious views, keep on telling us how stupid we all are. While the NAACP remains startlingly silent on the racial slurs against Rice, The Faith Based Leadership Council, a group of over 200 black clergy and members of the faith-based community, said cartoonists Jeff Danzinger, Pat Oliphant, Garry Trudeau, the Post and the Times have used racial stereotypes "to conduct their personal character assassination of" Rice's integrity because she chose to serve the Bush administration.
It's one thing to disagree, it's another thing to practice character assisination but that seems to be all that those far-left liberals know how to do anymore. I think it's disgusting. The lies based on hatred and fueled by an unwillingness to simply admit that they lost an election has exposed these liberal extremists for what they truly are. For years they've gotten away with their attacks on conservative whites with their hatred and slanderous claims but now they are revealing themselves for what they truly are. They don't care who they step on, who they trash or how they accomplish their predjudice. Edwards was right, there are two America's, The liberal leftists with their hate agenda and the rest of us who are trying to make this country and the world a better place by working together.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 22, 2004 04:02 PM

I just want to say that before I leave, I want to personally thank Kerry, who in three televised debates exposed GW JR to America and the entire world as the fool that he really is. Over 57 million people in this country saw through this man - who doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't know how to be a president. Dick Cheney is the real president; GW JR is just a figurehead. Too bad 60 million people, just like the other "Paul" said in the Bush is Up in Results blog, were brainwashed by the republicans into thinking that his so-called "moral" values were more important than all the irresponsible things he did to this nation. Here is an excellent example in which Kerry nailed GW JR as a kuncklehead in a single statement in the third debate, "I want you to notice how the president switched away from jobs and started talking about education principally." By the way Wayne, I know it doesn't matter now that the election is over with, but gas prices would have been cheaper under Kerry than GW JR. You know why? Because he would have been smart enough to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to force the energy prices down while this president refuses to stop filling in the reserve. Why does he keep filling the Reserve if there's no specific terrorist threat against it? Take a look at this website:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/041102/137/2hmnm.html

Looks like I was right about the gas prices from our discussion in the Swiftboat Vet part after all.

Posted by: d. jones at November 22, 2004 07:36 PM

Nah, I think I'll stick around this blog for a little while before leaving all of you. Things just got a little interesting.

Posted by: d. jones at November 22, 2004 07:39 PM

Jim,
You say that Bush 41 worked closely with Walesa and honored him with the Presidential Medal of Honor but you forgot to include any documentation of indicate a web site where I may find this information. You seem to forget that I know you and you're a very unreliable person on this board. Anyone who believes you would have to be a fool.

In any case, I was talking about Bush 43 as being the anti-labor Bush. Furthermore, I know about George W. Bush because he was Governor of Texas and he really was an anti-labor union person. You didn't say one word about the "Right-to-Work" laws. I guess they're OK with you.

You say "John made some solid points that you didn't debate or attempt to refute..." I asked him a question and I still haven't received any answer for him or from you. You have a practice of labeling anything that you cannot answer as being a myth. That's why it's a total waste of time and useless to answer anything that you say.

You say, "Kerry had a problem because he made promises to Union voters that he betrayed as a Senator." You're contradicting yourself here as you had previously said that Kerry never did anything while he was a Senator. In any case, contrary to what you say, I get a lot of union information and most of us, union people, did support John Kerry. We did all we could for him and we're proud of that.

My question now is, if you want to speak for John, what does that say about him? You're also wanting Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, etc., to begin the "healing" but there can be no healing when we are forced to deal with people like you. You have to change if you want respect and I don't believe that's going to be an easy task for you.

Your "myth-full" POST follows:

Abel, if you really want to honor Lech Walesa, learn how to spell his name. It was Bush 41 who worked closely with Walesa and honored him with the Presidential Medal of Honor and that administration worked closely with Walesa. He was vitually ignored by the Clinton administration. Bush isn't against organized labor, Bush is for the will of the people and if people want to organize that's fine. While Organizers ran to Kerry the majority of the Union Vote, including Police and Firemen backed Bush. Kerry had a problem because he made promises to Union voters that he betrayed as a Senator. While the leadership was willing to ignore this the average worker in the Union was not. Leadership keeps their jobs, it's the workers who suffer and they know that. Consider the way the election really played out-Kerry won the bigger cities but Bush won almost all rural areas where most Union workers live and work. You might have bought the myth that Republicans are opposed to Unions, just like the myth that they are only for the rich. Thankfully, most Americans know that it is only a myth. There is no reason for John to explain the President's position that "most of his Republican friends don't want to see the American working people organized" because it's not true. John made some solid points that you didn't debate or attempt to refute, you just re-entered your owrld of illusion and came up with something totally different and untrue. Remember it was Bush who extended the sanctions that allowed Steelworkers in West Virginia to keep their jobs, a sanction Kerry voted to repeal.
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 22, 2004 12:15 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 22, 2004 10:11 PM

I have to admit, I'm starting to have a more favorable image of GW Jr right now, but just a little bit and it might be only temporary. I have to see what he does when he starts his new term.

Posted by: d. jones at November 22, 2004 11:04 PM

JM

LAWS THAT STOP PEOPLE FROM VOTING STOP PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A RIGHT VOTE DON'T VOTE. THAT IS AN EASY CONCEPT. NO LAWS ARE ON THE BOOKS THAT STOP LEGAL CITIZENS FROM VOTING. IF A STATE DECIDES FELONS SHOULD NOT VOTE THAT IS A REASONABLE LAW. NON-CITIZENS NEVER HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND ILLEGALS SHOULD BE ARRESTED AND SENT HOME, AND FOR SURE SHOULD NOT VOTE.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 23, 2004 03:38 AM

Abel,

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/LechWalesa.htm

Enjoy.

Posted by: conservatism at November 23, 2004 11:59 AM

Abel, I'm not the one who makes the ludicrous statements like Kerry re-elisted or that he had his ownb special secret boat. I'm also not the one who keeps quoting the President with innacurate quotes and not providing the sources. You asked. Here it is: http://www.medaloffreedom.com/PresidentBush.htm.
You see, unlike you, I can provide historical background to my information and quotes.
I never said John Kerry didn't do anything. You again misquote. I have continually stated that his voting record wasn't consistant with the promises he made on the campaign trail.
As for an article on the growing disconnect between Union Leadership and their members go here http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1104/111104k1.htm.
For more on the Right To Work Bill and the Reasons for it check out this site-http://www.nrtwc.org/contentlist.php3?type=fs.
You can continue to blindly think their is only one issue affecting the future of the country (Unions) or you can do like most Americans and understand that there are many different points of views on these issues and resolution comes in working together in a spirit of compromise instead of blind obediance. You have been and continue to be divisive and unwilling to conceed even after you make ridiculous statements or provide documentation when asked to back up your claims.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 23, 2004 12:40 PM

Oh my God, the US wounded list in Iraq just topped 9,000. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON OVER THERE, MR. PRESIDENT?!

Posted by: d. jones at November 23, 2004 01:32 PM

Now Abel's angry cuz someone made the point that he quoted my post, but never debated anything I said. I appreciate someone backing up my statements. It doesn't mean they are speaking for me. Abel is one extremely angry person, but I guarantee he won't get the help he needs. Isn't it called PEST (post-election selection trauma)? The cure is to call 1-800-GETALIFE.

I guess Abel agrees with my statements or he would've said something against them. He asked me about Unions, and we could debate the pros and cons of Unions, but that had nothing to do with my posting. Beside I think someone else answered his questions.

I'm getting used to people attacking a statement and yet never producing facts to oppose it.

It's like with the Swift Boat Veterans. All these red-faced liberals came out saying those veterans were lying, but not one produced any evidence to support their claims. They seem to think that just claiming someone lies is enough. And if Kerry had any evidence that they had lied, he would've said so also or at least produced his war record to support his claims, but it never happened.

Whoever said that the average American is starting to see through the liberal lies is right on the money. We just don't buy all that crap anymore and it showed when a President who was constantly lied about and falsely attacked won by 4 million votes. Obviously people hate liberalism more than they believe the liberal lies about Bush.

Posted by: John at November 23, 2004 03:28 PM

Oh my God, the US wounded list in Iraq just topped 9,000. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON OVER THERE, MR. PRESIDENT?!

Posted by: d. jones at November 23, 2004 01:32 PM

Ummm, it's called WAR? I know this concept is hard to grasp, but during a WAR some people may get hurt.

Posted by: Wayne at November 23, 2004 04:33 PM

Abel,
51% of voting Americans don't give a hoot about Kerry or your posts.

Onbehaolf of the almost 60 million Americans that voted for Bush, may I extend you a shutup and a stop crying.

Posted by: Wayne at November 23, 2004 04:34 PM

d

WAR

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at November 23, 2004 04:44 PM

conservatism,

Thanks a million for sending me the web site address. Unlike Bush 43, Bush 41 was a man. I'm glad to say that I always admired him. There is no question but that Bush 41 was a real American hero. Thanks again!

Your POST follows:

Abel,

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/LechWalesa.htm

Enjoy.

Posted by: conservatism at November 23, 2004 11:59 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 23, 2004 06:10 PM

Jim,
Thanks for giving me the web http://www.medaloffreedom.com/PresidentBush.htm address. This site along with http://www.medaloffreedom.com/LechWalesa.htm provided me with a lot of good information. I hope you have studied it and noted that there is a huge difference between Bush 41 and Bush 43. One was an American War Hero and the other was a cowardly drunkard.

You talk about a "growing disconnect between Union Leadership and their members," but the article itself says that only 4 out of every 10 voted for Bush 43. That's not bad for the Democrats, that means that 60 percent of the union members voted for Kerry. Since when is 60 percent bad? That means that, unlike you pro-Bushites, union members are not blind followers. Face it, if all Americans had voted that way, 6 out of every 10, guess who would have won the presidential election.

You give a pro-Bushite Republican view of "Right to Work" and that's an example of what I call a worthless article. It talks about "forced unionism" and that's not at all what unions are about. That's like telling me to go visit the deep South if I wanted to learn about Socialism when I know full well that all I'll get in the deep South is a negative perspective of Socialism. Are you pro-Bushites really as ignorant as you seem?

Free men have the right to organize and to develop positive progressive work contracts with employers. There is absolutely nothing "forced" about an agreed to signed contract (by workers' representatives as well as the employer) which calls for all employees to join a labor union by a certain date if they want to continue working at the job site. If they don't wish to continue working at the site, they can do the Bush 43 thing and leave.

Let me remind you that I view Bush 41 very differently from Bush 43. Like it or not, Bush 41 was an American War Hero and Bush 43 was a cowardly drunkard and that is no myth.

Your POST follows:

"...You can continue to blindly think their is only one issue affecting the future of the country (Unions) or you can do like most Americans and understand that there are many different points of views on these issues and resolution comes in working together in a spirit of compromise instead of blind obediance. You have been and continue to be divisive and unwilling to conceed even after you make ridiculous statements or provide documentation when asked to back up your claims."
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 23, 2004 12:40 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 23, 2004 06:51 PM

help me change the voting system

TEST THIS NEW ERROR-FREE
VOTING SYSTEM

15-click demo: http://www.seeVote.com

DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

thank you,

daniel

Posted by: Daniel McMullan at November 23, 2004 07:15 PM

When is the left going to stop whining? You lost, again, time to change tactics.

Happy Thanksgiving!!!!!1

Posted by: Wayne at November 23, 2004 07:58 PM

Bruce:

I should have stated "laws that prevent legitimate voters from voting". This is my answer to your statements concerning my original post.

Posted by: JM at November 23, 2004 08:21 PM

Jim,
Yes, absolutely, you're the one. You only provide useless web sites that are pro-Bushite oriented. It's completely useless to write to you as you dismiss everything that's not and that you dislike for that specific reason. I have told you all this before so why do you ask me to repeat myself? Are you incapable of thinking or learning anything?

That's why I consider you "brainwashed." You make a perfect pro-Bushite and George W. Bush would love to know you better, I'm sure. He'd probably put you to work immediately. He loves people like you who would never question his "idiocies." You talk about "Blind obedience?" Yes, absolutely, you're the one.

For your information, I said that any boat could be used on any given secret mission. Haven't you ever served in the military or what? Why do you find it troublesome to think that Lt. John Kerry could have been used to carry out secret missions?

Our beloved country carries out such missions on a routine basis all over the world. Even as I write this POST some of our fellow Americans are protesting our School of the Americas where our brand of Terrorists are trained. You claim to have read some of the books that I have mentioned before, although it doesn't seem that you have--based on your statements.

You say, about Kerry, "I have continually stated that his voting record wasn't consistant with the promises he made on the campaign trail," but as usual, you fail to mention how or what promises he made. In other words, you talk about nothing!

You also say, "You can continue to blindly think their is only one issue affecting the future of the country (Unions)," when you should know that's a lie. I have spoken about many different issues although I have mentioned that Bush 43's hatred for American workers' unions is one of the main reasons I could never respect him. As I have stated before, a worker minus a good job contract is just a "degree" above being a slave. I have even explained why but it seems that your brain refuses to digest anything worthwhile. It's a complete waste of time writing to you.

Your POST follows:

"Abel, I'm not the one who makes the ludicrous statements like Kerry re-elisted or that he had his ownb special secret boat. I'm also not the one who keeps quoting the President with innacurate quotes and not providing the sources. You asked. Here it is: http://www.medaloffreedom.com/PresidentBush.htm.
You see, unlike you, I can provide historical background to my information and quotes.
I never said John Kerry didn't do anything. You again misquote. I have continually stated that his voting record wasn't consistant with the promises he made on the campaign trail.
As for an article on the growing disconnect between Union Leadership and their members go here http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1104/111104k1.htm.
For more on the Right To Work Bill and the Reasons for it check out this site-http://www.nrtwc.org/contentlist.php3?type=fs.
You can continue to blindly think their is only one issue affecting the future of the country (Unions) or you can do like most Americans and understand that there are many different points of views on these issues and resolution comes in working together in a spirit of compromise instead of blind obediance. You have been and continue to be divisive and unwilling to conceed even after you make ridiculous statements or provide documentation when asked to back up your claims."
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at November 23, 2004 12:40 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 24, 2004 03:54 AM

Jim Rodkey:

I have to agree with Abel in that you accuse him of being brainwashed, but at times you also seem to give George Bush and Republicans in general, a pass (or turn a blind eye) regardless of what is presented in these posts. I get the feeling that you are not really as independent as you suggest. I know you spend some time with your posts. Imagine how that time spent could be used to unearth the truth! All I can say is that 4 years will either confirm what Abel and myself believe, or what you and your cohorts believe. Abel and I have refused to accept the rosey picture that Mr. Bush has tried to present to the American public. I wish him well, but I am not blind to what is going on in this country at this time. I am not against America cleaning up its act. I am against politicians that are lying through their teeth. Being born-again and a liar should be incompatible, but yet these characteristics have become acceptable by supposedly "moral" people.

Posted by: JM at November 24, 2004 11:21 AM

Hey John,

As for Bush's landslide win, it didn't hurt that he was going against a complete moron and a known traitor to our country. If more people had known that, Bush would've won by 50 million votes instead of just 4 million.

No wait, the ultra-left would still have voted for a traitor and they love morons like Carter, so maybe it wouldn't have made much difference afterall.

I'm just glad it's over and the people have voted and we didn't have a fiasco like last time when Gore tried to overturn the election by blocking the military vote.

Posted by: Ted at November 24, 2004 12:27 PM

The war was supposed to be over by now just to remind all of you. Ted, Kerry wasn't a complete moron, he was the smart intellectual. He proved that in the debates. GW Jr proved to be the moron with all that grimacing, scowling, and vague responses since Kerry kept him on the defensive. Still, the other 60 million sided with the moron. Only in America could a moron be elected or reelected. But I do agree with you that Carter was a pussy, he didn't do anything to help those hostages back in 1980. As for the traitor part, just like those swift boat liars wanted you to believe, he was only expressing his freedom of free speech. Besides, that happened over 30 years ago, those swift boat vets should get over it by now. And I would be happy to repost this message just in case if it was overlooked:

I want to personally thank Kerry, who in three televised debates exposed GW JR to America and the entire world as the fool that he really is. Over 57 million people in this country saw through this man - who doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't know how to be a president. Dick Cheney is the real president; GW JR is just a figurehead. Too bad 60 million people, just like the other "Paul" said in the Bush is Up in Results blog, were brainwashed by the republicans into thinking that his so-called "moral" values were more important than all the irresponsible things he did to this nation. Here is an excellent example in which Kerry nailed GW JR as a kuncklehead in a single statement in the third debate, "I want you to notice how the president switched away from jobs and started talking about education principally." By the way Wayne, I know it doesn't matter now that the election is over with, but gas prices would have been cheaper under Kerry than GW JR. You know why? Because he would have been smart enough to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to force the energy prices down while this president refuses to stop filling in the reserve. Why does he keep filling the Reserve if there's no specific terrorist threat against it? Take a look at this website:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/041102/137/2hmnm.html

Looks like I was right about the gas prices from our discussion in the Swiftboat Vet part after all.

Happy Turkey Day, Everyone.

Posted by: d. jones at November 24, 2004 05:25 PM

Ted,

It wasn't a landslide win. He barely won by 2% of the vote. Name calling will get you nowhere. It just shows how smug you are.

Posted by: JM at November 24, 2004 05:46 PM

Wayne, you once said that you don't agree with all of the policies of GW JR. I'd like to hear right now what you don't agree with him on.

Posted by: d. jones at November 24, 2004 08:13 PM

I cannot understand how any woman can vote for someone like George Bush. This man wants to take away our abortion rights and overturn Roe v. Wade with his ultra-conservative judges and ideologies. I was part of the protest in Wahsington DC on April 25th of this Year. We marched for women's rights as we could not stand idly by and see this administration erode our rights. Millions of us were pro-choice and we called on every American to vote George Bush out of office this November. We understood that John Kerry was the better alternative because we knew that he would never infringe upon Roe v. Wade, keeping abortion legal without any more strict limits. John Kerry also offered clear stances on issues and policies in the presidential debates. We are very disappointed that the American people made the wrong choice and decided to reelect a president who panders to the religious right at our expense. There are many other reasons why George Bush needed to be replaced. I do not have time to type them all so I just typed down a few of these reasons. None of them are distortions for they are based on research and the facts. Here they are:

Why George W. Bush is one of the Worst Presidents and Why he Must Go

Reasons

1. No other president has betrayed his country by subverting the fight against enemies sworn to destroy us by diverting resources from that effort to a war of his choosing against a nation that posed no imminent threat. He focused too much on Iraq rather than the current war in Afghanistan, where the enemies who attacked us were residing before they escaped.

2. No other president has claimed the extra-constitutional power to throw US citizens in prison indefinitely and to deny them access to lawyers, contact with the outside world, and their habeas corpus rights.

3. No other president has saddled so many future generations with so much debt by giving his rich financial backers tax breaks that must be paid for by our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren.

4. No other president has created so much anger and ill-will toward the United States as to drive tens of thousands of new recruits into the arms of our enemies as this one has by invading Iraq.

5. No other president has so deeply damaged the credibility and prestige of the United States in the eyes of the world.

6. No other president has so blindly ignored scientific evidence and followed political ideology and religious fundamentalism in setting national policy. This includes preventing major medical breakthroughs for cures for such deadly illnesses as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, etc. by refusing to fully fund stem-cell research only because of right-wing ideology.

7. No other president has so badly deceived and misled his own people and the world as this one did with his "reasons" for invading Iraq.

8. No other president has so poorly grasped his mother tongue. His grammar of the English language is a joke.

9. No other president has been so incapable of admitting mistakes and learning from them. Whenever he makes a decision, he never changes course when things don't go according to plan. Common sense means taking a different direction if at first your original plan does not work, but this president does not follow this rule.

10. No other president has pandered so much to the gun lobby. His predecessors (Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton) all signed a ban on assault weapons. By allowing the ban to expire just to get the support of the NRA in an election year, he has allowed criminals to own such deadly weapons. Almost all law enforcement agencies in the nation wanted this ban renewed. Now the police could be outgunned when criminals use weapons like Kalashnikovs and Uzis against them.

11. This president made it illegal for seniors and other patients to obtain cheaper drugs from Canada. Now their medication will be harder and more expensive to get, thanks to the Bush administration.

12. No other president has done so much damage to the environment. He broke his 2000 campaign promise of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by pulling out of the Kyoto Treaty of 1997 that reduced these emissions in order to limit global warming. This administration has refused to release the records of Cheney's secret meetings with energy corporations that rewrite our environmental laws such as Enron. This president opposed improved gas mileage standards for vehicles when this was before Congress, and cut funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks by 28%. This president is abandoning a Clinton directive protecting 58.5 million acres of national forest from road-building and other developments. This president also recently approved to dump nuclear waste in Nevada. The list goes on and on.

Posted by: Jennifer Soriano at November 24, 2004 10:38 PM

Hello d.

Glad to see you are back into the swing of things.

I see Abel is still cutting and pasting things I don't read. I did notice that the Bev alleged voter fraud was an article from 2000 when Harris was Sec of State so it's a recycled whine from 2000 - and then you wonder why your side lost.

d.
Try to understand why GWB is still putting oil in our reserves. What if some major catastrophe happens in Middle East and we get no oil for weeks and weeks. I would rather be certain that we have plenty in reserve than to save a few pennies at the pump right now.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at November 24, 2004 11:28 PM

Will you get over this dumb election? The choice has already been made so deal with it. One patient went to the therapist and said, "Doc, I'm having trouble accepting the results of the presidential election." The Doctor replied, "Take two aspirin and come back in four years." Get it?Now I have a bird to eat tonight, and I'm gonna enjoy it. Happy Thanskgiving.

Posted by: Oliver at November 25, 2004 11:39 AM

d jones,

That "smart intellectual" you speak of couldn't even keep his lies straight. Each time he spoke you could see he was a mindless puppet trying to say what he thought each group he spoke to wanted to hear. And then he'd get it all mixed up and have to lie some more to get out of it. At least Clinton was a good liar, I'll give him that. Kerry was so bad at lying that it showed constantly just how comically stupid and idiotic he was. We couldn't stop laughing when we saw him at the debates or during any of his many hilarious speeches. What a joke that man was. I hope we've seen the last of him, but maybe we'll get some more laughs if he tries to run in 2008.

You can believe he is "intelligent", but you base it on his ability to delude you with nonsense. He not only lost all the debates, but proved why no one should ever vote for such a traitor as him. Nonetheless, a lot of people voted for him, but not because they liked him, they just had an irrational hatred for Bush. If that's your basis for voting for Kerry then I pity you with your need to cling to hate and deception. But if that makes you feel better about yourself, what can I say?

Kerry was traitor not because he "expressed his freedom of speech" but because he gave aid and comfort to the enemy while at war. He confessed that he committed war crimes and for that alone he should be imprisoned.

Again you, like most liberals, insist on calling the swift boat veterans liars, but as usual you have no proof. Without Kerry's war records you may have trouble proving they "lied", but you'll never get those since Kerry refuses to release them. Sounds like he's got more to hide than the fact that he's an incompetent boob.

Posted by: Ted at November 25, 2004 11:56 AM

d.jones,
I guess we will never know if Kerry would have caused gas prices to be lower because he lost.

Secondly, I know 57 million people voted against Bush. Actually it was more like 56 million, but I will give you 57, 60 million voted FOR Bush. I guess 60 million didn't get the democrats message. Keep spreading the hate and anger.

Posted by: Wayne at November 25, 2004 03:13 PM

Abel,
You tickle my funny bone with your posts.

Posted by: Wayne at November 25, 2004 07:29 PM

This is for the benefit of those pro-Bushites who are serious about wanting to learn the truth--what "we" have been doing all over the world--especially in South and Central America. Our SOA is located at Fort Benning, Georgia. Then, we wonder why folks around the world hate us? Again, don't be guilty of blaming or hating the messenger. Visit:

http://www.soaw.org/new/type.php?type=8

What is the SOA?

The School of the Americas (SOA), in 2001 renamed the "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation," is a combat training school for Latin American soldiers, located at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Initially established in Panama in 1946, it was kicked out of that country in 1984 under the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty. Former Panamanian President, Jorge Illueca, stated that the School of the Americas was the "biggest base for destabilization in Latin America." The SOA, frequently dubbed the "School of Assassins," has left a trail of blood and suffering in every country where its graduates have returned.

Over its 56 years, the SOA has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers in counterinsurgency techniques, sniper training, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and interrogation tactics. These graduates have consistently used their skills to wage a war against their own people. Among those targeted by SOA graduates are educators, union organizers, religious workers, student leaders, and others who work for the rights of the poor. Hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans have been tortured, raped, assassinated, "disappeared," massacred, and forced into refugee by those trained at the School of Assassins.

La Escuela de las Americas
L'Ecole des Ameriques (EDA)

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 25, 2004 11:50 PM

d.jones:

I hate to disappoint you, but there are no set ending dates on wars. Remember that Clinton's misadventure in the Balkans went on far too long and even after WWII it took a very long time to get things stable. Have patience.

Just enjoy a country that has a good probability of freedom and prosperity and be thankful this Thanksgiving that we haven't been attacked again in over 3 years.

I think if we keep at the war on terror we may eventually tone it down some. By ignoring it during the 90's we just let it get worse. So don't complain that it takes over a year or so to stop a problem we did nothing about for 10 years. It's like gaining 100 lbs over a year's time and getting upset that it won't all come off in a month.

Oh, and you said "Only in America could a moron be elected or reelected." Does that include Clinton? Your statements are demeaning to honest Americans who at least got out and voted. Just because they didn't vote for the guy you liked doesn't mean they deserve you derision.

I think anyone who can reach that level of power has to be of above average intelligence, so lay off the moron talk. You don't sound that bright to me, to tell the truth, but I'm not going to call you a moron. And just so you don't think I'm picking on you, I don't think Kerry was a moron either, and neither was Clinton. For that matter, Carter had his heart in the right place, he just wasn't very good at being a leader, but I wouldn't call him a moron either.

Hope everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving

- Jane T.

Posted by: Jane T at November 26, 2004 01:31 PM

Calamity
Calamity it doesn't make any sense to keep putting oil in the reserve waiting for some unlikely catastrophe to happen we need cheaper oil prices right away they're too high.

Ted
Believe what you want you are simply wrong. Kerry did win all the debates with his articulate message, the polls showed that. GW JR kept repeating the same thing in those debates as if he was a doll on a string, no wonder he won reelection by the smallest electoral vote victory in a long time. I remember seeing that big "bulge" in the back of GW Jr's shirt in the first debate. Could he have been wired so his advisors could feed him answers to counter the arguments made against him? YOU are the liar, sir, you don't have any proof that the swift boat vets are NOT liars. Their outrageous claims were dismissed by Kerry's war records that proved he served with valor. He did exagerrate their "war crimes" but other veterans forgive him for that. Let's not go into this stupid Vietnam thing again I've been through this with a few other people in here before.

Jane
I never said anything about "ending dates" Jane. I said the war was supposed to be over with the fall of Baghdad back in April 2003. But thanks for not insulting me.

Wayne
People not only voted AGANST Bush, but they also voted FOR Kerry, they thought he was much clearer in the debates than throughout the entire campaign. It's a shame that his acceptance speech at the Dem National Convention was a dud. We will never know if oil prices will be cheaper under a different president, but at least Halliburton wouln't get anymore no-bid contracts in Iraq. You're naive to think that my side is the ONLY one expressing hate and anger. That's funny, what do you think of Zell Miller and I quote, "US Armed Forces armed with what, spitballs?!" You'll try to counter this by saying he's a democrat. I'm one step ahead of you: He's not really a Democrat anymore, now he sides with the GOP on almost every issue to the chagrine of his own party. And what about those Swift Boat Vets for Truth founders, they certainly went over the line with those fierce attack ads on a decorated vet's war record. These swift boat ads made moveon.org's look like a slap on the wrist. At least moveon.org quickly pulled that outrageous ad with those Nazi images off the air and apologized. The Swift boat vets, on the other hand, kept attacking his war record and his qualifications for his war medals and they NEVER apologized for that. I understand why they want an apology for being called "war criminals" but now they don't deserve it for questioning a fellow vet's courage under fire.

Jennifer Soriano
Couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: d. jones at November 27, 2004 03:06 PM

Abel, you should cut out the copying and the pasting. It's pointless nobody reads them, including myself.

Posted by: d. jones at November 27, 2004 04:16 PM

John,
At least I didn't begin my POST by telling a lie like you did. It is a lie to say that I'm angry when I'm not. I may be dismayed and disappointed in you and other pro-Bushites who are unable or unwilling to discuss anything in a truthful manner but that's all. Let me add that I'm not asking for help from the likes of you or any other pro-Bushite. You add, "Abel is one extremely angry person," as if that will make your lie a true statement.

I think I made the point I wanted to make by discussing the Polish leader Lech Walesa. I didn't especially care to "debate" labor unions with you. The truth is that it would never enter my mind that you or any other pro-Bushite is qualified to have such a discussion or debate. For your information, telling me that Bush 41 gave Walesa a medal didn't answer my question.

You talk about us failing to produce any evidence that the SwiftBoat Veterans were lying but what you're saying is untrue. Intelligent Americans know that the SwiftBoat Veterans lied about John Kerry. When someone lies about you, it's not your place to prove that they're lying---it's their place to prove that what's being said is true but I can understand why you pro-Bushites don't know the difference. After all, pro-Bushites are not known to be very bright.

Sure, I'm disappointed that about 60 million Americans are still being fooled but I'm also very happy that about 57 million Americans are not. You know, I'm very confident that eventually those 60 million Americans will find out to what degree George W. Bush has lied to the American people and they'll become quite unhappy with him when that happens. I just hope that I'm still alive to see it.

You say, "We just don't buy all that cr** anymore and it showed when a President who was constantly lied about..." but you're still buying it from George W. Bush himself. It's past time that you pro-Bushites wake up and smell the coffee.

What have you to say about Texas' Rep. DeLay's move to not be "kicked" out of the Republican Leadership position if formally accused in Texas of having committed a crime? For whatever reason, I can see it clearly when the pro-Bushite Republicans lie through thier teeth. Some Republicans are also beginning to smell the stink and they're not very happy with George W. Bush and his Administration. It won't take too long now.

Your pro-Bushite POST follows:

"Now Abel's angry cuz someone made the point that he quoted my post, but never debated anything I said. I appreciate someone backing up my statements. It doesn't mean they are speaking for me. Abel is one extremely angry person, but I guarantee he won't get the help he needs. Isn't it called PEST (post-election selection trauma)? The cure is to call 1-800-GETALIFE.
I guess Abel agrees with my statements or he would've said something against them. He asked me about Unions, and we could debate the pros and cons of Unions, but that had nothing to do with my posting. Beside I think someone else answered his questions.
I'm getting used to people attacking a statement and yet never producing facts to oppose it.
It's like with the Swift Boat Veterans. All these red-faced liberals came out saying those veterans were lying, but not one produced any evidence to support their claims. They seem to think that just claiming someone lies is enough. And if Kerry had any evidence that they had lied, he would've said so also or at least produced his war record to support his claims, but it never happened.
Whoever said that the average American is starting to see through the liberal lies is right on the money. We just don't buy all that crap anymore and it showed when a President who was constantly lied about and falsely attacked won by 4 million votes. Obviously people hate liberalism more than they believe the liberal lies about Bush."
Posted by: John at November 23, 2004 03:28 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 27, 2004 04:48 PM

Hey everybody, what's going on? Remember me? I enjoyed my turkey how about you? No one is posting anymore in the other blogs so this is the only place with all the action. I came back to see how you all are doing.

Posted by: Henry at November 27, 2004 08:08 PM

d. jones,
"D," You don't need to read my stuff and I don't expect you to, since you already know it.

As for the pro-Bushites, they sure do need to read it but it's their loss if they don't. I really don't care if they do or don't. In any case, I make such information available so that anyone visiting our BLOG may read it and visit the pertinent web sites.

You of all people should remember that the pro-Bushites lie all the time. Lying is one of their basic practices. Time after time pro-Bushites have said they don't read my copy and paste material but then they answer my POSTs anyway, so I imagine they either read it from my POSTs or from somewhere else. I also remember about all their lies and think that perhaps they read my copy and paste and then lie by saying they haven't.

Your POST follows:

"Abel, you should cut out the copying and the pasting. It's pointless nobody reads them, including myself."
Posted by: d. jones at November 27, 2004 04:16 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 28, 2004 01:05 PM

Just in case if you think I'm offending you, Abel, I'm just saying that you should stop copying and pasting all these articles you find on the internet. If I did, then I apologize. I don't mean to insult you in any way.

Posted by: d. jones at November 28, 2004 02:10 PM

d. jones,
Come on d, there's no way you could offend me. I meant what I said---you don't need to read my copy and paste stuff, since you already know it. You are way-ahead of the pro-Bushites and you and I both know it. No apology needed. Let me add that I don't copy and paste every article I read, I only do that with a very few of them.

The following quote is only for the benefit of the pro-Bushites who really need to read it and for the visitors to our Blog. I found it on web site

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16443-2004Nov27?language=printer

I thought it was important because it paints a true picture of the old racist "Dixiecrats" who betrayed the Democratic party to become the racist "neo Republicans" or today's "racist pro-Bushite Republicans." Note that I'm calling the Dixicrats racist too! The complete article is at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16443-2004Nov27?language=printer

"The outcome resonates achingly here in this college town, where the silver-haired men and women who close their eyes and lift their arms when the organ wails at Bethel Baptist Church - a short drive from Wallace's schoolhouse door - don't have to strain to remember riding buses past the shiny all-white school on their way to the all-black school."
"'There are people here who are still fighting the Civil War," said Tommy Woods, 63, a deacon at Bethel and a retired school administrator. "They're holding on to things that are long since past. It's almost like a religion.'"

"d's" POST follows:

"Just in case if you think I'm offending you, Abel, I'm just saying that you should stop copying and pasting all these articles you find on the internet. If I did, then I apologize. I don't mean to insult you in any way."
Posted by: d. jones at November 28, 2004 02:10 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 28, 2004 06:35 PM

Abel,
Pro-Bushite liars? Your setting them straight? HA! Have you forgotten about the lies you have been caught in? Like when you led me to beleive that only republicans voted for HAVA? I proved you wrong there, the fact is every democrat in the senate voted for it and every republican with the exception of one voted for it as well. The one person that voted against it was a republican. That is one lie.

Lie two. You stated you were a conservative. This alone with nothing else is a blod face lie, yet two days later you stated you were a liberal only to reverse into a conservative yet again. Then in an attempt to do some damage control, you listed what makes you both conservative and liberal. The two main reasons you stated you were a conservative is you don't like to owe money and you like latino music.

You are one of the greatests liars here, you have been caught several times in lies, now you want people to believe that you are setting the record straight? This is why your side, no matter what name you give yourselves will always lose.

PS- How do you like the new republican in the state of Washington? First one in 20 years!

Keep up your lies, even the people who side with you are tired of seeing your copy and pastes.

I speak for myself and the other close to 60 milliion Bush voters when I say, your funny with your lies.

Posted by: Wayne at November 28, 2004 07:36 PM

d.jones,
I have stated what I don't agree with the president on already. Here they are again.

1. Illegal alien toleration. Either kick them out or do a vigorous background check on them.

2. Border patrols. Make it next to impossible to get in this country illegally.

3. Soft on enemies. I wish we could just destroy our eneimes once and for all. Get tough for once.

4. Finally stop letting people get away with lies about him. Like the time Kerry was talking when he thought the microphone was off and said the president and his people were the biggest bunch of liars and whatever else he said, then blamed it on Hannity and Rush.

Posted by: Wayne at November 28, 2004 07:42 PM

Abel,
Do you smell that? It's the smell of you being a sore loser, just like your party.

Posted by: Wayne at November 29, 2004 08:36 AM

To Wayne

Hey what's going on? I wasn't here in a while but glad you're still around. I was busy catching up with my schoolwork, I fell behind. I've been talikng to Art a few days ago in that other part, the Bush up in results one, and we were just talking about some of those hilarious quotes President Bush made.

That Operaton AC site of yours was certainly a good idea. Why didn't I think of something like that before? Thansk for telling me about it. I've been emailing Keith Boak, he's with C Company, 216th Eng Bn. Not sure what that stands for. I've been strapped for cash lately so I'm unable to send him anything but he does enjoy getting emails from our troops' supporters. He told me he was from North Lawrence, Ohio. Who's your soldier and where is he from? Of course you don't have to tell me it's none of my business anyway, but...I'm just curious.

Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving, I certainly did. It's one of my favorite holidays - who wouldn't like a succulent turkey covered in gravy with pumpkin pie? Your Philadelphia Eagles did pretty well against my NY Giants, 27 - 6. Donovan McNabb improved a little. I'm not really a Giants fan. They're not as good as they used to be. In fact, with the way they've been playing so far, they might as well lie down on the field and let the other team win just like that. Maybe this football season might be the one in which the Eagles finally reach the Super Bowl. Since you live in Pennsylvania, what do you think of the Pittsburgh Steelers? I think they're even a better team than the Eagles. They finally defeated the unbeatable New England Patriots a week ago.

Posted by: Henry at November 29, 2004 01:00 PM

Wayne,
What did I lose? I haven't lost anything. I told you what would happen if George W. Bush won and all you have to do now is to wait to see it happen. Good luck to you. I hope you don't become too disappointed like some of your fellow Republicans.

Regarding your "illegal" alien intolerance. You say, "Either kick them out or do a vigorous background check on them." I would agree with you if they weren't brought here in the first place.

Here's a little bit of information for you. Spanish women never came to the new world until very late in the 1700s and early 1800s. Guess what that make most of the "illegal" aliens. Surely you can come up with the correct answer to this question. Oh, and try to remember that you claim to be a Christian.

Two of your POSTs follows:

"d.jones, I have stated what I don't agree with the president on already. Here they are again.
1. Illegal alien toleration. Either kick them out or do a vigorous background check on them.
2. Border patrols. Make it next to impossible to get in this country illegally.
3. Soft on enemies. I wish we could just destroy our eneimes once and for all. Get tough for once.
4. Finally stop letting people get away with lies about him. Like the time Kerry was talking when he thought the microphone was off and said the president and his people were the biggest bunch of liars and whatever else he said, then blamed it on Hannity and Rush."
Posted by: Wayne at November 28, 2004 07:42 PM

"Abel, Do you smell that? It's the smell of you being a sore loser, just like your party."
Posted by: Wayne at November 29, 2004 08:36 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at November 30, 2004 02:33 AM

GW JR's supporters are right, I was wrong. How could I be such a fool for voting for Kerry? I should have voted for Bush! The smart choice! Here’s Why!

1. He will create jobs faster than expected and they are "high-paying" jobs.
It took this guy until 2004, the LAST year of his first term, just to create a single net job. In the rest of his first term he lost them, or is that a "myth" like his Treasury Secretary said? Now these "high-paying" jobs, as this administration calls them, actually pay an average $9,000 less than the ones lost. Wow! What an improvement! His economic boom is on fire!! Why do we need all that extra cash from those lost jobs anyway? In addition, go ahead and take away our overtime pay, we don’t really need that either.

2. He will protect us from the dangers of Canadian prescription drugs.
Who needs those cheap and affordable drugs from Canada when you can get the all-American kind at a heftier price tag?

3. He will continue to fight the war on terrorism in his own way.
Of course he will, why do think we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 only to drag us into a quagmire without a viable exit strategy? And who wants to accept help from the UN, huh? They're just a bunch of anti-American pussies who just get in our way! We don't need the support of our closest allies if we can just alienate them and destroy our reputation. While we're at it, let's tear up all those alliances we had right after World War II and bully the rest of the world.

4. He will protect our babies by not fully funding stem-cell research.
We scientists thank you so much, Mr. President, you just saved us from the hard and agonizing work of creating all those major cures we could have had from stem cell research, only because you thought it was linked to abortion.

5. He will keep giving my wealthy boss more tax cuts.
Keep it coming, W! My multi-millionaire employer keeps getting HUGE tax cuts that he doesn't even need while I get a MUCH SMALLER taste of those cuts. Isn't this country great?

6. He will finally be able to cut the record-high deficit in half in his next term.
After seriously bankrupting our nation with his irresponsible fiscal spending, he now intends to cut the deficit from a $413 billion deficit to a $200 billion deficit. Nice! But um, how are you gonna do this after depleting a $1 trillion surplus from your predecessor without taxing the rich and by privatizing Social Security? Hmmm…let’s see what other insane spending bills you come up with.

7. He will ban gay marriage and merge church and state into one.
The only way to ban all those homosexual wackos from marrying each other is to put it in the Constitution. Now do we really want something in our most precious document that discriminates against a certain group of people, gays in this case, and involves the unification of church and state? After all, the Constitution explicitly states that there should be a “separation of church and state.” On the other hand, this proposed amendment will show those gays and lesbians who’s boss! And don’t forget to overturn Roe v. Wade! Women are in no need of their well-deserved and hard-earned abortion rights because abortion is simply just downright wrong.

8. He is consistent and stays on the message.
Now how can you argue with that? He never changes his mind, even when he’s too stubborn to alter the course when things don’t go as expected.

9. He will clean up our environment and make the air we breathe healthier and cleaner.
Do you think we’re stupid? Anyway, enough said on his environmental record.

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST…!

10. He is “a uniter not a divider.”
Lmao! What a joke this nation has never been so partisan and divided in a LOOOONG time.

And Henry, I looked over some of your posts in the other blog. I was pleased to know that you used to be on our side before you started making friends with lovers of GW JR. You fake, you were a Bush supporter too all along, weren't you?

Posted by: d. jones at November 30, 2004 11:29 AM

Abel,
Who brought the illegal aliens here? Our government? Is that what your saying?

WWait, why am I defending myself for disagreeing with Bush? This is what you wanted and your still not happy. There is just no pleasing you. Typical extreme liberal.

Just because I am a Christian means I have to let everyone slap me in the face? In fact it means the opposite. Turn the other cheek does not mean become someone's punching bag. Did David turn the other cheek against Goliath? Did Moses turn the other cheek against the pursuing Egyptians?

I have no idea what you are talking about with Spanish women. I am not against anyone becoming an American. I just think everyone should have to do it legally. Proper channels and all that. This may be hard for someone like you to understand, seeing how you want to defend everyone except Iraqi women and children. Let Saddam butcheer them, right? Let's not get involved, isn't this what you would prefer?

Let me ask you this, what would you do if you were president? How would you help the world? I can't wait to see if you even attempt to answer this one. You pretend you are president, and I will pretend I am liberal so I can tell you no matter what you decide is wrong for one reason or antoher. This will be fun.

Posted by: Wayne at November 30, 2004 03:21 PM

Henry,
Hey, what's up? How have you been? You know those Steelers not only beat the undefeated Patriots, but they beat the undefeated Eagles too. They do worry me. Maybe it will be a Pennsylvania super bowl this year.

My soldier is a girl from Arizona in a transportaion company. She is located outside of Fallujah.

Maybe some day we will meet up somwhere. Talk to you soon Henry.

Posted by: Wayne at November 30, 2004 03:24 PM

Wayne,
One question at a time. You need to remember that you're a little slow so lets take it easy. You say, "Who brought the illegal aliens here? Our government? Is that what your saying?" The truth is that what you call "illegal aliens" have been allowed to come to the US to work for many years. The reason being that they normally do work that Americans for whatever reason don't care to do. You know, like washing dishes, picking cotton, etc. Do you agree that this has been happening and going on under both Democratic and Republican Administrations?

As for being a Christian, Jesus only added two commandments and they went something like this, "Love God with all your heart and mind and (John 13:34)love one another; as I have loved you." and didn't Jesus become someone's punching bag before he was crucified? What are we so scared about when we are the most powerful country in the world?

As for the Spanish women. If you accept as a given that the Spaniards only brought priests and soldiers in 1492 and thereafter for quite a long time. Then imagine what the following generations of people could be classified as--after Mexico became independent, how would most of its people be classified as? You also need to consider that these people believed that the land belonged to those who worked it. Do you think this belief has changed? Do you think that George W. Bush and other previous Presidents have ever considered this question?

Finally, one more question. How many of the Terrorist of 911 were here illegally do you think? As I understand it, all of them were here legally and had Visas, driver licenses, etc. Furthermore, none of the Terrorists came from Canada, Central America or South America. Are you aware of this?

If I were President, I would quickly and carefully document and register--fingerprint, photograph, etc., and thereby legalize all workers who come in to pick our cotton, wash our dishes, cook our food, etc., and make sure that none are posing as workers and likely or prone to become Terrorists. I have full confidence that our government is able to do this. Why should we allow the Terrorist to change the way we live?

As for what Saddam did or didn't do. I don't believe that it's our place to invade a country that has never done anything to us and Iraq never did anything to us. That's not to say that Saddam if he had been allowed to stay in power would never have been stupid enough to attack us but we knew where he was and it would've been a terrible mistake for him to have done that. We are still the most powerful country in the world and we could've eliminated Iraq from the world in a minute had he attacked us.

Your POST follows:

"Abel, Who brought the illegal aliens here? Our government? Is that what your saying?
WWait, why am I defending myself for disagreeing with Bush? This is what you wanted and your still not happy. There is just no pleasing you. Typical extreme liberal.
Just because I am a Christian means I have to let everyone slap me in the face? In fact it means the opposite. Turn the other cheek does not mean become someone's punching bag. Did David turn the other cheek against Goliath? Did Moses turn the other cheek against the pursuing Egyptians?
I have no idea what you are talking about with Spanish women. I am not against anyone becoming an American. I just think everyone should have to do it legally. Proper channels and all that. This may be hard for someone like you to understand, seeing how you want to defend everyone except Iraqi women and children. Let Saddam butcheer them, right? Let's not get involved, isn't this what you would prefer?
Let me ask you this, what would you do if you were president? How would you help the world? I can't wait to see if you even attempt to answer this one. You pretend you are president, and I will pretend I am liberal so I can tell you no matter what you decide is wrong for one reason or antoher. This will be fun."
Posted by: Wayne at November 30, 2004 03:21 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at December 1, 2004 01:45 AM

d.jones,
I will do my best to answer your post.

1. and 2. have an answer that interweaves them;
You want steady job growth in the US yet at the same time you either want the government to cap pharmaceutical profits or you want to outsource the pharmaceutical jobs.

3. How would you like the war on terror fought? Are we to beleive that terrorists were in Iran, N.Korea, Afghanistan and S.Florida but not Iraq? Iraq had nothing to do with terror? Be honest with yourself about this one.

4.They have been doing embryonic stem cell research for over 20 years and have come up with nothing other than tumors. Is this what you want our tax dollars to go to? Didn't you hear about the paralyzed woman in I think it was China that is walking now due to stem cell reasearch? It had nothing to do with embryonic stem cells, it was umbillical cord blood stem cells. Don't you think we should look at that way first before we go killing babies?

5.and 6.can be intertwined. I hope my boss does keep gettin more tax cuts. Last year I received my largest raise in 10 years and my largest Christmas bonus. So the Bush economy is working for me.

7About the gay marriage issue. This was put to a vote during this election in 11 states. How many states passed this? Answer? 0! So how is Bush going to do anything when it is clear Americans do not want it? About the abrtion issue, is it a bad thing to ban partial birth abortion? Is it bad to try a persuade someone to another option other than abortion? How many people are waiting in line to adopt? Is it better to just kill the fetus right away and not have to think about it? Or let a loving family adopt a healthy baby? I am not saying this is true in every case, but surely you can agree that this would be true in some cases. Why not have that option? If you are trying to protect the girl that gets pregnant from being raped by a family member, why protect that family member too? Cmon man, let's work together as a nation.

8. 9. and 10. These last three are just your way of filling a list. 3 more things to yell about. I am not saying these are not important issues though. It takes two to divide a union. Not just one. He has certain beleifs and sticks to them, more than I can say for John Kerry. As far as the enviroment goes, there is no winning this arguement. If you and your side want the enviroment clean, may I suggest you start walking or riding a bike and stop driving cars, flying planes, boating, taking trains, you know, things that pollute. Hunt your own food so we don't have to ship as much meat around the country. This would save gas as well, but let's not forget who you are going to put out of work by doing this, car salesman, truckers, dock workers, auto mechanics, the list goes on. Seems to me your side knows one thing very well. Maybe two things, blame it on someone else and complain.

Posted by: Wayne at December 1, 2004 08:46 AM

Wayne, I'm doing great. When I stop by Philadelphia sometime in the future, maybe we can go out for a beer. You know I just saw that Pistons-Pacers game. Everyone was talking about it. Did you see it? That game was crazy, somebody threw something at one of those players then they got into a big argument and then it turned into an angry mob. Talk about bad sportsmanship. With the way they were fighting maybe we can send some of those NBA players to battle those Iraqi insurgents, lol.

I like the Steelers so I want them to make it to the playoffs at least, and ultimately the Super Bowl. If they don't, there's always next year. I hope the same thing for your Eagles too. I'm not a fan of either of my hometeams the Giants and the Jets. They don't even play here in New York they're based in New Jersey. Almost no one supports Mayor Bloomberg's (of NYC) plans of building a stadium here in Manhattan since the teams could pay for it themselves. I mean it's a waste of our tax money. If I had no choice but to pick between the two, I'd go for the Jets, they're certainly better than the Giants.

I'd certainly like to know more about you. If you want to know something about me feel free to ask. Until next time, Wayne. Jones and Abel still bothering you about that damn election? Just ignore them, case closed.

Posted by: Henry at December 1, 2004 07:01 PM

Fake? Sounds like somebody's getting a lump of coal for Christmas...and it's not me.

Posted by: Henry at December 2, 2004 08:24 PM

Abel,
It is pointless to argue about what has happened pre 9/11. That day has changhed the world forever, so your 9/10 way of thinking is outdated.

Thanks for calling me yet one more name, slow, and showing your true colors again. You certainly have the right attitude to get defeated in another national election.

It must be wonderful to be as smart as you are. I wish you were president so you could show the world how easy it would be to rid America of terrorists and control the millions of illegal aliens with the swipe of a pen. Do you hear how ridiculous your statements sound? Do you really think it would be that easy?

By the way, I didn't realize we still picked cotton by hand. I thought they invented some new fangled thing called a cotton gin.

Posted by: Wayne at December 2, 2004 11:11 PM

Wayne
Health care costs continue to rise, and GW has done nothing to reign in HMO’s or make insurance or prescription drugs more affordable. We know he's trying to protect doctors from "frivolous lawsuits" that are driving them out of business. But why can't we buy cheaper drugs from Canada? Why did he prevent us from acquiring those drugs that could have saved us a lot of money? Buying drugs from Canada would only be temporary until American drug prices go down, so these jobs are not outsourced from the US.

Iraq didn't attack us. It wasn't a part of the War on Terrorism until the invasion. Come on, man, almost everybody knows this. I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone but it looks like we replaced 1 tyrant for 3,000 tyrants in Iraq.

Your counter-argument for number 4 on stem-cell research is too vague. The Chinese were studying umbilical cord blood stem cells, not EMBRYONIC stem cells. Let me ask you this. Suppose you are in a hospital and you've just been diagnosed with Alzheimer's. Ten years later, you are about to die but the only way to save your life is to get the cure that would not have been possible without embryonic stem cell research. Would you really want to sacrifice that cure for ideology and force your family to make your funeral plans? Or you would you take that cure so you could live longer and spend more precious time with your loved ones? Do not wiggle your way out of this question, just please answer it directly. Would you or would you not take that cure, when taking it meant getting a cure that was abortion-related? Pretend this is the No Spin Zone, I'm a liberal version of O'Reilly and you're my guest.

You may be right, 5 and 6 might be intertwined. Is making tax cuts permanent for the top 1 percent really worth making the deficit even worse? I don't think so. Even some Republicans agree with me on this. After all, the GOP was supposed to be the party of "fiscal discipline." That is no longer true, for obvious reasons.

I'll take your word for it on what you said about gay marriage. Are you for or against the constitutional amendment yourself? Ok, now tro abortion. I meant abortion in general, I didn't single out partial-birth abortion. GW JR is very likely to appoint Scalia-like justices who will reflect their own personal opinions on abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade. If this happens, then pro-choice women all over the country will be extremely upset, seeing that their right to an abortion is threatened only because of Bush's attempts to make the Christian Right happy. Is this GW JR's way of repaying those women who voted for him? By taking away their abortion rights? Some gratitude. That's like throwing a Good Samaritan in jail right after he saved your life.

I left out one thing for number 8: GW JR never learns from his mistakes so if he's consistent in making wrong decisions, what good comes out of that? Kerry is more likely to learn from such mistakes.

This nation has never been so partisan when GW JR came into office. Republicans and democrats have never been so stark in contrast with one another. During roll call sessions in Congress sometimes Republicans won't let Democrats vote on their proposals and bills because the GOP controls everything. During this election, cars with either Bush or Kerry bumper stickers were seriously vandalized by the supporters of the other candidate. And we're also very polarized because GW keeps bringing up issues that split the public 50-50 like whether or not attacking Iraq was worth it, or whether or not gay marriage should be banned in the Constitution.

I liked Mrs. Soriano's post so much, it inspired me to make up my own list. Regarding the environmental record, let me repost what she said. She was much more specific than me.

"No other president has done so much damage to the environment. He broke his 2000 campaign promise of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by pulling out of the Kyoto Treaty of 1997 that reduced these emissions in order to limit global warming. This administration has refused to release the records of Cheney's secret meetings with energy corporations that rewrite our environmental laws such as Enron. This president opposed improved gas mileage standards for vehicles when this was before Congress, and cut funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks by 28%. This president is abandoning a Clinton directive protecting 58.5 million acres of national forest from road-building and other developments. This president also recently approved to dump nuclear waste in Nevada. The list goes on and on." - Jennifer Soriano at November 24, 2004 10:38 PM.

You countered, and I successfully defended every one of my arguments. Didn't think I would do that, huh? But still, you should answer those questions that I asked you, like the Alzheimer's one. I hope this isn't too much for you to read.

Henry this is a political blog, we don't talk about sports in here. You're welcome to join in on this chat though. Thanks anyway, but I don't need a lump of coal for Christmas I already have plenty of that. I live in Texas so I have plenty of barbecues. Would you like me to send you a lump of coal instead? It's on me.

Posted by: d. jones at December 3, 2004 02:23 AM

d.jones,
I will attempt to answer all of your questions, if I leave an answer out, or if you feel my answer is vague, please let me know so I may clarify.

1. Embryonic stem cell research;

How do you know that the cure for Alzheimers is in embryonic stem cells? Ebryonic stem cells have produced not one cure in 20 years. Cord blood stem cells have produced results, so why would we not want to pursue that avenue more aggressivley?

Answer to your question about my life being saved;

If it meant the taking of another life to save mine, then let me pass on. I am no scientist, but I really do not beleive the answers we seek are in ebryonic stem cell research.

2. Gay marriage;

My answer is simple, I am against gay marriage. I am not against a partner union of some sort, just don't call it marriage and change what I have with my wife. I do not want marriage changed to accomodate a different type of union.

3. Canadian drugs;

Buying drugs from outside the US is outsourcing. What will happen to all the drug making employees that will be out of work when we no longer buy drugs from their employers?

4. Abortion;

I do not want Roe vs. Wade overturned. What I want is more options for women that feel the need for abortion. There are many families that would love to adopt these unwanted children.

If I left anything out let me know. If I am unclear on anything I will do my best to explain further.

Talk to you later.

PS- I do like to talk about other things than politics, so let Henry and I exchange our thoughts on sports as well. The heading of this blog is "It's all over", yet we are still talking about things that we were talking about prior to the election. Henry is a good guy, try and treat him as such.

Posted by: Wayne at December 3, 2004 03:59 PM

"If it meant the taking of another life to save mine, then let me pass on. I am no scientist, but I really do not beleive the answers we seek are in ebryonic stem cell research."

"My answer is simple, I am against gay marriage. I am not against a partner union of some sort, just don't call it marriage and change what I have with my wife."

"I do not want Roe vs. Wade overturned. What I want is more options for women that feel the need for abortion. There are many families that would love to adopt these unwanted children."

I didn't realize you were such a sensitive young man. I have never seen this side of you before we even started posting on here in this site. After reading this from your last post, I found even more respect for you. You're not stupid at all, now you sound like a very mature and honest human being. You didn't leave anything out so you don't have to repeat what you said.

Posted by: d. jones at December 3, 2004 06:37 PM

d.jones,
Thanks for your kind words. This is a side of you I have never seen as well. It may well be time for a group hug.

Seriously, thank you for your kind words.

Posted by: Wayne at December 3, 2004 11:11 PM

Wayne,

You say, "...your 9/10 way of thinking is outdated." You're stealing George W. Bush's line. What he's really saying is that the Terrorists have won and that things are now different in the US.

Is that why George W. Bush and you think it's OK for us to have lost our pre-911 US Constitutions and all the rights that we used to have. Let me make it clear, I'm still thinking pre-911 and I believe that the US Constitution is also just as relevant now as it was before 911.

Yes, I believe that you're slow with your thinking processes. I'm still an American who believes in standing up for liberty and justice for all--no matter who is against those principles--no matter if you and George W. Bush are against them. Nothing has changed and I'm still going to be against all those who oppose the US Constitution.

For your information, cotton is still picked by human hands as well as by mechanical pickers but never by any "new fangled thing called a cotton gin." Cotton Gins only "clean" and process the cotton after it's already been picked.

I've been reading your posts and you have need for some good information--needless to say, I will continue to advocate what's right no matter how many elections we have to lose. You'll find some of what you need at:

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20652/

"After people of color, a disabled man and a pair of men who might be gay are turned away, the image dissolves to a text statement that: "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we."

Your POST follows:

"Abel, It is pointless to argue about what has happened pre 9/11. That day has changhed the world forever, so your 9/10 way of thinking is outdated.
Thanks for calling me yet one more name, slow, and showing your true colors again. You certainly have the right attitude to get defeated in another national election.
It must be wonderful to be as smart as you are. I wish you were president so you could show the world how easy it would be to rid America of terrorists and control the millions of illegal aliens with the swipe of a pen. Do you hear how ridiculous your statements sound? Do you really think it would be that easy?
By the way, I didn't realize we still picked cotton by hand. I thought they invented some new fangled thing called a cotton gin."
Posted by: Wayne at December 2, 2004 11:11 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at December 4, 2004 09:17 PM

Nah, you can keep your lump of coal, jones, I use propane in my barbecues. Wayne, d jones, it's nice to see both of you finally getting along with each other. I thought all that namecalling and cursing would never end.

Posted by: Henry at December 4, 2004 10:16 PM

Ohio election thoughts to ponder: There is no denying that these observations are interesting and make the actual results suspect. Unfortunately, I don't think anything is going to come from this. If anyone, either Democrat or Republican manipulated vote counts in Ohio, then I hope they are exposed for it. Maybe that will prevent it from happening in the future.
-------------------------------------------------

Ohio Tally Fit for Ukraine
by Juan Gonzalez

It has been a month now and we still don't have a clear count of the votes for our own presidential race from the state of Ohio.

For those who may have forgotten, Ohio supposedly assured George W. Bush a second term in the White House - only the most important job on the planet.

The morning after the election, we were told Bush was ahead of John Kerry in that state's unofficial count by 139,000 votes, or 2.5%.

At the time there were 155,000 uncounted provisional ballots and an unknown number of overseas ballots, but Kerry concluded they would not produce enough of a margin to erase his deficit, so he promptly conceded.

At the same time, given the bitter Democratic memories of the 2000 Florida fiasco, he assured his supporters he would fight to have every vote properly counted this time.

Within a few days, other problems began to show up in Ohio's preliminary tally.

We learned, for example, that an additional 93,000 voters had gone to the polls yet machines had registered no preference of theirs for President. Only a manual recount can tell us for sure what happened to those 93,000 ballots.

Then, red-faced election officials in Franklin County admitted a computer error on Election Night had tallied 4,258 votes for Bush in a precinct where only 638 people voted. That correction alone will drop Bush's margin by 3,620.

And now Daily News reporter Larry Cohler-Esses and I have uncovered some more unusual vote totals, this time in black neighborhoods of Cleveland. Those results are from the precinct-by-precinct tallies released by the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, where Cleveland is located.

In the 4th Ward on Cleveland's East Side, for example, two fringe presidential candidates did surprisingly well.

In precinct 4F, located at Benedictine High School on Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, Kerry received 290 votes, Bush 21 and Michael Peroutka, candidate of the ultra-conservative anti-immigrant Constitutional Party, an amazing 215 votes!

That many black votes for Peroutka is about as likely as all those Jewish votes for Buchanan in Florida's Palm Beach County in 2000.

In precinct 4N, also at Benedictine High School, the tally was Kerry 318, Bush 21, and Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik 163.

Back in 2000, the combined third-party votes in those two precincts - including the Nader vote - was 8. Cuyahoga, like most of Ohio's 88 counties, uses punch-card balloting.

"That's terrible, I can't believe it," said City Councilman Kenneth Johnson, who has represented the 4th Ward since 1980. "It's obviously a malfunction with the machines."

But Peroutka and Badnarik polled unusually well in a few other black precincts. In the 8th Ward's G precinct at Cory United Methodist Church, for instance, Badnarik tallied 51 votes - nearly three times better than Bush's 19. And in I precinct at the same church, Peroutka was the choice on 27 ballots, three times more than Bush's 8. In 2000, independent candidates received 9 votes from both precincts.

The same pattern showed up in 10 Cleveland precincts in which Badnarik and Peroutka received nearly 700 votes between them.

In virtually all those precincts, Kerry's vote was lower than Al Gore's in 2000, even though there was a record turnout in the black community this time, and even though blacks voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.

If this same pattern held true in other cities around Ohio, then quite possibly thousands of votes meant for Kerry somehow ended up in the tallies of the two independent candidates. So far, however, precinct-by-precinct results have not been posted by boards of elections in other counties, but by Thursday all official results are due.

On Monday, Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell will certify Ohio's results and then a manual recount will be requested by the Green and Libertarian parties.

The Badnarik and Peroutka surge was not the only unusual occurrence in Cleveland.

Also unusual was the drop in the Democratic vote in scores of precincts compared to 2000. But more on that next time.

Posted by: JM at December 4, 2004 10:55 PM

More information ( I know it needs to be proved) about what MAY have happened on election day.
-------------------------------------------------

Voter Fraud in Florida and Ohio:
Kerry Won the Election by at least 1,7 Million Votes
by Brad Menfil

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/303775.shtml 27 Nov 2004
www.globalresearch.ca 3 December 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MEN412A.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brad Menfil is not my real name. I work for the RNC. I fear reprisals if I'm found out.

The truth about this election is this: Florida and Ohio had to go for Bush in order for him to "win" the election. In reality he lost both states. In fact, he did not even win the popular vote. He lost the national popular vote by at least 1,750,000. This shows you the scale of the fraud.

The exit polls were not wrong. Kerry was the clear winner, but victory was snatched from him.

Florida first. The 200,000+ margin of victory for Bush made this state uncontestable. Everybody assumes that even with some fraud, Kerry could never have made up the difference in a recount. But Kerry actually won by about 750,000 votes. The numbers were changed by a computer program (in both electronic and scan-tron voting systems) called "KerryLite." "KerryLite" of course is not actual name of the program. The actual name is 11-5-18-18 etc. For additional encryption, the numbers were jumbled but I'm not sure in which order. The numbers replace the letters of the alphabet. For example, K is the eleventh letter of the alphabet.

So the if-then statement goes something like this: "if total true Kerry>total true Bush, Bush x 1.04x (.04 is a random number)(total true Kerry), total true Bush". The second part of the equation takes the total number of votes cast and subtracts the new Bush total, subtracts the third party totals and leaves the rest for Kerry.

Sometimes the program would also reduce third party votes and award them to Bush. And even where Bush legitimately won, he was still awarded additional votes. The big Democratic counties (Broward for example) went to Kerry because it had to appear that everything was on the up and up. It's interesting to see this unfold. Does anybody wonder why the Republican counties were mostly counted after the Democratic counties? You should wonder, and also know that this was no accident. The Bush team had to make up the votes as the night went on.

In Ohio, computer voting fraud, vote tossing and voter suppression were the main methods. Vote tossing was simply the removal of Kerry votes and some third party votes. In some areas, the Bush vs. Kerry votes were absurd. Nine to one, eight to two.

Voter suppression took the form of making voters stand in four hour long lines. This of course took place in Democratic areas. The simplest thing to do was to have too few voting machines. Sometimes that's all it takes. People eventually lose patience and leave without casting a vote.

In other states such as New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire, Kerry's leads evaporated very quickly once the polls were shut down. Kerry only won New Hampshire, but barely. As it turned out, the lead was 6% for Kerry in that state and not enough fraudulent activity took place to flip the state to Bush.

So this will all come out and be known to everyone. Nothing this massive can be kept a secret. You're already beginning to see these "irregularities" and the whisper will become a roar.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email this article to a friend

To become a Member of Global Research

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum , at http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research (Canada) articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca . For cross-postings, kindly use the active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article. The author's copyright note must be displayed. (For articles from other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where applicable.). For publication of Global Research (Canada) articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

Posted by: JM at December 4, 2004 11:19 PM

Edited from: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE411D.html

... However, the exit poll data indicates that it was Kerry who won the state, and by a comfortable margin. Once again, there is substantial evidence of electronic electoral fraud. Teed Rockwell found, after careful study of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website, that twenty-nine precincts in this county "reported votes cast IN EXCESS of the number of registered voters—at least 93,136 extra votes total." The same website he studied (http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/currentresults1.htm#top ) also repays further study, for Rockwell’s tallying of ‘ghost votes’ is in fact conservative. To cite just one example, Brook Park City is listed as having 14,491 registered voters, of whom it is claimed that fully 14,458 exercised their civic duty and cast ballots—for a turn-out rate of 99.4 percent. I leave it to the curious to discover how many of these high-minded but possibly nonexistent citizens supported their incumbent President.

Those who want to pursue the questions of vote fraud and suppression in Ohio may also want to consult the studies carried out by Richard Philips, whose work, together with the data available on the websites of Cuyahoga and other counties, provides depressing evidence of successful vote suppression in urban precincts. (It has been estimated that vote suppression tactics may have cost Kerry 45,000 votes across the whole state of Ohio [see Bernstein].)

The Green Party and Libertarian Party presidential candidates, belatedly followed by the Kerry/Edwards campaign, have called for a recount in Ohio. But if Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State Blackwell permits no more than a recount, without a rigorous audit of the electronic voting machines and tabulators as well, the numbers for a reversal of the election results are probably not there. On the optimistic assumption that a fair count of the 155,000 provisional ballots would result in 10 percent of them being disqualified and 70 percent of the remainder being validated as Kerry votes, those ballots might reduce Bush’s lead in Ohio by as much as 55,800 votes. However, it seems unlikely that a recount, including a re-examination of the more than 96,000 Ohio votes (most of them cast on old punch-card machines) that were discarded as spoiled, would turn up the almost 81,000 additional Kerry votes that would still be needed.

Together with the principle that every duly cast vote must be counted, advocates for democracy need to assert another complementary principle: the principle that votes cast not in polling booths, but in the hard drives of voting-tabulation machines; and not by citizens, but rather by ghosts summoned into existence by Republican hackers’ nimble fingers, have no business getting counted, and should be removed from the tally.

The effect of turning a ‘Ghostbuster’ computer-auditing team like Bev Harris’s BlackBoxVoting organization loose on the Ohio results, to carry out a serious audit of any polling precinct and computer-log data that hasn’t already been quietly destroyed, might well be startling. For while a simple recount would probably leave Kerry trailing by several tens of thousands of votes, a thorough computer-audit ‘exorcism’ of the vote tallies, should such a thing ever be permitted, might well lead to a reversal of the national election results.

Whatever the finally certified results may be, a larger informing context should not be forgotten. The regime of George W. Bush has made no secret of its scorn for the American Constitution and Bill of Rights, its hostility to any notion of international law, its contemptuous dismissal of the decent opinion of humankind both at home and abroad, its contempt, in the most inclusive sense, for truth.

Bush has claimed that the 2004 election gave him "capital"—which he now will not hesitate to spend. An early instance of this expenditure has been the assault on the city of Fallujah, and a compounding of the manifold war crimes of which Bush and those who serve him are already guilty.

But what is this "capital"? As the evidence is revealing with growing clarity, the 2004 presidential election was not in fact a victory for Bush, but rather the occasion for an insolent usurpation.

A ‘president’ who takes office through fraud and usurpation can make no legitimate claim to exercise the stolen power of his office.

As the knowledge of his offence becomes ever more widely disseminated, he may yet come, like Shakespeare’s Macbeth, "[to] feel his title / Hang loose upon him, like a giant’s robe / Upon a dwarfish thief."

Posted by: JM at December 4, 2004 11:40 PM

Taken from:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GWB411A.html
-------------------------------------------------

How I Stole Your Election" by George W. Bush
The first thing I did to steal your election was to make friends with ALL the manufacturers and code-verifyers of the Electronic Voting Machines. They were really nice, especially Diebold who gave me $600,000 for my campaign. Wow, thanks dude!

http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/stealing.htm

Next, I had my attack dog, Karl Rove, convince these companies to either alter the vote totals on the central tabulator machines (simple PCs running windows using Remote Access Server -- RAS), or reprogram (via a downloadable software patch) the voting machines themselves so that they would give the advantage to ME! Isn't America great?!? A little money and some religious zealotry goes a looooong, loooong way. Oh, the religious zealotry thing? That's just a cover. I'm not really a Christian -- or at least I don't act like one. Anyway, I digress.

http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-25.htm#rig

Did you ever hear the media complaining about how inaccurate the exit polls were in prior elections? No. That's because they basically ARE accurate. But this election, the exit polls showed Kerry WAY ahead. No problem. My buddies rigged the machines (and all they needed to do was rig it in one state, Ohio, but they took care of at least Florida for me too) not only to make me squeak by in the important battleground states, like Florida and Ohio, but they also made sure that when I did get a state that I was expected to win, the margin was HUGE so that my "popular" vote would make it look like I had a mandate.

So let's recap how the popular vote thing worked again. Let's say we didn't want it to look suspicious by taking states that Kerry really would have won (except for Ohio and Florida, gotta take those! heh heh). So we let him win there, but in order once again to boost the "popular" vote (I put that in quotes because as you know, I'm not REALLY popular), we bring my vote tallies RIGHT UP NEXT to Kerry's, to jack up the "popular" vote as much as possible, even if I didn't win the state.

Then, with states like North Carolina, we know we're going to steal the state anyway (at least according to what the exit polls were telling everyone.... and according to the long, long lines of new voters were telling everyone ... because we all know most of those people were voting for Kerry, not the status quo), so we just jack the crap out of the vote total to REALLY stuff a crapload of "popular" votes in my pocket. You see, this way I can get on the TV and declare that I have a "mandate" and that I'm going to "cash in" on my political "capital" (which I don't really have of course, but we made it look that way).

Here's a nice chart to show you what I mean. Take special note of how the electronic voting machine totals compare to the paper ballot totals. And see what I mean about North Carolina? http://www.bandsagainstbush.org/cgi-bin/archives/exit_poll.gif

Look folks, if you really want me out of office, first you're going to have to impeach me. But you know what, if you don't have verifiable paper trails at the polls like these folks recommend ( http://openvotingconsortium.org ), and if you don't take these voting machines out of the hands of private companies that are aligned with one end of the political spectrum, then I'm gonna just continue to hose you (and then my brother Jeb will be president too cause we're into this dynasty thing, kind of like my buddies the Saudis... ain't it cool?!?). Also, in 2006, we're going to steal about five more senate seats, and then we'll have the "super-majority". That means the Democrats can't do that confounded fillerbs... fillas.... fillbusters.... CRAP, well, they can't get in the darn way any more and we can pass ANY laws we want about ANYTHING and put whoever we want on the Supreme court. Ha ha, then you're REALLY screwed. So if you don't fix this mess (I mean great system) in two years and have a verifiable voting system nationwide, America is MINE!!!!! (and Jeb's and my daddy's and Cheney's and Rove's... hey, we could even pass a law saying I could be president for FOUR MORE YEARS after 2008! That would be SOOO cool!) Anyway, I digress once again.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI411B.html

And that pesky Bev Harris. Man I wish she would go away. If too many of you contribute to her cause, I might just get in trouble so KNOCK IT OFF!!

http://www.blackboxvoting.org

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Fool me once.....", oh CRAP, I forgot again. Well how about this? "This would be a heck of lot easier if this was [grammar incorrect] a dictatorship.... just so long as I'm the dictator. Heh, heh." Well, sorry to say folks, but I got my way. What are you gonna do about it, huh? Bring it on!!!

http://votergate.tv/votergate/votergatethemovie_64kb.mov

"Sincerely" Yours, "President" George W. Bush

P.S. Pass it on! I dare ya.

Posted by: JM at December 4, 2004 11:45 PM

Taken from:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GWB411A.html
-------------------------------------------------

Evidence of a Second Bush Coup?
by Robert Parry
Consortium News , 7 November 2004
www.globalresearch.ca 6 November 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/PAR411A.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theoretically at least, it is conceivable that sophisticated CIA-style computer hacking – known as “cyber-warfare” – could have let George W. Bush’s campaign transform a three-percentage-point defeat, as measured by exit polls, into an official victory of about the same margin.

Whether such a scheme is feasible, however, is another matter, since it would require penetration of hundreds of local computer systems across the country, presumably from a single remote location. The known CIA successes in cyber-war have come from targeting a specific bank account or from shutting down an adversary’s computer system, not from altering data simultaneously in a large number of computers.

To achieve that kind of result, cyber-war experts say, a preprogrammed “kernel of brain” would have to be inserted into election computers beforehand or teams of hackers would be needed to penetrate the lightly protected systems, targeting touch-screen systems without a paper backup for verifying the numbers. [More on “cyber-war” techniques below.]

Though there's still no proof of such a cyber-attack, suspicions are growing that the U.S. presidential election results were manipulated to some degree. Voting analyses of some precincts in Florida and Ohio have found surprisingly high percentages for Bush. Others have noted that the large turnout among young voters and the obvious enthusiasm of John Kerry’s voters would have suggested a better showing for the Democrat.

Exit Polls

But the most perplexing fact is that exit polls into the evening of Nov. 2 showed Kerry rolling to a clear victory nationally and carrying most of the battleground states, including Florida and Ohio, whose totals would have ensured Kerry’s victory in the Electoral College.

Significantly, polls also showed Republicans carrying the bulk of the tight Senate races. However, when the official results were tallied, the presidential exit polls proved wrong while the Senate polls proved right.

Explanations from the architects of the exit-poll sampling system also sound specious. Their report said Kerry voters were simply more willing than Bush voters to answer the exit pollsters’ questions. But this “chattiness thesis” seems more like a post-facto excuse than a serious argument.

Another explanation from some pundits was that the exit polls were adjusted by late in the day to rectify pro-Kerry exaggerations from the earlier samples. But that is not what happened. As the New York Times reported, “The presumption of a Kerry victory built a head of steam late in the day, when the national survey showed the senator with a statistically significant lead, one falling outside the survey’s margin of error.”

Washington Post managing editor Steve Coll wrote in an online chat on Nov. 3 that “the last wave of national exit polls we received … showed Kerry winning the popular vote by 51 percent to 48 percent – if true, surely enough to carry the Electoral College.” [NYT, Nov. 5, 2004]

Through the late afternoon, exit polls did show Kerry’s lead in some swing states shrinking, For instance, his lead in Ohio slipped from four points to one point. In Florida, his lead dropped from three points to one point. However, his edge in the popular vote seems to have held fairly steady at about three percent.

During the day, even Bush’s aides informed the president that he was losing the election by about three percentage points, according to a source with access to information inside the White House. But Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove reportedly voiced confidence that the vote would turn around. By evening, Bush was displaying a cool confidence that he would prevail.

Irregularities

Since Election Day, some computer irregularities have surfaced in Ohio and elsewhere.

Ohio elections officials said an error with an electronic voting system in Franklin County gave Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, more than a 1,000 percent more than he actually got. Records indicated that only 638 voters cast ballots in the precinct and that Bush's total should have been recorded as 365.

The Associated Press reported that Franklin County is the only Ohio county to use Danaher Controls Inc.'s ELECTronic 1242, an older-style touch-screen voting system.

Much of the suspicion about Bush possibly manipulating the vote totals has centered on touch-screen electronic voting machines made by Ohio-based Diebold, which has more than 75,000 electronic voting stations operating across the United States.

Diebold’s chief executive is Walden O’Dell, a major Bush fundraiser. In an invitation to one Bush fundraising event at his mansion in Columbus, O’Dell wrote that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes for the president.” He later expressed regret at his choice of language. [The Plain Dealer, Sept. 16, 2003, posted at Diebold’s Web site .]

One Kerry insider told me that Democratic suspicions also were raised by Republican resistance to implementing any meaningful backup system for checking the results on Diebold and other electronic-voting machines. For its part, Diebold denies that its systems are vulnerable to computer hacking, calling such allegations “fantasy.” [See Diebold’s statement .]

Dirty Tricks

Another reason for suspicion about manipulation of the Nov. 2 vote is the Republican Party’s long history of electoral dirty tricks, which I detail in my book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq .

In 1968, Richard Nixon’s campaign reportedly sabotaged Vietnam War peace talks to help ensure his victory. In 1972, burglars working for Nixon’s reelection campaign broke into Democratic offices at Watergate.

In 1980, George H.W. Bush and other Republicans allegedly interfered with President Jimmy Carter’s negotiations to free 52 hostages held in Iran. In 1992, Bush’s administration was implicated in an illegal search of Bill Clinton’s passport file. In 2000, George W. Bush sent a team of thugs to disrupt recounts in Florida and eventually got the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent a full counting of disputed ballots.

Now the question is whether Republicans have engaged in some high-tech dirty tricks to alter the outcome of a U.S. presidential election.

‘Cyber-War’

The highly secretive practice of “cyber-warfare” has advanced far more than many Americans understand, with U.S. intelligence agencies pioneering methods for surreptitiously entering enemy computer systems.

Through the 1990s, the CIA and the U.S. military aggressively expanded “cyber-war” capabilities, bringing online powerful computer systems and recruiting some of the nation’s best hackers, intelligence sources say. During the CIA’s recruitment rush, some hackers were hired despite criminal records and questionable backgrounds. One got in trouble when he was found masturbating in front of his computer screen.

By the mid-1990s, cyber-war – also known as "information warfare" – was such a hot topic within the U.S. military that the Pentagon produced a breezy 13-page booklet called "Information Warfare for Dummies."

The primer said traditional information warfare would target an enemy's battlefield command-and-control structure to "decapitate" senior officers from their fighters, thereby "causing panic and paralysis." But the primer added that "network penetrations" -- or hacking -- "represents a new and very high-tech form of warfighting."

Indirectly, the booklet acknowledged secret U.S. capabilities in these areas. The manual described these info-war tactics as "fairly ground-breaking stuff for our nation's mud-sloggers. … Theft and the intentional manipulation of data are the product of devilish minds."

The primer also gave some hints about the disruptive strategies in the U.S. arsenal. "Network penetrations" include "insertion of malicious code (viruses, worms, etc.), theft of information, manipulation of information, denial of service," the primer said.

The booklet also recognized the sensitivity of the topic. "Due to the moral, ethical and legal questions raised by hacking, the military likes to keep a low profile on this issue," the primer explained.

Despite the Pentagon's nervousness, the booklet said the cyber-war tactics do have advantages over other military operations. "The intrusions can be carried out remotely, transcending the boundaries of time and space," the manual said. "They also offer the prospect of 'plausible deniability' or repudiation."

The booklet indicated that U.S. intelligence has found it relatively easy to cover its tracks. "Due to the difficulty of tracing a network penetration to its source, it's difficult for the adversary to prove that you are the one responsible for corrupting their system," the primer said. "In fact, viral infections can be so subtle and insidious that the adversary may not even know that their systems have been attacked."

Drug Scam

U.S. intelligence sources described one case study of a CIA high-tech "dirty trick" that worked in the mid-1990s. After learning of a drug lord's plans to bribe a South American government official, the spy agency waited for the money to be transferred and then accessed the bank records to remotely delete the bribe.

Besides stopping the bribe, the money's disappearance spread confusion within the cartel. The recriminations that followed – with the corrupt official and the drug lord complaining about the lost money – led eventually to the execution of a hapless bookkeeper, according to the story.

During the war over Kosovo in 1999, U.S. government hackers tried to expand on these strategies, targeting Serbian computer systems and government bank accounts. By most accounts, the cyber-war attacks on Serbian targets achieved only limited success.

While avoiding clear confirmation of a U.S. offensive cyber-war capability, American officials occasionally have discussed the topic in the third person, as if the United States were not a participant in this new arms race.

On Feb. 2, 1999, for instance, then-CIA director George Tenet said "several countries have or are developing the capability to attack an adversary's computer systems." He added that "developing a computer attack capability can be quite inexpensive and easily concealable."

Left unsaid in Tenet's statement was that the U.S. government, with the world's most powerful computers and the most sophisticated software designs, has led the way both in offensive “cyber-war” strategies and defensive countermeasures.

With questions lingering about discrepancies between the Nov. 2 exit polls and Bush's final tallies, some Democrats are wondering whether the intelligence community's cyber-war capabilities may have come home to roost.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Parry, who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek, has written a new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq. It can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com . It's also available at Amazon.com .

Posted by: JM at December 4, 2004 11:54 PM

One more then time to go to bed!

Bush's 'Incredible' Vote Tallies
by Sam Parry
http://www.consortiumnews.com/ 9 November 2004
www.globalresearch.ca 9 November 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/PAR411B.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George W. Bush’s vote tallies, especially in the key state of Florida, are so statistically stunning that they border on the unbelievable.

While it’s extraordinary for a candidate to get a vote total that exceeds his party’s registration in any voting jurisdiction – because of non-voters – Bush racked up more votes than registered Republicans in 47 out of 67 counties in Florida. In 15 of those counties, his vote total more than doubled the number of registered Republicans and in four counties, Bush more than tripled the number.

Statewide, Bush earned about 20,000 more votes than registered Republicans.

By comparison, in 2000, Bush’s Florida total represented about 85 percent of the total number of registered Republicans, about 2.9 million votes compared with 3.4 million registered Republicans.

Bush achieved these totals although exit polls showed him winning only about 14 percent of the Democratic vote statewide – statistically the same as in 2000 when he won 13 percent of the Democratic vote – and losing Florida’s independent voters to Kerry by a 57 percent to 41 percent margin. In 2000, Gore won the independent vote by a much narrower margin of 47 to 46 percent.

[For details on the Florida turnout in 2000, see http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=FL .

For details on the 2004 Florida turnout, see http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/FL/P/00/index.html ]

Exit Poll Discrepancies

Similar surprising jumps in Bush’s vote tallies across the country – especially when matched against national exits polls showing Kerry winning by 51 percent to 48 percent – have fed suspicion among rank-and-file Democrats that the Bush campaign rigged the vote, possibly through systematic computer hacking.

Republican pollster Dick Morris said the Election Night pattern of mistaken exit polls favoring Kerry in six battleground states – Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa – was virtually inconceivable.

“Exit polls are almost never wrong,” Morris wrote. “So reliable are the surveys that actually tap voters as they leave the polling places that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries. … To screw up one exit poll is unheard of. To miss six of them is incredible. It boggles the imagination how pollsters could be that incompetent and invites speculation that more than honest error was at play here.”

But instead of following his logic that the discrepancy suggested vote tampering – as it would in Latin America, Africa or Eastern Europe – Morris postulated a bizarre conspiracy theory that the exit polls were part of a scheme to have the networks call the election for Kerry and thus discourage Bush voters on the West Coast. Of course, none of the networks did call any of the six states for Kerry, making Morris’s conspiracy theory nonsensical. Nevertheless, some Democrats have agreed with Morris's bottom-line recommendation that the whole matter deserves “more scrutiny and investigation.” [The Hill , Nov. 8, 2004]

Erroneous Votes

Democratic doubts about the Nov. 2 election have deepened with anecdotal evidence of voters reporting that they tried to cast votes for Kerry but touch-screen voting machines came up registering their votes for Bush.

In Ohio, election officials said an error with an electronic voting system in Franklin County gave Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, more than 1,000 percent more than he actually got.

Yet, without a nationwide investigation, it’s impossible to know whether those cases were isolated glitches or part of a more troubling pattern.

If Bush’s totals weren’t artificially enhanced, they would represent one of the most remarkable electoral achievements in U.S. history.

In the two presidential elections since Sen. Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton in 1996, Bush would have increased Republican voter turnout nationwide by a whopping 52 percent from just under 40 million votes for Dole to just under 60 million votes for the GOP ticket in 2004.

Such an increase in voter turnout over two consecutive election cycles is not unprecedented, but has historically flowed from landslide victories that see shifting voting patterns, with millions of crossover voters straying from one party to the other.

For example, in 1972, Richard Nixon increased Republican turnout by 73.5 percent over Barry Goldwater’s performance two elections earlier. But this turnout was amplified by the fact that Goldwater lost in 1964 to Lyndon Johnson by about 23 percentage points and Nixon trounced George McGovern by 23 percentage points.

What’s remarkable about Bush’s increase over the last two elections is that Democrats have done an impressive job boosting their own voter turnout from 1996 to 2004. Over this period, candidates Al Gore and John Kerry increased Democratic turnout by about 18 percent, from roughly 47.5 million votes in 1996 to nearly 56 million in 2004.

What this suggests is that Bush is not so much winning his new votes from Democrats crossing over, but rather by going deeper than many observers thought possible into new pockets of dormant Republican voters.

Bush’s Gains

But where did these new voters come from, and how did Bush manage to accelerate his turnout gains at a time when the Democratic ticket was also substantially increasing its turnout?

While the statistical analysis of these new voters is only just beginning, Bush’s ability to find nearly 9 million new voters in an election year when his Democratic opponent also saw gains of about 5 million new voters is the story of the 2004 election.

Exit polls also suggest that voters identifying themselves as Republicans voted as a greater proportion of the electorate than in 2000 and that Bush won a slightly greater percent of the Republican vote.

The party breakdown in 2000 was 39 percent Democrats, 35 percent Republicans, and 27 percent independents. In 2000, Bush won the Republican vote by 91 percent to 8 percent; narrowly won the independent vote by 47 percent to 45 percent and picked up 11 percent of the Democratic vote compared with Gore’s Democratic turnout of 86 percent. [See http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html for details.]

According to exit polls this year, the turnout broke evenly among Democrats and Republicans, with about 37 percent each. Independents represented about 26 percent of the electorate. Kerry actually did better among independents, winning that group of voters by a narrow 49 percent to 48 percent margin.

However, Bush did slightly better among the larger number of Republican voters, winning 93 percent of their vote, while matching his 2000 performance by taking about 11 percent of the Democratic vote.

Registration Up

While this turnout might strike many observers as unusual in an election year that witnessed huge voter registration and mobilization efforts by Democrats and groups aligned with Democrats, the increased GOP turnout does seem to fit with the campaign strategy deployed by the Bush team to run to the base.

From the start of the 2004 campaign, political strategist Karl Rove and the Bush team made its goals clear – maximize Bush’s support among social and economic conservatives – including Evangelicals and Club for Growth/anti-government conservatives – and turn them out by driving up Kerry’s negatives with harsh attacks questioning Kerry’s leadership credentials.

This strategy emerged from Rove’s estimate after the 2000 election that 4 million Evangelical voters stayed home that year. The Bush/Rove strategy in 2004 rested primarily on turning out that base of support.

But, even if one were to estimate that 100 percent of these Evangelical voters turned out for Bush in 2004 and that 100 percent of Bush’s 2000 supporters turned out again for him, this still leaves about 5 million new Bush voters unaccounted for.

Altogether, Bush’s new 9 million votes came mainly from the largest states in the country. But nowhere was Bush’s performance more incredible than in Florida, where Bush found roughly 1 million new voters, about 11 percent all new Bush voters nationwide and more than twice the number of new voters than in any other state other than Texas.

Bush increased his turnout in all 67 Florida counties, marking the second consecutive election in which Bush increased Republican vote totals in all Florida counties, and overall achieved a 34 percent increase in Florida votes over his 2000 total.

Since Bob Dole’s 1996 turnout of 2.24 million Florida votes, Bush has increased the GOP’s performance in the state by an astonishing 74 percent. Making Bush’s gains even more impressive, Kerry also saw gains in all but five Florida counties and in 22 counties earned at least 10,000 more votes than Gore earned in 2000.

Exceeding Kerry

But Bush’s vote gains exceeded Kerry’s in all the large counties in the state except in heavily Democratic Miami-Dade, where Kerry increased his turnout by 56,000 new votes compared with Bush’s 40,000 new votes. This Democratic improvement in Miami-Dade seems to have come in large part from Democratic success in registering new voters in the county by almost a 2-to-1 margin over Republicans.

In spite of this new-voter registration advantage, Kerry only earned a 7-to-5 increase of new voter turnout over Bush in Miami-Dade, a statistical oddity given the fact that Kerry did a better job than Gore in turning out his Democratic base, earning a vote total equaling 85 percent of all registered Democrats in the county compared with Gore’s total in 2000 equaling 83 percent of all registered Democrats.

In other Democratic strongholds of Broward and Palm Beach counties, Kerry gained 114,000 new voters, earning nearly 770,000 votes, and bested Bush by more than 320,000 votes. But, this was actually a modest improvement for Bush over 2000, thanks to Bush’s increase of 119,000 new voters in these counties, from 330,000 votes in 2000 to 449,000 votes in 2004.

Bush’s performance in these two counties is worth studying in greater detail. In both counties, Democrats saw a significant increase in new voter registration since 2000, more than 77,000 newly registered Democrats in Broward and 34,000 newly registered Democrats in Palm Beach.

Republicans on the other hand only registered 17,000 new voters in Broward and a bit more than 2,000 new voters in Palm Beach. While both counties saw substantial numbers of new unaffiliated or third party registered voters, the Democratic advantage in both counties combined of more than 111,000 newly registered Dems against fewer than 20,000 newly registered GOP voters, as well as the voter intensity that these new registration rates usually represent, suggested that Kerry should have done better than Bush relative to the 2000 election.

Instead, Bush actually increased his vote total in the two counties by earning about 5,000 more new voters than Kerry.

New Level

Beyond southern Florida, Bush took turnout throughout the state to a new level, testing the bounds of statistical probability by winning votes seemingly from every corner of the state, from the panhandle to the Gulf Coast, from the I-4 corridor to the Atlantic Coast from Jacksonville to Miami.

Another county worth examining in some detail is Orange County, a swing county home to Orlando in the center of the state. As in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward counties, Democrats successfully registered substantially more new voters than Republicans, about 49,000 new Democrats against about 25,000 new Republicans.

These gains broke what was once a statistical tie in registered voters between the parties, giving Democrats a 214,000 to 187,000 advantage across the county. But Kerry only managed a narrow countywide victory with 192,030 votes against 191,389 votes for Bush. In 2000, Gore carried the county with 140,115 votes against 134,476 votes for Bush.

While it's conceivable Bush might have achieved these and other gains through his hardball campaign strategies and strong get-out-the-vote effort, many Americans, looking at these and other statistically incredible Bush vote counts, are likely to continue to suspect that the Republicans put a thumb on the electoral scales, somehow exaggerating Bush's tallies through manipulation of computer tabulations.

Only an open-minded investigation with public scrutiny would have much hope of quelling these rising suspicions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: JM at December 5, 2004 12:00 AM

JM,
The copy and paste days are over. Try thinking on your own for a change.

Posted by: Wayne at December 5, 2004 10:46 PM

Abel,
You don't know much about freedom do you? To have the ultimate freedom is to lose all security. To have the ultimate security is to lose all freedom. We need a balance that you seem unabel to comprehend.

Call me all the names you want. You and your opinion mean little to me.

Just because you can't win an arguement does not mean you need to resort to any means necesary. Rethink your arguement and try something a little different, maybe try using some intelligence. See what happens. LOL

Posted by: Wayne at December 5, 2004 10:49 PM

Henry,
It is nice to be able to talk to d.jones and not fight with him/her.

d.jones,
What does the d. stand for? If you would rather not tell me I understand, I was just trying to get to know you a little better.

Talk to you both later.

Posted by: Wayne at December 5, 2004 10:51 PM

Check out this website: Although it pertains to the 2000 election, people should view it. The music (especially one word) will be objectionable to most, but the words on the screen are what is significant. It is sad that she got away with it.

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

Posted by: JM at December 6, 2004 05:28 AM

Sorry Wayne. I will continue to copy and paste when I read something that I am not going to reword on my own and then be accused of making something up. You can't have it both ways. I never thought you read them anyway, so why the beef?

Posted by: JM at December 6, 2004 11:23 AM

By the way Wayne, I do think on my own! Maybe it's time you should do so. Touche.

Posted by: JM at December 6, 2004 11:25 AM

JM,
Good Show JM--but unfortunately it won't do much good. The folks who should see it mentally block it off as being false and the ones, like me, who see it already know the truth of it. I know that the 2000 election was stolen from the American people. Right now I'm trying to learn about the 2004 election. I'm beginning to suspect that it may also have been stolen from the American people.

One thing that I know, for sure, is that the pro-Bushites aren't capable of thinking and reasoning for themselves. Like I have said many times before, they have been successfully "brainwashed." My suggestion is to just begin to ignore them totally and completely.

What's going on right now is very unfortunate for our country but I cannot see anything that can be done about it right now. I'm afraid that those 60 or so million Americans who were ill advised and voted for George W. Bush will just have to suffer the consequences and perhaps learn from that. The truth is that most of the pro-Bushite people have been "left out," and they're too "unfocused" to realize it. Don't you feel sorry for them? I know I do.

Your POST follows:

"Check out this website: Although it pertains to the 2000 election, people should view it. The music (especially one word) will be objectionable to most, but the words on the screen are what is significant. It is sad that she got away with it."
http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html
Posted by: JM at December 6, 2004 05:28 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at December 6, 2004 04:41 PM

JM give it a rest, you're turning into another Abel.

Posted by: Henry at December 6, 2004 06:32 PM

The name's Jones. Derrick Jones. And I like my martinis shaken, not stirred.

Posted by: d. jones at December 6, 2004 08:17 PM

I apologized to you and even complimented you, Wayne. Now it's your turn to do the same to me.

Posted by: d. jones at December 8, 2004 01:10 AM

d. Jones,

As harsh as you may have been with Wayne, you were always right. You still are if you feel the same way and I cannot see where you need to apologize to anyone. Just never forget what George W. Bush has done to our country and what he is still doing. Nothing good can come from it. I know it's difficult but with time the American people will find out the truth and when they do, they'll finally stop voting "Republican." Good luck to you and I've been very proud to have known you because you always told it like it was.

Your POST follows:

(To Wayne)
"I apologized to you and even complimented you, Wayne. Now it's your turn to do the same to me."
Posted by: d. jones at December 8, 2004 01:10 AM

Part of my POST to JM follows:

"...One thing that I know, for sure, is that the pro-Bushites aren't capable of thinking and reasoning for themselves. Like I have said many times before, they have been successfully "brainwashed." My suggestion is to just begin to ignore them totally and completely..."
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at December 6, 2004 04:41 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at December 8, 2004 04:40 PM

Derrick,
I am sorry for fighting with you earlier. You have shown me that you can debate civily. Thanks for your kind words and I hope we can continue on this type of basis.

By the way, your point is getting across better now than ever before.

I hope you don't mind me calling you Derrick.

Talk to you soon.

Posted by: Wayne at December 8, 2004 05:17 PM

JM and Abel,
Keep up the good work of gettting the liberals voted out of office. Just like Tommy Daschel.

Keep up the hate.

Maybe you guys should take a page from d.jones and try to get your point across without the insults and names. It is working for him.

Posted by: Wayne at December 8, 2004 05:20 PM

Hey, everyone! It's been forever since I've posted on this site!
I hope everyone is doing well! I just thought I'd wish everyone a Merry Christmas! Bye...
Sincerely,
FlamingLiberal

Posted by: FlamingLiberal at December 8, 2004 09:42 PM

Henry,

I will take your comment about Abel as a compliment. I want to know why exit polls showed John Kerry ahead both in Ohio and Florida. Something is not right. I don't expect the election to be reversed, but if there were some shenanigans that affected the vote, then it should be exposed for everyone to see. I am tired of people playing with elections. You have poll workers that are partisan and I question if some are actually honest when it comes to tabulating votes. If the exit polls had shown things differently, then I wouldn't be posting about this discrepancy. It doesn't add up. Until this is put to rest, regardless of what is determined, I will continue to post about it as I find out more information. Sorry Henry, but George Bush was told by the people within his campaign on election day that he was losing.

Posted by: JM at December 9, 2004 12:45 AM

Abel, what's done is done. If the people wanted to keep GW in office then that's their decision. John Kerry gave it his best shot but fell short. At least when he realized that he did not win the election, Kerry never lost his dignity and he did not become the sore loser like Al Gore was. I may not like GW as president because I don't like most of his policies. But when I saw GW JR invite children to the White House for Christmas activities, he looked like a completely different person - Bush was so happy and jolly reading books to those children that my image of him has slightly improved. I even saw photos of the president letting children sit on his lap. He might be a lousy president, but he looks like a good man with a heart.

I think Wayne made a good point. Liberals keep getting their asses kicked because people view us as "radical" and "offensive" with all the mud throwing. Guys, if you don't stop namecalling the voters, then the government will be dominated by right-wing idealogues. The left will be voted out of office one-by-one. Do you really want that to happen? There's supposed to be a balance of power between liberals and conservatives so that one side cancels out the other side. That's not happening anymore because the right is gaining and the left is dwindling. Want to know why? Stop insulting the voters!

I don't mind being called Derrick. "Civily" is spelled with two "L's" so it's "civilly."

Posted by: d. jones at December 9, 2004 12:07 PM

You can call me Derrick, but I prefer d. jones

Posted by: d. jones at December 9, 2004 12:16 PM

Wayne: You know, you tell me that I don't think for myself. I then defend myself by saying otherwise and you then accuse me of name calling. Where in any of my recent posts have there been any name calling? Don't play loosely with the truth. You are the one that is being somewhat condescending. Like Abel said, I suspect that within time, George Bush will be exposed for what he has done to this great country of ours. Again, no ill will from me to him because I want this country to be great. I just don't trust him or his closest advisors. It's a shame the Mr. Powell is leaving. He was someone that I trusted for the most part. Unfortunately, he put his own beliefs on the back burner to fight for things that he himself didn't even believe. That lessened his appeal to me. I hope that once he is out of the administration, he will help Americans understand what is really going on in this world. It should be interesting.

Democrats and independents need to keep a close eye on George during his second term. His political "capital" should be spent for the betterment of all Americans, not just the rich few.

Posted by: JM at December 9, 2004 01:11 PM

Just to reiterate to everyone, the following scenario is very questionable in my book:
-------------------------------------------------
Altogether, Bush’s new 9 million votes came mainly from the largest states in the country. But nowhere was Bush’s performance more incredible than in Florida, where Bush found roughly 1 million new voters, about 11 percent all new Bush voters nationwide and more than twice the number of new voters than in any other state other than Texas.

Bush lost the two big states of California and New York. He won Texas. In my opinion, it is questionable that he won Florida by the total that he did. Actually, I again doubt the he won the state at all. It is a replay of 2000.

Posted by: JM at December 9, 2004 01:17 PM

JM,
Don't you mean if your guy won you wouldn't be posting this hate?

Keep up the good hate work, with people like you around the democrats will never win another national election. In the [ast 3 they are 0 for 3.

Great job.

To all the real democrats, take you party back from these thugs. Our country needs you now more than ever. Give the Americans two choices on election day.

Posted by: Wayne at December 9, 2004 03:53 PM

Hello everyone it has been a while since I posted on this site. Wayne how are you doing? I see that alot is still the same. I can not believe it!

I was reading a letter to the editor in todays CAnton Repository that some may want to read and think about.

Grown-ups put disappointment behind them and accept election results
Thursday, December 9, 2004 When John F. Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon for the presidency in 1960, I was a ninth-grader and bitterly disappointed at that outcome. A day or two after Election Day, our principal spoke to us about the election. He, too, had been a staunch Nixon backer, he told us, but Mr. Kennedy was the people’s choice, so he was going to get behind the new president and support him.

I remember being stunned at this — how grownups could put their disappointment behind them and accept reality. I really didn’t know how they could do this, but I knew that it had something to do with being grown-up.

Fast-forward now to 2000, and again to 2004, and listen to the wails from the Democrat left. The Supreme Court “selected” Bush. The electorate is ignorant. The Bush family arranged to rig the Diebold voting machines. Black voters were disenfranchised. Christian redneck voters. Boycott your job on Inauguration Day. And more.

The stark difference between 1960 and 2004 can be summed up in five words — There are no grown-ups today. This is the age of the baby boomers and GenXers. The instant gratification culture. What I want, when I want it. I deserve. We are reaping the results of Dr. Spock’s parenting and self-esteem-driven education.

The psychological industry has just pathologized whining into a new “disorder” — Post Election Selection Trauma. Imagine that — the left has created yet another batch of victims. Fifty-year-old adolescents throwing a tantrum over an election outcome need to examine the real reasons that their party’s message keeps getting rejected by larger and larger margins. More than anything, they need to grow up.

Now everyone does not need to grow up they need to face reality that Bush won and is still the President. We need to do what this persons teacher did when Kennedy won and put it behind us and do the best we can until 2008.

I hope everyone is ready for the holidays and I hope everyone and wish everyone a Merry Christmas!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at December 9, 2004 07:21 PM

To JM

Sorry, the Bush campaign people may have told him that he was losing, but he still managed to squeak out a victory. It was the smallest victory margin ever for a sitting president but he still won fair and square, regardless of what you or Abel or d. jones think. Frankenstein (aka Kerry) could have had a much better chance of defeating Monkey-Face (aka Bush) if only he stuck to his positions but he kept changing his mind (sometimes I think up hilarious nicknames for the candidates just for fun). I know what you mean by the exit polls, the same thing happened to Al Bore four years ago. Bush just pulled out in front at the last minute. Just like you, I used to be a Kerry supporter but I changed my mind at the last minute. I was impressed by the way Kerry handled the debates, he was sincere and clear. Unfortunately for him, his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in Boston wasn't anything compared to his debate style. Since the debates were held near the end of the election season, it was too late for Kerry to fully clear up his positions by election day because he failed to do that with his notorious flip-flopping habits at the beginning of the election season. I chose Bush at the last minute because I simply trust him more on the terrorism issue. I live in New York so I figured, "Aw what the hell I'll vote for Bush, it's not like he's going to win New York anyway; it's Kerry country." Another reason why Monkey-Face won was because Frankenstein embraced too many of those Hollywood left-wing bombthrowers. Remember that Whoopi Goldberg incident at the New York Fundraiser? Or how about the time Michael Moore was given a special seat at the Democratic Convention just because of that stupid film of his - Fahrenheit 9/11? A lot of voters saw these people as liberal radicals and extremists who are unfit to lead the most powerful nation in the world.
Wait a Minute...You know what? Why am I still talking about an election that happened over one and a half months ago? The Republicans won and the Democrats lost, GET USED TO IT ALREADY for cryin' out loud. Most of my friends are Kerry supporters but even they got over it by now. Go see a psychiatrist if you're still crying and whining about the results, that's what some other die-hard Kerry supporters are doing.
Sigmund Freud would say you have Post Election Selection Trauma.

Merry Christmas or Froeliche Weinachten, Flaming Liberal. Nice to hear from you again.

Posted by: Henry at December 9, 2004 07:31 PM

I agree. This cr** about voter disenfranchising is complete bunk. In 2000 I think it was that crook Jesse Jackson who tried to sue about that, but couldn't find anyone who'd been disenfranchised. That election was almost overthrown even though in every recount Bush won, and that was even when Gore threw out the military votes.
Now Jesse's at it again. I guess if he doesn't find someone to blackmail he won't make the millionaires club this year.

Oh, and JM, the exit polls were proven to be biased. They were done this way on purpose to try to throw off the election. Luckily that ploy didn't work. And poll workers are put in from both parties to make it fair. If you check up this stuff you may learn something.

Let's get over this election crap and work on making sure everyone voting is legit and that there won't be any chance of election fraud next time.

If we don't plug up those holes in the election process, Hillary will win in 2008 the way she won the senate, by getting convicted felons and illegal immigrants to vote for her. Now that's the kind of voter fraud that the Liberals want.

Posted by: Diane at December 9, 2004 11:41 PM

Wayne please stop taunting JM. Just leave the guy alone, okay? He can say whatever he wants it's a free country. Unlike Abel, JM didn't call anybody names so why are you mocking him then? Since he doesn't use any namecalling or dissing unless he's offended first, he's not using any "hate." You implied that he was a "thug" when you said, "take your party back from these thugs." Now did JM call you a bad name? If so what is it? After insinuating that he was a thug although he didn't call you any derogatory names, what happened? I thought you were against namecalling yourself. I'm disappointed in you I thought you were better than that.

Diane, I know it doesn't matter now that it happened four years ago but please show us some proof that Al Gore tried to steal the military vote. Otherwise, your entire argument is baseless and it doesn't have any merit.

Posted by: d. jones at December 10, 2004 04:28 PM

The sooner that everyone on both sides get over the fact that the 2004 election is over the better. The sooner people quit calling each other names, liberal, conservative,the left right, what the heck is the differnce. Are we all not part of the same country, the best democracy and place to live on the entire planet?

Come on people it is almost Christmas and wher is the good will toward your fellow man? Get over it! It sickening reading some of the comments comming from both sides. They sound like teenagers arguing over who gets to sit up front in the car! SHOT GUN! NO I CALLED IT, NO I DID! NO YOU DID NOT I DID! Jesus God ALmighty let it go people and pull together.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at December 10, 2004 04:38 PM

JM,
I apologize for trying to start a fight. It is the holiday season and d.jones and Louis are right. Can we start fresh?

Can we at least agree that Bush is our president and whether you like him or not we should all get behind him in order to make our great nation greater? I am not saying you have to agree with him, just support the good things he is trying to do.

I await your response with an open heart and mind.

Peace.

Posted by: Wayne at December 10, 2004 09:01 PM

Yeah, I remember Gore blocking the military vote. I guess some of us have short memories, but I remember it well. If Diane doesn't dig up some of the many accounts of that fact, I'll see what I can come up with. Even without those facts the fact that Gore tried to steal the election is also well documented. d jones must have short-term memory loss. But again, who cares anymore? It's ancient history.

Hey Louis, I agree, let's get over this bickering. Besides, Christmas may not be around much longer if the ultra-left-wing nuts have their way. Better enjoy it while we can.

Did you see the latest? The moveon.org kooks think the Democratic party is no longer left-wing enough for them, so they're threatening them. How very strange that is.

Anyway, can't worry too much right now. To all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. And Happy Channukah too. And Happy whatever other religious holiday happens this time of year.

Heck, I shoulda just said...

Best wishes to all this holiday season.

Posted by: Jay at December 10, 2004 09:02 PM

I know no one wants to look at four year old news clips, but since 'd jones' has forgotten already, here are some links to Gore blocking the military vote.

http://www.impactsites2000.com/site3/e001.htm

http://athenspolitics.com/apframes/2000mess.html

(for this next one, scroll down to the picture of Clinton visiting Vietnam:) http://www.olympus.net/personal/ptmaccon/pif/issues/articles/articles_00.html

Now let's get on with our lives and forget that silly Gore fellow, ok?

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays !!!

Posted by: Pete at December 10, 2004 09:26 PM

d. jones,

You're right about "If the people wanted to keep GW in office then that's their decision." I have never disputed that. Contrary to your statement, Al Gore was never a sore loser either. The truth is that Gore stopped all his efforts as soon as the US Supreme Court gave the election to George W. Bush. You say, "But when I saw GW JR invite children to the White House for Christmas activities, he looked like a completely different person--- He might be a lousy president, but he looks like a good man with a heart." Have I ever denied that George W. Bush "looks" like a good man with a heart? Unfortunately, that's not the issue.

The issue is and has always been regarding what he has been doing as President. Try not to forget what happened to a Presidential Leak regarding Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson. Have you forgotten the 911 incident. Nobody is saying it yet but it was George W. Bush's responsibility to make sure that event never happened but it did. Now they are trying to bring in a Homeland Security Chief to make accountable should something like that ever happen again but the latest I've heard is that no one is still going to be held accountable because sufficient power will not be allowed to this new Chief. We already know that George W. Bush will not accept this responsibility either so where does that leave us?

What about all that pre-planning to deviate from Afghanistan and invade Iraq. Are you going to forget about all our military personnel that's still out there getting wounded and killed? I know we have not been counting the dead Iraqi men, women and children but their count keeps rising and we still keep saying that we're doing it for their own good. Yes, George W. Bush is going to give the Iraqis freedom even if he has to kill all of them to do it.

Another thing, have you forgotten what happened at Abu Ghraib? Are we supposed to forget how we have abused Iraqis there and the "Terrorists" at Guantanamo Bay Cuba? They are still out there too and the American Red Cross has been complaining about our actions. Now even our Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld lied about making every possible effort to get our soldiers the required armor plating. He said that our suppliers couldn't produce more than what they were already doing and that was yet another lie. Are we now supposed to accept the lies of the Bush Administration just because he won the election?

Wayne says that "Liberals keep getting their asses kicked because people view us as "radical" and "offensive" with all the mud throwing." That's not true either. We keep losing because we always talk to the choir and we often give the picture that we're unsure of where we want to go.

The Republicans, on the other hand, went out and did the hard work of convincing and organizing. They got their vote out whereas we failed to do that. In losing, we still got more votes than we had ever gotten before and we can be proud of that. We got them because we were telling a true story and the people believed us. We should never be ashamed for what we were able to do. Remember that Al Gore got about half a million more popular votes than George W. Bush and that John Kerry got millions more votes than Al Gore. Doesn't that count for something? Sure, George W. Bush won the election but we still did a lot of vote getting. What this means is that we just have to do better if we want to win but there's no question that more and more Americans will begin thinking "Democrat" as soon as they realize the mistake they did in voting for the liar George W. Bush. Because George W. won doesn't mean that he was doing the right thing as President. Never forget what happened to President Richard Nixon soon after he won his "Landslide Presidential Election."

Your POST follows:

"Abel, what's done is done. If the people wanted to keep GW in office then that's their decision. John Kerry gave it his best shot but fell short. At least when he realized that he did not win the election, Kerry never lost his dignity and he did not become the sore loser like Al Gore was. I may not like GW as president because I don't like most of his policies. But when I saw GW JR invite children to the White House for Christmas activities, he looked like a completely different person - Bush was so happy and jolly reading books to those children that my image of him has slightly improved. I even saw photos of the president letting children sit on his lap. He might be a lousy president, but he looks like a good man with a heart.
I think Wayne made a good point. Liberals keep getting their asses kicked because people view us as "radical" and "offensive" with all the mud throwing. Guys, if you don't stop namecalling the voters, then the government will be dominated by right-wing idealogues. The left will be voted out of office one-by-one. Do you really want that to happen? There's supposed to be a balance of power between liberals and conservatives so that one side cancels out the other side. That's not happening anymore because the right is gaining and the left is dwindling. Want to know why? Stop insulting the voters!
I don't mind being called Derrick. 'Civily' is spelled with two 'L's' so it's 'civilly.'"
Posted by: d. jones at December 9, 2004 12:07 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at December 10, 2004 10:24 PM

Thank you for those websites, but I asked Diane to do it. Jay and Pete are your real names Diane too? I didn't know there were three Dianes in here.

Lol, you know I'm just pulling your leg. Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas.

Posted by: d. jones at December 10, 2004 11:08 PM

I am soooo depressed about the election. And, Wayne, you're right. We all have to accept the fact that Bush won, and we SHOULD all try to get behind him. But, I will be honest. I will not get behind him, and I will not support him in what he does. There is absolutely no way I can support a man with whom I don't agree. I do believe that this country needs to unite and become one again, and we all need to pull together to do that, but I don't support him and I never will. I am just being honest here. I hope that there are people out there that aren't as stubborn as me when it comes to politics that will just accept it and move on, but I will never accept it. I will never move on. I literally sobbed all night after the election. I also received lots of hate mail from people that I didn't even know, which didn't help much. We lost the election, why must people taunt us as well?
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!
Sincerely,
Flaming Liberal

Posted by: Flaming Liberal at December 11, 2004 12:24 AM

JM,

I've been reviewing the articles that you have been POSTing plus doing some other independent research and I've finally realized and come to the most unfortunate conclusion that George W. Bush did steal the 2004 Presidential election from the American people once again. Furthermore, millions of Americans no longer regard the 2004 election as being final anymore. Obviously, the presidential election struggle continuous. That this is occurring once again is the most shameful thing possible that could be happening to our country, to say the least.

I regret to say that we'll soon be hearing more about the 2004 election in the coming months. As usual, the pro-Bushites are blind and unable to grasp what has been happening to our country and they will become even more aggressively negative than ever before about us. Be prepared for Bushites to begin calling us by every possible slanderous, vulgar, foul, libelous, scandalous, vilifying, defamatory, and profane name that they can imagine or visualize.

The pro-Bushites have repeatedly been asking that we forget the 2000 Presidential election and now the same thing happens once again? I cannot believe it--the nerve of these people. For whatever reason, they must think that their votes are more precious than ours. American soldiers are dying to protect our freedoms and regardless of what these pro-Bushites think--we're included in that equation.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at December 12, 2004 03:15 AM

Diane,

Your comments are not entirely correct. First, how were the exit polls shown to be biased? The word "bias" is a favorite when it comes to the rightwing world's description of the "biased" media. You people throw it around all of the time as if the right doesn't have biased reporting. I am sure that all of the different reporters got together to try to make the exit polls look like Bush was headed for a defeat. That is idiotic! Don't you think that Bush's team had their own exit polls taking place at the same time? Why do you think Bush's own people had told him that he was losing?

Second, it was shown that voters were removed from the Florida voting rolls when they should not have been. I guess that's 'ok' with you.
------------------------------------------------ Florida 2004: in a repeat of the highly problematic "scrub list" of the 2000 election, the state ordered the implementation of a "potential felon" purge list to remove voters from the rolls. The state abandoned the plan after news media investigations revealed that the 2004 list also included thousands of people who were eligible to vote, and heavily targeted African-Americans while virtually ignoring Hispanic voters.
-------------------------------------------------
If I vote, I want my vote to count the way it was intended.

Third, Hilary Clinton won by 500,000 votes in 2000. It is ludicrous to think that convicted felons and others who should not have voted put her over the top in that race. She actually ran well in traditionally Republican territory in upstate New York. Your bias definitely shows.

Fourth, it is not true that poll workers from both parties will be in each and every precinct. That was a very naive thing for you to post. Maybe you need to check into this for yourself.

I do agree with you on one thing. Only those people who are legally registered to vote, should vote. We don't need politicians clearing the voter rolls of legitimate voters. We do need them to keep illegitimate voters from voting. We don't need situations in which people are standing in line for 9 hours to vote because a biased county election official decided to not provide enough voting machines in targeted precincts. It was a ploy to keep voters from voting and that stinks! An investigation should be done concerning "spoiled" votes and why they typically occur in low income areas. This is a fishy occurence and it should be looked into. But more than likely, it will never be investigated because these voters are viewed as inferior in some way.

I am for fairness above everything else. If it is a fair election, then I support whoever wins. Once this election has been deemed to be truly fair, then I will not post anything concerning this issue.

By the way, to all the naysayers, the Democratic party has been rooted in the cause of working Americans. I would prefer the party to be a centrist party. But no matter how centrist the party is, there will always be people like Diane who will say otherwise. A centrist Democratic party would be a major threat to a rightwing Republican party. I suspect that everything is cyclical. As soon as the Republican party is shown to be unresponsive to the average American, they will be the minority party in Congress, as they have been for many of the past few decades.

Posted by: JM at December 12, 2004 03:37 PM

Louis,

Like it or not, the 2000 election changed many voter's conceptions of what is a fair election within this country. Don't expect people to just roll over and play dead. Until these problems are resolved, more people should stand up and be heard instead of kowtowing to people who would rather sweep the problem of voting irregularities under the rug. Until the election of 2004 has been proven to be mostly fair, I will continue to post my findings about this issue. There are legitimate concerns in your state of Ohio and in the state of Florida. Although these concerns will probably not overturn an election, they should be exposed for everyone to see. All the better for future elections. Also, no one can deny that electronic voting machine companies should be investigated. They should also pass strict government regulations if their equipment is to be used in voting.

Did you know that:
1. Software- An electronic voting machine could produce an incorrect report of the votes if its software contains a bug that causes such a malfunction or leaves the machine vulnerable to deliberate manipulation. Government agencies buying the machines were often denied access to the software by the manufacturer. Even when the software was available for review, there were concerns that the agencies lacked the technical expertise to find problems or to monitor changes to the software.
2. Voter verification- A voter using a paper ballot, a punch-card ballot, or an older lever-type voting machine has much greater ability to ensure that his or her vote has been recorded accurately.
3. Recounts- A recount of an electronic voting machine is not a recount in the traditional sense. The machine will simply re-report the same total.
4. Partisan ties- The senior executives of each of the top 3 voting machine companies (ES&S, Diebold and Sequoia, accounting for over 90% of voting machines in use) have strong Republican or conservative ties - key management or funders of all three are significant Republican fund raisers and donors, and CEOs or other high officers of at least two went directly on to stand as Republicans, and won with unheard of swings never before achieved for the states they stood in.
5. Industry practices- Collusion, cross ownership, criminal history of management and parent or associated companies, including bid-rigging convictions and bribery in other state contracts by affiliates.

All of this is pertinent to the election of 2004. The fairness of an election has to be transparent before I will ever by truly satisfied. I was jaded by the 2000 election and it is going to take a lot for me to trust our election process again. An honest effort to answer some of these questions would help.

I hope that everyone has a Merry Christmas. May God provide you with everything that you need.

Posted by: JM at December 12, 2004 04:41 PM

Wayne:

I know you were looking for a fight. I have come to expect that. I don't wish any ill will toward you either, believe it or not! I am actually one of the nicer people in this world, but you will never know that because you will never know me. I may disagree with you politically in many respects, but I am a decent, honest person who doesn't believe in causing people unnecessary hardships. I don't gloat in other people's misfortunes. I have a good sense of what is right and what is wrong. I treat people the way that I would want to be treated. I rarely drink and I don't smoke or do drugs. I am respectful. I look at our older folks as a valuable resource, not a burden. I agree that Hollywood can be entertaining at times, but at the same time, it can be our worse enemy.

That's enough about me.

Posted by: JM at December 12, 2004 04:52 PM

This message is directed to Louis in Ohio:
Per Black Box Voting, an organization that investigates voting fraud:

You may have seen recent stories in the media (ABC News, Salon.com), and at other voting integrity Web sites like VerifiedVoting.org, telling you there is no reason to believe suspicions of fraud in the 2004 election. In fact, no member of the media nor any organization has done any real forensic auditing to determine whether there was or was not fraud. Trust in our electoral process is critical to our democracy. We need the right kind of investigation into anomalies, using appropriate methods.

Feel-good" statements, dismissive of real concerns into voting integrity, are not responsible. The truth is what it is. We might see something very uncomfortable unfold during these investigations. Or, maybe not. It's still too early to tell, but the evidence is mounting.

Also, what they have found in Volusia county Florida:

Black Box Voting began to compare the special printouts given in the FOIA request with the signed polling tapes from election night. Lo and behold, some were missing. By this time, Black Box Voting investigator Andy Stephenson had joined the group at Volusia County. Some polling place tapes didn't match. In fact, in one location, precinct 215, an African-American precinct, the votes were off by hundreds, in favor of George W. Bush and other Republicans.

Hmm. Which was right? The polling tape Volusia gave to Black Box Voting, specially printed on Nov. 15, without signatures, or the ones with signatures, printed on Nov. 2, with up to 8 signatures per tape?

You may feel that this type of investigation will degrade our election system. I feel that this type of investigation is needed to correct an election system that has already been degraded.

Posted by: JM at December 13, 2004 04:19 AM

Wow, I take a few days off from this site and all hell breaks loose.

Just one word to JM: I know I can't convince you of anything you refuse to believe, but to believe that the Democratic party is the party of the working people shows you don't know any political history at all.

Try reading about the history of the Democratic party. Just go back about 80 years and you'll see that the working people have always voted Republican.

And quit contradicting people with your ignorance. Either read a book and learn or keep your mouth shut.

Posted by: Diane at December 14, 2004 01:06 PM

Abel Ochoa who gives a sh** if the terrorists are treated "unfairly" at Guantanamo according to the American Red Cross ? Do you think that the deaths of 3,000 people in Washington and New York were just "unfair" attacks? Whatever bad treatment those Al Qaeda and Taliban psychos get at Guantanamo deserve it. When we let some of those prisoners go, most of them just went back to their old jobs - regrouping with our enemies and killing more harmless people. The terrorists at Guantanamo should either stay there for life or be executed, no matter what those Greenpeace or Red Cross freaks say.

Posted by: d. jones at December 14, 2004 08:59 PM

Abel Abu Ghraib is different from Guantanamo because most of the prisoners held at Abu Ghraib were there for minor offenses like stealing, disobeying orders from US personnel, or breaking curfew so those prisoners did not deserve such sadistic treatment. The prisoners at Guantanamo are ruthless fundamentalists who tried to kill innocent civilians and troops so they deserve to be treated as the scumbags that they are.

Posted by: d. jones at December 14, 2004 09:11 PM

Can someone explain why this is so? From the Washington Dispatch...

Over the past few years, Republicans have fought to prevent any type of paper trail through electronic voting. Despite printable ATM type receipts being a reasonable fail-safe, Republicans and corporations such as Diebold fought hard and eventually won the battle against a verifiable voting system.

Without question, the evidence presented thus far should raise suspicion among honest individuals. While maintaining a calm and reasonable demeanor, the results of the Novermber 2nd election should be fully investigated simply for the sake of the nation and our future confidence in the democratic process.

Shane Cory is the editor of the Washington Dispatch

Posted by: JM at December 15, 2004 08:35 AM

I found this tidbit interesting. But since it is a cut and paste, I don't expect everyone to read it (right Wayne?) But since it has the word "Liberal" in it, you may want to read it.
-------------------------------------------------

Walking the walk on family values
By William V. D'Antonio | October 31, 2004

PRESIDENT Bush and Vice President Cheney make reference to "Massachusetts liberals" as if they were referring to people with some kind of disease. I decided it was time to do some research on these people, and here is what I found.

ADVERTISEMENT

The state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation is Massachusetts. At latest count it had a divorce rate of 2.4 per 1,000 population, while the rate for Texas was 4.1.

But don't take the US government's word for it. Take a look at the findings from the George Barna Research Group. George Barna, a born-again Christian whose company is in Ventura, Calif., found that Massachusetts does indeed have the lowest divorce rate among all 50 states. More disturbing was the finding that born-again Christians have among the highest divorce rates.

The Associated Press, using data supplied by the US Census Bureau, found that the highest divorce rates are to be found in the Bible Belt. The AP report stated that "the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people." The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

How to explain these differences? The following factors provide a partial answer:

More couples in the South enter their first marriage at a younger age.

Average household incomes are lower in the South.

Southern states have a lower percentage of Roman Catholics, "a denomination that does not recognize divorce." Barna's study showed that 21 percent of Catholics had been divorced, compared with 29 percent of Baptists.

Education. Massachusetts has about the highest rate of education in the country, with 85 percent completing high school. For Texas the rate is 76 percent. One third of Massachusetts residents have completed college, compared with 23 percent of Texans, and the other Northeast states are right behind Massachusetts.

The liberals from Massachusetts have long prided themselves on their emphasis on education, and it has paid off: People who stay in school longer get married at a later age, when they are more mature, are more likely to secure a better job, and job income increases with each level of formal education. As a result, Massachusetts also leads in per capita and family income while births by teenagers, as a percent of total births, was 7.4 for Massachusetts and 16.1 for Texas.

The Northeast corridor, with Massachusetts as the hub, does have one of the highest levels of Catholics per state total. And it is also the case that these are among the states most strongly supportive of the Catholic Church's teaching on social justice issues such as minimum and living wages and universal healthcare.

For all the Bible Belt talk about family values, it is the people from Kerry's home state, along with their neighbors in the Northeast corridor, who live these values. Indeed, it is the "blue" states, led led by Massachusetts and Connecticut, that have been willing to invest more money over time to foster the reality of what it means to leave no children behind. And they have been among the nation's leaders in promoting a living wage as their goal in public employment. The money they have invested in their future is known more popularly as taxes; these so-called liberal people see that money is their investment to help insure a compassionate, humane society. Family values are much more likely to be found in the states mistakenly called out-of-the-mainstream liberal. By their behavior you can know them as the true conservatives. They are showing how to conserve family life through the way they live their family values. William V. D'Antonio is professor emeritus at University of Connecticut and a visiting research professor at Catholic University in Washington, D.C.

Posted by: JM at December 15, 2004 08:47 AM

"Just go back about 80 years and you'll see that the working people have always voted Republican."

That's not necessarily true Diane. The working people have NOT ALWAYS voted Republican in the past 80 years. Remember the presidential election of 1932? That was just 72 years ago. And guess who the working people voted for? Not the Republican Herbert Hoover who presided over the stock market crash of 1929, but the Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt. And how about the election of 1964? Lyndon Johnson received more votes than Barry Goldwater from the working class because they liked his domestic agenda despite the war in Vietnam.

Posted by: d. jones at December 15, 2004 02:47 PM

I left out something. Diane by saying that the working class has always voted Republican in the last 80 years shows that YOU are the one who doesn't know any political history because you are forgetting the presidential elections of 1932, 1964, 1992, and 1996 in which the working class voted Democrat. Why do you think the working class voted for Franklin Roosevelt over Herbert Hoover? Because under Hoover, working men lost their jobs under the Republicans so they voted Democrat. Same thing happened in 1992 with George HW Bush. The working class voted overwhelmingly for Bill Clinton in 1992 over Bush because the working men were losing jobs under a Republican administration.

Posted by: d. jones at December 15, 2004 03:00 PM

JM,
You are right, I do not read your copy and pastes. Why don't you sum up the articles and post the web site so if anyone is interested they can visit the site for themselves? This would be of great help to those of us that don't want to read some of these articles but would allow us to decide if there is one that catches our attention.

Posted by: Wayne at December 15, 2004 04:55 PM

Diane: You are a condescending know-it-all. Why don't you do some reading yourself and keep your pie hole shut? (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party)
-------------------------------------------------

In 1896 the Democrats chose William Jennings Bryan over Cleveland as their candidate, who then lost to William McKinley. The Democrats did not regain the Presidency until William Howard Taft and Teddy Roosevelt split the Republican vote and Woodrow Wilson won with a modest plurality in 1912. The Republicans again took the lead in 1920 by championing laissez-faire regulatory policies. The stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression set the stage for a more interventionist government and Franklin Delano Roosevelt won a landslide victory in 1932, campaigning on a platform of "relief, recovery, and reform". (see U.S. presidential election, 1932) After winning re-election in 1936, Roosevelt claimed a mandate and embarked on an ambitious legislative program. He was stymied, however, by an alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats. Frustrated by the conservative wing of the party, Roosevelt made an attempt to rid himself of it, and in 1938, he actively campaigned against five incumbent conservative Democratic senators. However, Roosevelt's attempt to purge the party of its conservatives failed when all five senators won re-election over Roosevelt's efforts. (Sixty years later, the party did find itself largely divorced from its southern conservative wing, but with much less satisfaction at the result than Roosevelt might have anticipated.)

Roosevelt's New Deal programs focused on job-creation through public works projects as well as on social welfare programs such as Social Security. The political coalition of labor unions, minorities (most significantly, Catholics and Jews), liberals, and Southern whites (the New Deal Coalition) allowed the Democrats to control the government for much of the next 30 years, until the issue of civil rights divided conservative Southern whites from the rest of the Party (see Dixiecrat). From the time of the founding of the Republican Party, African-Americans gave strong support to the anti-slavery party, which lasted until Roosevelt's New Deal dramatically opened up new economic opportunities. With the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, and President Lyndon Johnson's support, blacks made an almost complete shift to the Democratic Party. Another consequence of this was the start of the flight of Southern whites to the Republican Party
-------------------------------------------------
Ever since the New Deal, Democrats have been the party most associated with working Americans. Your diatribe cannot contradict fact, so get over it. Your comment about the working people always supporting Republicans must have been pulled from your *** because it is not based in reality.

Posted by: Jm at December 15, 2004 06:56 PM

Diane: Ignorance IS bliss, isnt' it? You must be one happy person.

Posted by: Jm at December 15, 2004 07:06 PM

I thing Abel, JM and d.jones are all the same person.

Some crotchety old geezer who hates his life and wants to make everyone else's life a living hell like the one he created for himself.

Now for the real question... What's your real name?

Posted by: Pete at December 15, 2004 09:41 PM

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Bush is doing a pretty good job. The economy is good. This war isn't any worse than any of the Clinton wars. We just didn't hear too much about those wars because the media is slanted towards the left.

If you need proof of that slant, just look at the fact that 80% of the media favored Kerry during the election. And one major anchor (Rather not say :) used forged papers to discredit the candidate he didn't like. Can't get more biased than that.

When Clinton was reelected in 1996 we didn't get a bunch of nuts going crazy with PEST and others complaining about the voting system. The American people were even more polarized back then. I'm scared that the voting systems are being taken over, but which side is cheating the most is anyone's guess. Heck, everyone knows JFK's father fixed his election, and I would hope we're better at stopping that sort of thing from happening nowadays. I think that's where we need to concentrate our efforts for the next 4yrs.

Like I said, you didn't hear all this complaining when Clinton got reelected, and he was the worst President since Carter.

-He destroyed a good economy (It took almost 4 years for it to recover, and just for the record, there were no surpluses during his administration. The so-called "surplus" was a projection over several years.),
-he gave nuclear secrets to China in exchange for campaign funding,
-he and Carter gave money to North Korea so they could build nuclear weapons and point them at us,
-he ignored repeated attacks by terrorists, letting them gear up for the big one on 9/11,
-he bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan to distract us from his criminal activities,
-he started a war in the Balkans and then abandoned it (kinda like Kennedy & Johnson in Vietnam),
-he got an intern to give him oral sex in the Oval Office, lied, perjured himself, got others to commit perjury for him, obstructed justice in the cover up and as a result...
-he got himself impeached,
-he bombed Iraq to distract us again when he was being impeached,
-he had the IRS check up on people who had evidence against him in his criminal activities,
-he pardoned Marc Rich (who's wife then gave millions to get Hillary elected), the man who not only gave money to build the Clinton library, but was entrenched in the Oil for Food scandal which is close to $21 Billion.
Whew, that's enough for now.

Note also that all Clinton's wars were illegal if you consider going to war without UN approval as illegal. I actually think we should make decisions of our own safety without having to get the approval of corrupt organizations like the UN.

Actually when you think about it, Bush is the best thing we could've hoped for, and I barely scratched the surface with Clinton. Since Kerry was a traitor and a war criminal to boot, it's no wonder Bush won by such a large margin.

I think we should be more optimistic. Don't forget, most people were pretty disgusted with Clinton as a President, but we still pulled together as a people and stood behind him. I think we live in the best country in the world, and I'm glad it still is true.

Clinton was a dreadful President, but I don't remember anyone saying they hated him. Why do we get so many people saying they hate Bush? And when you ask why they can't come up with a reason.

Well anyway, have a Merry Christmas, and thank God we don't live in some less fortunate country where people get their heads cut off for saying what's on their mind.

Posted by: Ted at December 15, 2004 11:07 PM

JM

MASSACHUSETTS LIBERALS IS A POLITICAL DISEASE. IT'S BAD FOR THE COUNTRY. YOU MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE THE DEMOCRATES ALWAYS MAKE AND BELIEVE WE IN TEXAS ARE THE UNWASHED. YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND REAL PEOPLE IF YOU SAY THE MAJORITY IS STUPID. GOING TO COLLEGE IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC TO MAKE YOU BETTER OR SMARTER OR MORE POLITICAL AWARE. SOMETIMES COMMON SENCE MAKES FOR BETTER PUBLIC POLICY.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at December 16, 2004 12:19 AM

LIBERAL

I HAVE NOT BEEN BACK FOR OVER A MONTH. COME ON PEOPLE THE ELECTION IS OVER. BUSH WON. ELECTRONIC VOTING IS NATION WIDE NOT A REPUBLICAN SCEAM. I AGREE A PAPERTRAIL SHOULD BE A MUST BUT THE FAULT GO'ES FOR BLUE AND RED STATES SO STOP. OHIO WENT FOR BUSH. SORRY THAT STILL UPSETS YOU. NOW IT'S TIME TO GET BEHIND PRESIDENT BUSH SO HE CAN MAKE THE POSITIVE CHANGES THAT HAVE TO BE DONE. YOU LOST TRY AGAIN IN 2008 AND RUN THE SAME KIND OF CANIDATE PLEASE SUPPORT LIBERALS STAND UP STRONG. OH YES AND LOSE AGAIN.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at December 16, 2004 12:27 AM

Flaming Liberal
NO ONE IS RUBBING YOUR FACE IN THE BUSH VICTORY. LOOK AT THE POSTS. YOUR LIBERAL FRIENDS ARE ACCUSING BUSH OF STEELING THE ELECTION. YOU ARE NOT DOING SO AND YOU CAN NOT SUPPORT BUSH. OK, I HAVE BEEN THERE SEVERAL TIMES. JUST SIT BACK AND SEE IF THINGS GET BETTER. YOU SEEM HONEST AND IF YOU SEE IMPROVMENT MAYBE YOU WILL COME AROUND. IF NOT 2008 COMES FAST AND TRY AGAIN. JUST DON'T BELIEVE SOME OF THESE POSTS. WE ON THE RIGHT ARE NOT STUPID NOR ARE WE MEAN. WE ARE THINKING PEOPLE WHO BASE OUR POLITICAL VIEW AND TRIED AND TRUE VALUES. JM ABEL AND D JONES WILL TRY TO TELL YOU OTHERWISE. BELIEVE THAT AND YOU LOSE AGAIN IN 2008.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at December 16, 2004 12:40 AM

JM
YOU POSTED:Bruce:

I should have stated "laws that prevent legitimate voters from voting". This is my answer to your statements concerning my original post.
AGAIN NO LAW PREVENTS LEGITIMATE PEOPLE FROM VOTING. PLEASE STOP, LAW THAT PAST CONTITUTION MUSTER ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE. SO STOP WITH THE NONSENCE.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at December 16, 2004 12:48 AM

TO ALL

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR. I HOPE NO ONE IS OFFENDED, OH WHO AM I KIDDING I DON'T CARE IF ANYONE IS OFFENDED.

IT'S CHRISTMAS AND I FOR ONE WILL STAND UP AND SHOUT IT TO THE HILL TOPS.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at December 16, 2004 12:50 AM

Bruce:

With all do respect, most any Texan I have ever met has this disproportionate view of Texas in its relation to the USA and to any other state in the union. I have heard jokes about Texas being its own country. This is not made up by me. The people in Texas need to view the other people in this country in the manner that you say I don't view Texans. The people in the northeast are not southerner's doormats. Southerner's need to respect other areas of the country if they want those areas to respect them. Please don't twist the truth. Anybody from Texas acts like Texas is the best state in the union yet for a big state, they are one of the worst when it comes to educating their children.

What I previously posted about the Northeast is basically true. You may not like it, but it is true. I live in New Jersey. We in New Jersey get much less federal spending in relation to the amount of money we send the the federal government in federal taxes. We get only .62 cents on the dollar in federal spending. Conversely, southern states like Mississippi receive much more money ($1.84 return for every dollar in federal taxes) in federal government spending than they send to the government in taxes. Most of the states in the northeast are in the same boat. Let the truth be known. You can curse the northeast however you want, but you and your southern friends have no problem spending this money from the northeast. The red states feed at the federal trough while the blue states supply the feed. The point of all this is that I am proud to live in the northeast. It sounds to me like there is a lot of jealousy toward the northeast from other areas of the country. Get over it.

Posted by: JM at December 16, 2004 03:57 PM

Bruce:

How come nothing was said about Massachusetts and the divorce rate, etc. Those damn liberals should have that high divorce rate because they are immoral. Isn't that what you believe? Yet, they have the lowest divorce rate in the country. No propaganda from a southern Bible thumper will ever change that fact. I believe that many (but not all) southerners have a distorted view of other areas of this great country. They are the ones with their heads in the sand. Always right, never wrong. You may think that I hate southerners, but I don't. I just wish they would practice what they preach. There is nothing worse than hypocrisy.

Posted by: JM at December 16, 2004 04:12 PM

I have no idea what Ted is talking about but he has the right to say anything he wants too. Clinton has his faults but so does GW. I'll list the faults of both Clinton and Bush later but not now...busy.

Posted by: d. jones at December 16, 2004 04:52 PM

To Flaming Liberal

You're a very intelligent kid. Sorry to hear that you still don't like Bush. Flaming Liberal, you never told us your real name. What is it? If you'd rather not tell, I understand. Just wanted to know what your real name was.

Posted by: Henry at December 16, 2004 06:22 PM

To Wayne

Hi. How's that new baby of yours doing? Did you come up with a name for your little boy yet?

I know you're a strong supporter of the troops. But I have a very interesting (and tough) question to ask you. Several troops in Iraq are filing lawsuits against the Army because they are sick and tired of the Army extending their deployments even when their time in the military is up (the so-called "backdoor draft" or "stop-loss" policy). These troops want to spend more time with their families for the holidays but they can't because the Army is forcing them to return to Iraq against their own will. So the troops filing the lawsuit against the Army appealed their case in court, challenging this policy. If you were a judge in that court, whose side would you take? The side of the Army, saying that they must go back to Iraq even though they already fulfilled their service, or the side of the dissident soldiers, saying that these troops already served their time in Iraq and should not be forced to go back? They all served more than four years in the military, were stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan for over two years, and they want to get out of the Army because they're frustrated with the back-door draft. So...whose side would you take? I know this is a very tough question. A similar scenario happened to several soldiers very recently but I don't know what the outcome was yet. I would take the side of the soldiers. What's your position on this issue?

Posted by: Henry at December 17, 2004 02:05 PM

Dear Mr. Eichenberg,
I understand that not all Republicans are like the ones at my school, but unfortunately, the ones I deal with day-to-day are all quite annoying. I have much respect for Wayne and Mr. Rodkey on this site, and they are both Republicans. When you treat someone with respect, no matter what party you are, you are earning lots of respect from people, and I just wish more people could see that. Thanks for your kind words. I guess I'll just have to hang in there for four years.
Sincerely,
Flaming Liberal

Posted by: Flaming Liberal at December 17, 2004 05:51 PM

Henry,
Thanks! About, still not liking Bush... unless he changes every single opinion in his brain, I will never like him. I'm sorry. I know it sounds mean, but I can't ever forgive him for all of the lies he's told. I will never forgive him for the lives lost, both American and foreign. It makes me quite sad to think that he is our president. My name is Natalie, but, on this site, I perfer to be called Flaming Liberal. Anyway, thanks for your post!
Sincerely,
Flaming Liberal

Posted by: Flaming Liberal at December 17, 2004 05:53 PM

JM,
You are wrong about your Texas idea. Before Alaska was a state, Texas was the largest state and Texans were very proud of this. It is where the saying everything is big in Texas comes from. When Alaska became a state that saying became a national joke, and what is the matter with Texans being proud of their state?

The other point you make about the south may be true with the money aspect, but judging from the last election, our nation overwhelmingly supports conservative views. Have you looked at the political map from 2004 broken down by county? A whole lot of red.

You can say what you want but I think the democrats in charge of their party would be wise to stop saying and start listening to the people.

I know this will not sit well with you, but all bickering asisde, can't you agree that the nation has spoken?

Posted by: Wayne at December 17, 2004 08:32 PM

d jones sez: "I have no idea what Ted is talking about but he has the right to say anything he wants too."

Uh, it's called the truth, jonesy. And you're right, I do have the right to tell the truth. You can dig up "faults" and list them if you want. I was listing facts. Admittedly these facts are old, but they explain why we're having problems now. We're definitely paying for the problems Slick Willie created, but at least we now have someone running the country with the desire to correct all these problems instead of create more of them.

And JM, statistics on divorce don't tell the whole story. Perhaps in Texas they tend to marry younger, or perhaps in New Jersey they don't like to marry at all. New England has a lot of Catholics and they don't allow divorce. Maybe that's another reason there's less divorce. And categorizing people based on red and blue states is rather narrow minded, especially since states like California were only blue in one little area. Try to be more open minded.

My point is that you can take statistics and get them to prove any point you want.

And why is it that there still exists so much ignorance of others in this country? There are so many transplants in every state of the US that it's impossible to say people in one state or people of one area think or act a particular way. Admittedly there are stereotypes, but isn't it considered wrong to stereotype people these days?

It's talk like that that makes others around the country think all New Englanders are ignorant and look down on people who don't agree with them. That elitist attitude is what lost Kerry the election. He acted intelligent, but most of us saw through that facade.

It's funny, but I know a lot of New Englanders who choose to leave that area of the country because they say the people there are miserable and depressing, but I don't want to believe that everyone from that area is that way. Surely there are some intelligent, happy people in New England too. We can only hope...

Posted by: Ted at December 17, 2004 11:41 PM

Why do people have to be so bitter? Especially around the holidays! What I am talking about is what this person said to me on the "Bush is up in the Election Results" portion of the site. Take a look if you want to get yourself in a bad mood. I know what they said shouldn't get to me, but it really hurts...
Sincerely,
Flaming Liberal

Posted by: FlamingLiberal at December 18, 2004 04:50 PM

JM: if ignorance is such bliss, how come you're so depressed? Are you suffering from Post-Election Selection Trauma? Or whatever that new illness that Liberals claim to have now?

I guess you didn't take my advice about reading a book, eh? Do those big words hurt your little brain?

Posted by: Diane at December 19, 2004 08:59 AM

JM, you said "The red states feed at the federal trough while the blue states supply the feed."

That's an enormous claim, but even if it's true, why is it then that the Democrats always want to raise taxes instead of lower them?

Generalizing about how a state behaves because more than 50% voted a certain way is extremely narrow-minded, don't you think?

A lot of us in California don't really consider ourselves to be part of a Blue state since the only portion that voted Democrat were in a small section on the edge. It's largely populated, but people in our section don't agree with that area.

Try to be more open minded and quit trying to categorize people so you can understand them better. It shows pettiness on your part.

I am just trying to get people to be more understanding of others. Hope I didn't hurt your feelings JM. Didn't you say you were from New Jersey? If I remember right that was a pretty close race. Perhaps you don't really speak for the whole state afterall.

Posted by: Amber at December 19, 2004 06:57 PM

Henry,
Hey, how are you? The new baby is coming tommorow and his name is Collin. It is a scheduled c-section, this is how I know when he is coming.

About your question, when I was in the Army, I signed up for 6 years of active resreve duty and then I was on the inactive ready reserves list for another 2 years. I am still not clear on whether these soldiers had completed their obligation or they were on the IRR list. If they had completed thier obligation completely and were not obligated to be on the IRR list, than I have to side with the soldiers and say that they fulfilled their contract fully and should be honorably discharged. If they only fulfilled the begining of their contract and were on the IRR list than they have not completed their obligation and I must side with the military.

I do not know all the facts about this issue but I hope this helped.

Merry Christmas to all, and if you don't celebrate Christmas, than respond with whatever it is you celebrate.

Henry, have you heard of Operation Santa? We participated in that this year. Our main post office gets thousands of letters from poor children to Santa and the public is able to answer the letters themselves. Talk about feeling good, I think I got more out of it than the child we sponsored.

Posted by: Wayne at December 20, 2004 05:43 PM

Diane:

Like I said "you are a know-it-all". I am not depressed, so please don't act like you know what my state of mind is. You are an "accuser". It makes me laugh when I read things by people of your limited mindset in which you accuse everyone who doesn't think like you of being something less than intelligent. I know you can't see this for yourself, but your accusations are a reflection of yourself. You do exactly what you accuse other people of doing. It's amazing! Did you ride that little yellow bus when you went to school? Betcha did!

Posted by: JM at December 21, 2004 01:47 AM

JM
You grab one issue out of the air (divorce) and now your better then me again. Ok JM we, in the Bush states are stupid and you liberals take that to the bank. We win again in 2008 because we are too stupid to believe we are stupid. You kill me, oh I was born and rased in Michigan. I was just lucky enough to move to texas 27 years ago I am 54 now. So I have seen both sides and I am real happy to be in Texas. I don't care where you live I care about conservitive causes and know it's the only way to keep a strong and prosperious USA. This last election was close because of the takers of America will always vote for the next big hand out. We are lucky there are still more givers than takers.

Posted by: Bruce Eichenberg at December 21, 2004 02:20 AM

Why doesn't Bush just fire Rumsfeld? It's pretty obvious that this guy is screwing up the Iraq occupation. This war is definitely not worth the costs we have suffered. Bush's approval ratings are now dropping because of it.

Posted by: Henry at December 21, 2004 10:59 AM

No Ted, not all of your arguments are the truth. Some of them are false. I'll point them out at a later post. Right now, g2g to work.

Posted by: d. jones at December 21, 2004 02:48 PM

You see, this is typical of partisan Bush supporters like Ted, for all the bad things that happened under GW's first term Republicans put almost 100% of the blame on his predecessor Bill Clinton and none of the blame on GW himself only because Clinton was a president of the opposing political party. An excellent example of denial. No, not all of your "facts" are completely correct, Ted, you are right on some of them but not all of them. I'll tell you why tomorrow.

Posted by: d. jones at December 21, 2004 08:47 PM

Amber:

First, you have not hurt my feelings. I, too, try to get people to look at two sides of the equation. The problem is that people want to start labeling me because I don't agree with some of the things that they post. I am labeled as a "liberal" when in fact I am much more of a moderate. I know what I believe in, not these label makers. There were many non-liberals that proudly did not support George Bush.

I am not being petty. You are telling me not to categorize people, then you immediately do that yourself. Do you understand where I am coming from on that point? There is this "us and them" slant to your post. That would indicate to me that you are not being the openminded person that you are trying to present yourself as.

Do we live in the same world? Although George Bush can lay claim to lowering taxes (I didn't even get a tax break), he's been spending like there is no tomorrow. That's a real Republican trait, isn't it?

Please do some research on which states get more bang for their dollars when considering they amount of money they send to the federal government as opposed to what money they recoup in federal spending. The results that you find will be enlightening. We have a lot of these "don't tax us" states that have no problem taking money from the government. They then have the nerve to complain about certain areas of the country because they are "liberal" tax and spenders. People need to take their blinders off on this one.
I don't like to be taxed heavily, either. But I am taxed heavily through my property taxes. I live in a predominately Republican county, so what does that tell you?

What it tells me is that any government, be it Republican or Democrat, is more than happy to stick their hands in your pocket. If you were a true believer of getting government out of your life, then you would be a Libertarian supporter, not a Republican supporter. I have more respect for Libertarians than I do most Republicans because at least they practice what they preach.

By the way, the Clinton administration had a better hold on taxes and spending than the vaunted George Bush. This is the reason why many true fiscal conservatives, including Republicans, did not support George Bush in the past election.

Your comment about the counties that supported one candidate over another is well taken, but you have to consider that a sparsely populated county doesn't have much say in anything anyway. You and the others that point out the "county" win totals in the past election are just playing with figures to suit you reasoning. The country is more blue than you would like to admit. Actually, it is largely purple where neither blue or red hold sway.

You are the one being narrowminded by stating that only certain areas show a proclivity toward supporting Democratic candidates. There are Democrats everywhere, in every county in the nation. Why is it 'ok' for you to tout all of these sparsely populated counties while ignoring the more heavily populated counties. You see, it is not all about the counties when it comes to an election. Total votes count, too. George Bush may have won the total vote count, but I for one believe that there was some fraud during both elections that George won. I hope some day the blackbox voting, an organization that is currently checking into electronic voting fraud, will be able to find the clues that are necessary to show this. Many people, including myself, are questioning why exit polls during the last election showed George Bush losing Ohio and Florida. I have heard explanations about how exit polls were wrong, but it is strange for the polls to be wrong when it came to the presidential race, but right when it came to senatorial races. This could be an indication of fraud. If it is, then I hope it is exposed for what it is.

Finally, about the race in New Jersey, John Kerry carried the state by about 7 percentage points. That was not as large of a victory that Al Gore had back in 2000. This result was probably due to two things that have occurred since then: 1) 911 and the underlying fear that has permeated through society (especially the areas that are very close to New York City. 2) the political atmosphere in New Jersey due to our recent Democratic government scandal that has resulted in Jim McGreevey leaving office.

You see, I am not flippant when I make my posts. I usually try to find supporting data to the points that I present. At times, I acknowledge that some things have not been proven. Just because something has not been proven at a given time doesn't make it not true. This blog is for people to post thoughts that make others think. That is my goal. The people may come to conclusions that are different than mine, but hopefully those conclusions came about after much thought.

Posted by: JM at December 21, 2004 09:24 PM

Diane:

I think I can more than hold my own against the likes of you.

Do you have fantasies about Anne Coulter? You are a wannabe, but you don't even have the intellectual wherewithal to accomplish this. You post without supportive information. I am one that doesn't care if someone copies and pastes other information to support their position. You might want to try that because otherwise you provide very little supportive information. You fit into the cheerleader or propagandist role. All talk, but little to substantiate it.

Should I provide you with a dictionary website so that you can look up some of the words that are more than 5 letters long? (:>}

Posted by: JM at December 21, 2004 09:31 PM

Wayne,
Congratulations on the new baby! I wish you the best of luck with him, and I'm sure you will be a great father to him as well as your other one. Merry Christmas to you! You get an early Christmas present! Haha... anyway, good luck and have a happy holiday! Bye!
Sincerely,
Flaming Liberal

Posted by: FlamingLiberal at December 21, 2004 10:09 PM

The reason why Democrats always want to raise taxes, Amber, is because when there is usually a Republican president, his spending proposals almost always create a budget deficit. That happens when the government spends more money than it takes in from taxes. So if a Democrat replaces a Republican president who leaves him with a budget deficit, then the Democrat knows that the only way to bring down the deficit created by the Republican is by raising taxes. You pay later if you don't lower the deficit right away. Therefore, if the Republicans didn't create the budget deficit in the first place, the Democrats wouldn't need to raise taxes to bring the deficit down because there wouldn't be a deficit in the first place. So actually, it's really the Republicans who are responsible for tax hikes since they're the ones who are creating all these deficits with their extravagant tax cuts for the rich. Do the math.

Posted by: d. jones at December 22, 2004 01:35 AM

Some of Clinton's actions were questionable like the Sudan bombing and the Iraq bombing during the impeachment trial but his economic policies and even some foreign policy achievements like the Bosnia/Kosovo incident were more effective than GW's. At least Clinton never led us into an endless war like this one did with his 2003 Iraq invasion.

- "Since Kerry was a traitor and a war criminal to boot, it's no wonder Bush won by such a large margin."
Oh really? If it was such a large margin, then why was Kerry only one state (Ohio) away from unseating Bush?

Part A:
Ted is completely right about the following:

- "He gave nuclear secrets to China in exchange for campaign funding."
This is true, but the administration of Ronald Reagan, a president even better than Bill Clinton, also sold weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages so not every president is perfect.

- "He got an intern to give him oral sex in the Oval Office, lied, perjured himself, got others to commit perjury for him, obstructed justice in the cover up and as a result...
-He got himself impeached."
- "he had the IRS check up on people who had evidence against him in his criminal activities."
Clinton's personal life was also very controversial. But Ted, what do you think of the disclosure of a CIA agent's secret identity by the Bush administration just because Joseph Wilson, the agent's husband, critized the president's actions about the Iraqi uranium from Africa? And what do you think of those secret meetings Cheney had with those energy corporations like Enron? This Bush administration was even more corrupt than Clinton's administration. GW's administration is considered the MOST secretive administration in US history. What are they hiding and why do they have to hide so much from us?

- "He bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan to distract us from his criminal activities."
- "He bombed Iraq to distract us again when he was being impeached."
- "He pardoned Marc Rich (who's wife then gave millions to get Hillary elected), the man who not only gave money to build the Clinton library, but was entrenched in the Oil for Food scandal which is close to $21 Billion."
Like I said, some of Clinton's actions regarding foreign policy were questionable.

Part B:
Ted is completely wrong on the following:

- "He destroyed a good economy (It took almost 4 years for it to recover, and just for the record, there were no surpluses during his administration. The so-called "surplus" was a projection over several years.)"
What are you talking about? No wonder the current economy is screwed up right now, you think it's better. The 1990s economy was BOOMING because of Clinton. He created millions of more jobs in his first term than your guy GW. Not only that, Clinton balanced the budget with a record surplus until GW squandered it in less than two years. Face it, you don't want to admit that Clinton did a better job on the economy than GW.

- "He and Carter gave money to North Korea so they could build nuclear weapons and point them at us."
No Ted, Clinton and Carter never intended to give the North Koreans money so they could threaten us, it was intended for food, oil, and other necessities so North Korea would freeze its weapons program. Unfortunately, those lying scumbags did not keep their end of the bargain and still renewed their nuclear ambitions. GW's strategy of dealing with them is better than Clinton's.

- "He ignored repeated attacks by terrorists, letting them gear up for the big one on 9/11."
News Flash: In the August of 2001, GW received a memo warning of an Al Qaeda attack using hijacked planes inside the US. GW did not heed this memo. Therefore, the 9/11 Commission placed the blame on BOTH Clinton and GW for failing to recognize this threat and failing to prevent the attacks on New York and Washington.

- "He started a war in the Balkans and then abandoned it (kinda like Kennedy & Johnson in Vietnam)."
I don't know what website you are looking at, they post a whole bunch of crap on the Internet. Clinton never started a war in the Balkans, you're thinking of Slobodan Milosevic. Kennedy and Johnson didn't abandon the war because Kennedy was assassinated while Johnson intensified it. Johnson was no better than GW for getting us involved in a seemingly endless war.

- "Note also that all Clinton's wars were illegal if you consider going to war without UN approval as illegal. I actually think we should make decisions of our own safety without having to get the approval of corrupt organizations like the UN."
Ted, you're right on the second part, I agree with you on that. But Clinton's excursion into Somalia was a humanitarian mission funded by the UN that turned deadly. The war in Kosovo did not have UN support but it did have NATO support. My point - it's much easier to accomplish foreign policy with allies rather than alienating them and undermining their importance. GW did this in Iraq when he refused to accept help from the UN when the UN offered to provide assistance in the immediate aftermath of Saddam's collapse.

- "Since Kerry was a traitor and a war criminal to boot, it's no wonder Bush won by such a large margin."
Oh really? If it was such a large margin, then why was Kerry only one state (Ohio) away from unseating Bush? GW won by the closest margin for a sitting president in BOTH the electoral vote and popular vote. They should rename this country as the Dis-United States of America. And for the last time, Kerry wasn't a traitor he saved a man's life under heavy fire.

- "Why do we get so many people saying they hate Bush? And when you ask why they can't come up with a reason."
Actually, they can come up with a LOT of reasons. The war in Iraq tops the list. A lot of people dislike GW because the majority disapprove of how he's handling Iraq and the economy. Bush may be likable as a person and as a next-door neighbor, but his policies as president aren't as likable.

Merry Christmas, Everyone.

Posted by: d. jones at December 23, 2004 12:45 PM

I seriously can't believe you guys are still going back and forth. haha Its basketball season! Don't you all have anything better to do?? Bush won. Kerry lost. Republicans won, Democrats lost. Conservatives won, liberals lost. Its over. Let the government contracts start rolling into my business. :D Conservatism = Bush/Cheney "Ranger" ;-)

Posted by: Conservatism at December 23, 2004 01:23 PM

Ho Ho Ho! Merry Christmas!

What would you ladies and gentlemen like for Christmas? But first, I have to see who is on my naughty list...

Posted by: Santa Claus at December 23, 2004 05:40 PM

To Wayne

You served in the military? Then I salute you, soldier. You put your life on the line for your country and I really respect that. Yes, your answer was very clear and it did help. I would side with the military if there was a severe shortage of troops.

When did you serve in the military? None of my family members are in the military right now but some of them used to be. My grandfather was a Marine in World War Two and my father served in Vietnam in 1964 but he didn't see any combat and he was only there for two months.

Thank you for telling me about Operation Santa. I never heard about it but I am impressed by your unselfishness and generosity. First you introduced me to that Operation AC site that lets us send much needed material to our fighting men and women. And then you write letters to children in the name of Santa Claus. These are the traits of a very compassionate individual. I'm very happy that I got to know somebody like you. Keep up the good charity work. There should be more people like you.

Posted by: Henry at December 23, 2004 09:26 PM

Here's a bit of news that I just received and that I'm sure most Progressives or Liberals will delight in learning (If they haven't learned about it yet). As our Republican friends like to say, "It's All Over in Washington State."

The news follows:

"Thanks to the overwhelming outpouring of support from Democrats across the country, Democrat Chris Gregoire will be the next governor of Washington.
Your support helped Washington Democrats make sure every vote was counted by funding a hand recount of every vote in the entire state. The hand count corrected a number of mistakes from the earlier machine count and made it clear that Chris Gregoire received the most votes in the election.
Gregoire's opponent, Dino Rossi, has not yet conceded, and Republicans aren't ruling out further legal challenges to the final count. But with every vote being counted, we now know that Christine Gregoire is the choice of the people of Washington, and it couldn't have happened without you.
Thank you,
Terry McAuliffe"

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at December 24, 2004 12:29 AM

FL and Henry,
Thanks for the congratulations.

His name is Collin, he was born 10:43 a.m., 6lbs. 15 oz., and is very healthy.

Here is a virtual cigar for everyone. Well, I can't make one look like a cigar, but I promise that the virtual cigar is much better for you anyway.

Merry Christmas all!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Wayne at December 24, 2004 08:35 AM

Conservatism: You just showed your true face. True conservatives wouldn't leach off of the government. Conservatives are for smaller government. You are for the government spending our money (as much as they can) in your business. That doesn't sound like conservatism to me. Go find your business someplace else.

Posted by: JM at December 24, 2004 12:00 PM

Bruce:

I don't remember directing anything toward you. I never said anything about people being stupid because they voted one way or the other.

I did state that many of the southern states obtain more federal dollars for projects in their states than they send to the federal government in taxes. ( You supplied NOTHING to refute this). Yet many of the states in the northeast get much less than what the send the federal government in taxes. What is this an indication of? We in the northeast are not getting what we should while the southern states are more than happy to "take". We are the "givers"! So what were you trying to say in your post about givers and takers? While you are accusing nonconservatives as being takers, I would venture to say that maybe the opposite might be true. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Posted by: JM at December 24, 2004 12:17 PM

Henry,

Why should Bush fire Rumsfield? He's done a fantastic job. The troops love the guy. This war has had the least casualties of any in our history and it's freed millions. You may not hear all the good that's going on