NationStates Jolt Archive

From SUSA (http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateBushApproval060315Net.htm).

George W. Bush has approval ratings above fifty percent in 3 states--that is not a typo. Only Utah, Wyoming and Alabama have him above 50%, with Utah the leader at 55%. Idaho is 4th with Bush at 50%. Only seven states have Bush with a net approval rating--the four above, along with Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Nebraska.

Everywhere else, he's in the negatives. Among the states that he carried in 2004, he's the least popular in Ohio, where he has a 34% approval rating compared to a 64% disapproval rating, and he's most loathed in Massachussetts, where his split is 26-71.

So when will the press come out and say openly what everyone else already seems to know--that Bush is flat out unpopular right now? Hell, when will the Democrats as a party stop acting like it would be a bad move to challenge him and his party openly? Where I come from, if you've got the bully on the ground, you kick him in the ribs. The Democrats need to do some kicking of their own.

Yes, but how do they feel about him in the Northern Mariana Islands?

I'm glad to see Texas coming to its senses.

Yes, but how do they feel about him in the Northern Mariana Islands?

I'm glad to see Texas coming to its senses.
That Texas number is brutal--a negative 14% net, and a 55% disapproval rating.

It's going to be interesting to see how the Democrats leverage the dip in approval...I see some improvement in Bush's approval ratings in the near future due to the improvments in the economy, but right now they could hit hard and cripple the Republicans for a while, perhaps long enough for some significant gains in Novermber.

It'll be an exciting campaingn; Iraq is definitely the wildcard here, and if Bush plays it right he might be able to lift his party's standings later in the year. However, at this point in time it appears to be the Democrats with a major edge.

So when will the press come out and say openly what everyone else already seems to know--that Bush is flat out unpopular right now?
What press do you mean? His numbers are always front page on CNN, The LA Times, NY Times, all Street Journal even Fox News. Yesterday his approval ratings were the subject of all the talk radio shows I listen to.

With even more of his "bombing-goodness" in Iraq, I'm not surprised. Can you say "trigger happy", everybody?

With even more of his "bombing-goodness" in Iraq, I'm not surprised. Can you say "trigger happy", everybody?
I can! I can say a lot of words..

People have to reelect the guy and then decide they don't like him after all. Really aggravating.

People have to reelect the guy and then decide they don't like him after all. Really aggravating.
Especially when he is so obviously stupid. There are lots of stupid people in office and not just here but around the world. Bush is particularily inept at hiding it.

People have to reelect the guy and then decide they don't like him after all. Really aggravating.
Indeed...

The Democrats have invested so much time in just hating Bush, that they don't have a plan to take advantage of his unpopularity. But what can they do? They are still in the minority and they haven't been advocating any particular agenda except that Bush is bad.

The Democrats have invested so much time in just hating Bush, that they don't have a plan to take advantage of his unpopularity. But what can they do? They are still in the minority and they haven't been advocating any particular agenda except that Bush is bad.
That's crap and you know it. The Democrats have all kinds of agenda--just no power to try to get it implemented and few friends in the media to mention it. They could be doing a better job of making noise about it, no doubt, but it's not like the media's knocking down the door to talk to them about it either.

That's crap and you know it. The Democrats have all kinds of agenda--just no power to try to get it implemented and few friends in the media to mention it. They could be doing a better job of making noise about it, no doubt, but it's not like the media's knocking down the door to talk to them about it either.
But they don't have a unified agenda. Of course, that's not as easy to have when you don't have the presidency or congress or even a candidate yet. Hopefully they'll put up a strong candidate and the party, and hopefully th country, will get behind him/her.

People have to reelect the guy and then decide they don't like him after all. Really aggravating.
Maybe they voted him back because at least they knew where they stood with him. Kerry, on the other hand...no idea what that asshole would do. Me, I voted for a third party candidate. Shamefully, I no longer remember who.

But they don't have a unified agenda. Of course, that's not as easy to have when you don't have the presidency or congress or even a candidate yet. Hopefully they'll put up a strong candidate and the party, and hopefully th country, will get behind him/her.
They have topics--protecting Social Security from privatization, universal health care, and slowly but surely, withdrawing from Iraq. They'll come into focus more as the November elections get closer. Remember--in the 1994 elections, the Republican Contract on America, I mean, with America didn't come out until about 60 days before the elections.

They have topics--protecting Social Security from privatization, universal health care, and slowly but surely, withdrawing from Iraq. They'll come into focus more as the November elections get closer. Remember--in the 1994 elections, the Republican Contract on America, I mean, with America didn't come out until about 60 days before the elections.
What's wrong with privatizing Social Security? Takes a load off the government, allowing them to spend more on education. Or it would, if they had their budget priorities straight.

As for universal health care, do you speak of basic care, or indepth? I'm all for basic: that's only fair to people. But indepth? Nuh uh. Pay for that, cheapskates.

In a sense we all ready have universal health care. It is illegal to turn someone away from emergency health care for any reason whatsoever. They ask you to pay afterwards, but wether you do or not you still can never be turned away in an emergency.

It'll be an exciting campaingn; Iraq is definitely the wildcard here, and if Bush plays it right he might be able to lift his party's standings later in the year. However, at this point in time it appears to be the Democrats with a major edge.

At what point in the last 3 years has anything the Bush administration done in Iraq given anyone the confidence to be able to state that they can 'play it right' there in the coming months?

At what point in the last 3 years has anything the Bush administration done in Iraq given anyone the confidence to be able to state that they can 'play it right' there in the coming months?
My English professor still thinks they can pull it off.

That's crap and you know it. The Democrats have all kinds of agenda--just no power to try to get it implemented and few friends in the media to mention it. They could be doing a better job of making noise about it, no doubt, but it's not like the media's knocking down the door to talk to them about it either.
That party needs to take a lesson from Newt and the '94 Republicans. The Contract with America was enormously successful at getting Reps elected to office. The Dems have _never_ had the kind of message that was contained in that contract. They have the issues, but they are content at criticizing the administration and Republican agenda.

That party needs to take a lesson from Newt and the '94 Republicans. The Contract with America was enormously successful at getting Reps elected to office. The Dems have _never_ had the kind of message that was contained in that contract. They have the issues, but they are content at criticizing the administration and Republican agenda.
I actually think that the Contract was less an overall factor than we seem to think of it in hindsight, but that it was probably instrumental in turning a solid win into a landslide. The Dems were already in trouble--ethical problems, the House banking scandal, and general institutional decay combined with a number of retirements set the stage for a solid win. The Contract probably swung a few more at the top.

But what no one seems to remember, and this is what I pointed out just a post or two above, is that the Contract didn't come out until September at the earliest. It wasn't this year-long effort. It was a last minute PR move. It was a good one, but Dems shouldn't feel pushed into getting the message out there too early, because only the junkies are paying attention right now. You want to keep the message fresh for later on.

More polling goodness from Pew (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=271)
President Bush's declining image also is reflected in the single-word descriptions people use to describe their impression of the president. Three years ago, positive one-word descriptions of Bush far outnumbered negative ones. Over the past two years, the positive-negative balance has been roughly equal. But the one-word characterizations have turned decidedly negative since last July.

Currently, 48% use a negative word to describe Bush compared with just 28% who use a positive term, and 10% who use neutral language.

The changing impressions of the president can best be viewed by tracking over time how often words come up in these top-of-the-mind associations. Until now, the most frequently offered word to describe the president was "honest," but this comes up far less often today than in the past. Other positive traits such as "integrity" are also cited less, and virtually no respondent used superlatives such as "excellent" or "great" * terms that came up fairly often in previous surveys.

The single word most frequently associated with George W. Bush today is "incompetent,"and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: "idiot" and "liar." All three are mentioned far more often today than a year ago.

At what point in the last 3 years has anything the Bush administration done in Iraq given anyone the confidence to be able to state that they can 'play it right' there in the coming months?

Pulling out some troops would have enough propaganda value to greatly shift the opinion on the war, regardless of the actual amount involved as long as it was at least somewhat significant. That's all they'd have to do to boost their ratings on Iraq.

My English professor still thinks they can pull it off.
Is that the same prof that got brought up in an earlier thread?

More polling goodness from Pew (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=271)
Too beautiful to add words to. Sigworthy, even! *bows*

They have topics--protecting Social Security from privatization, universal health care, and slowly but surely, withdrawing from Iraq. They'll come into focus more as the November elections get closer. Remember--in the 1994 elections, the Republican Contract on America, I mean, with America didn't come out until about 60 days before the elections.

The main problem is that they oppose privatizing Social Security, but at the same time offer little or nothing to fix the problem. Honestly, most of the Democrats don't even want to raise the retirement age, a suggestion made by the successful president Clinton; unless they actually propose a solution, they will not gain much benefit from opposing the president's plan.

Is that the same prof that got brought up in an earlier thread?
Nope. This is another dude. Intelligence on a similar level, though about thirty years younger and in nowhere near as good health. I find it confusing that he thinks the way he does, but seeing as how he has a copy of the cover to an Ann Coulter book on his classroom wall...

With even more of his "bombing-goodness" in Iraq, I'm not surprised. Can you say "trigger happy", everybody?
Well, given yesterday/today's news ...

*ahem*

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-03-16T210909Z_01_N16144809_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-BUSH.xml
Bush clings to pre-emptive force
Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:09 PM GMT
By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush clung to his doctrine of using preemptive force against threats of weapons of mass destruction on Thursday despite his experience in Iraq, and said Iran may be America's biggest security challenge.

A new White House national security strategy document said it was the strong U.S. preference to use international diplomacy to address weapons proliferation concerns.

"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defence, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," the document said.

Bush outlined the preemptive force doctrine in 2002 and many critics believe he used it as a framework for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq three years ago over weapons of mass destruction that were never found.

...

The United States and its European allies are locked in a test of wills with Iran over suspicions that Tehran is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program despite its insistence that it merely wants atomic power for civilian use.

"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," said the new strategy document.

DIPLOMACY BEFORE CONFRONTATION

The document emphasised the need for diplomacy, while adding without elaboration: "This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided."

Bush has never taken the military option off the table, although experts believe U.S. involvement in the Iraq war is a limiting factor.

A national security expert at the Cato Institute think tank, Ted Galen Carpenter, saw a link between Bush's retention of the preemptive force policy and the talk of Iran as a major challenge.

"Highlighting Iran as the principle threat that the United States faces certainly brings the preemption doctrine back into play,' he said.

Ivo Daalder, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution think tank, said he believed Bush was using the document to shift strategy reluctantly away from emphasising force to focussing more on diplomacy because he has learnt that threats cannot be defeated by military force alone.

"It has been forced to change course by necessity rather than out of conviction," he said.

The document cited other concerns about Iran: that it sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel, seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq, and denies freedom to Iranians. It said these can only be resolved if Iran makes the strategic decision to change its policies, open its political system and allow freedom.

"This is the ultimate goal of U.S. policy," the document said. "In the interim, we will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse effects of their bad conduct."

The document sought to draw a line between Iran's leaders and the Iranian people, saying "our strategy is to block the threats posed by the regime while expanding our engagement and outreach to the people the regime is oppressing."

North Korea also poses a serious nuclear proliferation challenge, the document said.

It said Washington will continue to press for a return to talks on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program between the two Koreas, the United States, Russia, China and Japan despite North Korea's "long and bleak record of duplicity and bad-faith negotiations."

Nope. This is another dude. Intelligence on a similar level, though about thirty years younger and in nowhere near as good health. I find it confusing that he thinks the way he does, but seeing as how he has a copy of the cover to an Ann Coulter book on his classroom wall...
Hrm.
Well, for some of the folk out there, i guess it's feasible to have a sexual *revenge* attraction to Coulter ... perhaps in respect to her rabid, foam-at-the-mouth partisan vitriol. ;)

Well, given yesterday/today's news ...

*ahem*

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-03-16T210909Z_01_N16144809_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-BUSH.xml
Bush clings to pre-emptive force
Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:09 PM GMT
By Steve Holland

*snippity*
all I can say is:headbang:

I'm just glad to see my state is among the most critical.
I'm also quite shocked at the numbers for texas...

Hrm.
Well, for some of the folk out there, i guess it's feasible to have a sexual *revenge* attraction to Coulter ... perhaps in respect to her rabid, foam-at-the-mouth partisan vitriol. ;)
Why do all the evil women have to be hot, mommy? ;)

Why do all the evil women have to be hot, mommy? ;)
:D
LOL
"Jesus is risen ... and it's no surprise;
Even he would martyr his momma to ride to hell between those thighs ..."
-Puscifer,Rev. 22:20

all I can say is:headbang:

I'm just glad to see my state is among the most critical.
I'm also quite shocked at the numbers for texas...
Well, this won't help with the headbang scenario, methinks ...

*ahem*

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060307-054056-1192r

DOD spending $1 billion on space programs
WASHINGTON, March 7 (UPI) -- The Bush administration is pushing ahead energetically with its space weapons program.

The Pentagon's Fiscal Year 2007 (FY 07) budget request funds nearly a billion dollars in programs that could provide dual-use space weapons capabilities, according to a new joint-analysis by the World Security Institute's Center for Defense Information and the Henry L. Stimson Center.

In the absence of a clear national strategy and policy on new military missions in outer space, the administration is funding these programs that would create "facts in orbit," the report says. These facts -- the development and testing of space weapon technologies and the deployment of dual-use systems without any codes of conduct or rules of the road for their operation -- will drive U.S. policy toward space weapons without a debate in either Congress or the public, it says.

According to CDI Director Theresa Hitchens, one of the report's authors, "Congress must become more aware of these efforts, hidden in plain sight within the Pentagon's Byzantine budget request, and ensure that such programs do not go forward until a proper, in-depth and intergovernmental policy-making process, including congressional and public input, is concluded."

Hitchens, Victoria Samson, CDI research analyst, and Michael Katz-Hyman, research assistant at the Henry L. Stimson Center, studied U.S. Air Force and Missile Defense Agency's budget requests and highlighted programs which merit further examination. Of most concern, they say, are the Missile Defense Agency's Space Test Bed and Near Field Infrared Experiment, or NFIRE, the Air Force's Experimental Satellite Series, known as XSS, the Autonomous Nanosatellite Guardian for Evaluating Local Space, known as ANGELS, and a new MDA Micro Satellite program.

Well, this won't help with the headbang scenario, methinks ...

*ahem*

*slash and burn*
I'm gonna go lay down in the middle of a 6 lane highway now.

I'm gonna go lay down in the middle of a 6 lane highway now.
Now, now, don't take it like that, there's EVEN MORE!
And it's a curious choice of words, slash and burn ...

*ahem*

http://www.orovillemr.com/news/bayarea/ci_3606584

A 34-year veteran nuclear weaponeer took the helm of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on Wednesday as the lab's interim director for at least 17 months as contractors vie to unseat the University of California as lab operator and weapons scientists compete for the first new H-bomb designs in 20 years.
Weapons physicist George Miller, 61, led Livermore's nuclear bomb scientists during some of the last bomb-design competitions with counterparts at Los Alamos during the Cold War.

Miller said he will bring an ``informal'' management style to the $1.8 billion-a-year weapons design lab.

...

In 2000, when Livermore officials revealed to the U.S. Energy Department that its largest single project, the National Ignition Facility, was years behind schedule and more than $1 billion over budget, the University of California turned to Miller to save the giant fusion laser.

Then-Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson was incensed at earlier mismanagement of the project, and lawmakers in Congress looked hungrily at the big laser's budget, which had more than doubled. Meanwhile, Livermore executives had promised to achieve what eluded all other scientists worldwide in 40 years of trying - a self-sustaining fusion reaction producing more energy than went into triggering the fusion.

...


Last year, a powerful U.S. senator from New Mexico killed most of the construction funding for the big, 192-beam laser, and Miller came out swinging, suggesting in an interview that without the National Ignition Facility, confidence in the U.S. nuclear arsenal would decline.

The notion that the nation's nuclear bombs, which never required laser fusion for their design, would stop working without the National Ignition Facility riled Sen. Pete Domenici and put the project's funding briefly into deeper jeopardy. Miller wrote a conciliatory letter to the senator and spoke to him by phone.

...

There is something to be said for the hormetic principle ... ;)

Now, now, don't take it like that, there's EVEN MORE!
And it's a curious choice of words, slash and burn ...

There is something to be said for the hormetic principle ... ;)
haha...methinks you are trying to get me to kill myself. Sadly, I can't think of anything better than laying on a highway...except maybe playing on the 3rd rail of the subway.

haha...methinks you are trying to get me to kill myself. Sadly, I can't think of anything better than laying on a highway...except maybe playing on the 3rd rail of the subway.
Did you see that Mythbusters episode? *nudge*
Nah i don't want you to kill yourself, that would destabilize the balance of the forum and The Force.
That and there'd be MUCH MUCH less success in the way of thread 'jackings.

Did you see that Mythbusters episode? *nudge*
Nah i don't want you to kill yourself, that would destabilize the balance of the forum and The Force.
That and there'd be MUCH MUCH less success in the way of thread 'jackings.
haha...yes I did. I've also watched a rat fry itself. that was funny.

and you mean a thread jack like this one? We do have a certain skill for it...

haha...yes I did. I've also watched a rat fry itself. that was funny.

and you mean a thread jack like this one? We do have a certain skill for it...
Well, i dig The Nazz so i respect *NOT* 'jacking this particular thread. I tend to dance around that a lot as it is, anyway. There's already a thread up for collating Bush's pronounced incompetency and evil choices, so it may be i've already gone farther than The Nazz would've preferred.
Perhaps there's potential for a greatly-participatory "'jack thread" ...?

Well, i dig The Nazz so i respect *NOT* 'jacking this particular thread. I tend to dance around that a lot as it is, anyway. There's already a thread up for collating Bush's pronounced incompetency and evil choices, so it may be i've already gone farther than The Nazz would've preferred.
Perhaps there's potential for a greatly-participatory "'jack thread" ...?
I gotta agree...sorry nazz.
I swear I try not to jack serious threads such as this one. Back you your previously scheduled bush discussion.

Personally, I wonder how it would work out if we looked at it by party lines...it seems like he's lost most of his base everywhere tho.

From SUSA (http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateBushApproval060315Net.htm).

George W. Bush has approval ratings above fifty percent in 3 states--that is not a typo. Only Utah, Wyoming and Alabama have him above 50%, with Utah the leader at 55%.

The man's a mindless idiot who has made a mockery of a tragic US event by cashing in on wars under his hunt for justice banner. I can't believe he got in once; he's absolutely bonkers.

I'm prety impartial to the man myself

The single word most frequently associated with George W. Bush today is "incompetent,"and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: "idiot" and "liar." All three are mentioned far more often today than a year ago.I don't know wether to scream, "Godammit I've been saying this for five years," or, "Thank God people finally seem to be getting it."

People have to reelect the guy and then decide they don't like him after all. Really aggravating.

I know... I'm quite frustrated with my state, considering we're the ones that got him elected and now hate him the most of all the states that he won >.>

I know... I'm quite frustrated with my state, considering we're the ones that got him elected and now hate him the most of all the states that he won >.>

People of Ohio should have known better. Of course Cincinnati is strange in that it is very Republican yet elects Democratic mayors. Go figure.

I don't know wether to scream, "Godammit I've been saying this for five years," or, "Thank God people finally seem to be getting it."

Even the fear of "fags" and brown-skinned people couldn't hide Bush's incalculable incompetence from God Fearing Real Americans™ forever.

From SUSA (http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateBushApproval060315Net.htm).

George W. Bush has approval ratings above fifty percent in 3 states--that is not a typo. Only Utah, Wyoming and Alabama have him above 50%, with Utah the leader at 55%. Idaho is 4th with Bush at 50%. Only seven states have Bush with a net approval rating--the four above, along with Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Nebraska.

Everywhere else, he's in the negatives. Among the states that he carried in 2004, he's the least popular in Ohio, where he has a 34% approval rating compared to a 64% disapproval rating, and he's most loathed in Massachussetts, where his split is 26-71.

So when will the press come out and say openly what everyone else already seems to know--that Bush is flat out unpopular right now? Hell, when will the Democrats as a party stop acting like it would be a bad move to challenge him and his party openly? Where I come from, if you've got the bully on the ground, you kick him in the ribs. The Democrats need to do some kicking of their own.

The Democrats have been kicking him through the media for years. Where have you been? If the anti-war folks could quit feuding over who gets to have the most microphone time at their rallies and who is responsible for paying for the pay toilets you might actually see some real progress being made on your side of the ledger. I might also add that the reason his popularity is so low probably is the aforementioned constant negativity from the media.

Not that it matters. He has another 2 1/2 years in office. Suck it up and deal with it.

Give me an I
Give me an M
Give me a P
Give me an E
Give me an A
Give me an C
Give me an H

I know. I know. There is no liberal media bias, right? Never has been, either, right? Well, here are just a few examples of said non-existent bias. I could fill this with pages and pages of the drivel, but I won't. Here is just two years of the most egregious examples.

"Cheney is a terrorist. He terrorizes our enemies abroad and innocent citizens here at home indiscriminately. Who ever thought Harry Whittington would be the answer to America’s prayers. Finally, someone who might get that lying, thieving Cheney into a courtroom to answer some direct questions."
— Actor/left-wing activist Alec Baldwin in a February 17 blog entry posted at HuffingtonPost.com.

"There are causes worth fighting for, even if you know that you will lose. Unless you are willing to accept torture as part of a normal American political lexicon, unless you are willing to accept that leaving the Geneva Convention is fine and dandy, if you accept the expression [expansion?] of wiretapping as business as usual, the only way to express this now is to embrace the difficult and perhaps embarrassing process of impeachment."
— Actor Richard Dreyfuss in a February 16 speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

"He’s coming in [to Pakistan] like a drug dealer. I mean, having to sneak in like that, with the lights off, with the windows slammed shut on the plane. Is this a security question, really, or is it a problem of that government? Is it a problem that within the security service in Pakistan there are people out to hurt the President?...What message [does] this sends to the people of Pakistan? They know how the President’s coming in over there. Guess what, the leader of the greatest nation in the world, our ally in the war against terrorism, had to sneak into our country last night by cover of night."
— MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on the March 3 Hardball, asking security expert Roger Cressey and former Clinton aide David Gergen about President Bush’s Pakistan trip.

"In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal dis-aster officials warned President Bush and his Homeland Security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans’ Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage...."
— Lead paragraph of a March 1 AP dispatch on briefings given to President Bush prior to Hurricane Katrina’s landfall, a story which provoked widespread coverage claiming the President had been warned of a levee "breach."

"In a Wednesday story, the Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his Homeland Security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing. The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking."
— An AP "clarification" released late on Friday, March 3.

"Highlighting Saddam’s brutality nearly two years after his regime was toppled is the latest Bush effort to justify the Iraq war. But the event came on the same day the group Human Rights Watch released an annual report saying Mr. Bush may be no Saddam, but no saint either, concluding that in 2005, ‘the abuse of detainees had become a deliberate, central part of the Bush administration’s strategy of interrogating terrorist suspects.’"
— CNN’s Dana Bash on The Situation Room, January 18.

I don’t think what happened in West Virginia is totally divorced from the K Street project. It was all about deregulation. Tom DeLay fervently and sincerely believes that every regulation — the regulations that have removed 99" percent of lead from the air, the regulations that have saved the Great Lakes — they are a burden and an onerous intrusion upon American business, and I think that what you’ve seen is Tom DeLay’s America in action."
— Columnist and PBS NewsHour panelist Mark Shields, referring to the deaths of 12 West Virginia coal miners, on Inside Washington, January 6. The cause of the mine disaster has not yet been determined.

"No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we’re here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people, millions support your revolution, support your ideas and we are expressing our solidarity with you."
— Singer Harry Belafonte to Venezuela’s left-wing President Hugo Chavez during a televised rally on January 8, in a clip shown on FNC’s Hannity & Colmes the next day.

Reporter Brian Ross: "Mary Mapes was the woman behind the scenes, the producer who researched, wrote and put together Dan Rather’s 60 Minutes report on President Bush’s National Guard service, a report which Rather and CBS would later apologize for airing...."
Ross to Mapes: "Do you still think that story was true?"
Ex-CBS producer Mary Mapes: "The story? Absolutely."
Ross: "This seems remarkable to me that you would sit here now and say you still find that story to be up to your standards."
Mapes: "I’m perfectly willing to believe those documents are forgeries if there’s proof that I haven’t seen."
Ross: "But isn’t it the other way around? Don’t you have to prove they’re authentic?"
Mapes: "Well, I think that’s what critics of the story would say. I know more now than I did then and I think, I think they have not been proved to be false, yet."
Ross: "Have they proved to be authentic though? Isn’t that really what journalists do?"
Mapes: "No, I don’t think that’s the standard."
— ABC’s Good Morning America, November 9, 2005.

"The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for President, I’ll kill myself. All we need is one more liar."
— Hearst White House columnist Helen Thomas, as quoted in the "Under the Dome" column by Albert Eisele and Jeff Dufour in The Hill newspaper, July 28, 2005.

“Senator Kerry, the gap between rich and poor is growing wider. More people are dropping into poverty. Yet the minimum wage has been stuck at, what, $5.15 an hour now for about seven years. Is it time to raise it?”
“Mr. President,...you said that if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you’d sign the legislation. But you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not?”
— Questions from CBS’s Bob Schieffer to Kerry and then Bush at the October 13, 2004 presidential debate.

“I read you once took a psychological profile test, and it said the position you’re most suited for is undertaker.”
— ABC’s Claire Shipman to Vice President Cheney in an interview on the August 31, 2004 Good Morning America.

“Before Reagan, people sleeping in the street were so rare that, outside of skid rows, they were almost a curiosity. After eight years of Reaganomics — and the slashes in low-income housing and social welfare programs that went along with it — they were seemingly everywhere. And America had a new household term: ‘The homeless.’”
— Reporter Kevin Fagan in the San Francisco Chronicle on June 10, 2004 five days after Reagan’s death.

Is there any wonder that Bush's approval ratings are at an all-time low?

I might also add that the reason his popularity is so low probably is the aforementioned constant negativity from the media.
That's kind of pathetic, you know.
It's like saying the military wasn't responsible for the MILITARY decisions in Vietnam, the common person at home was. Wrong.
It's Bush's fault that he gets negative attention. That's why it isn't a typical 50% situation. C'mon you can do better than that. *tsk*

That's kind of pathetic, you know.
It's like saying the military wasn't responsible for the MILITARY decisions in Vietnam, the common person at home was. Wrong.
It's Bush's fault that he gets negative attention. That's why it isn't a typical 50% situation. C'mon you can do better than that. *tsk*

Yup. And I just did. Look above. Besides, if all you report is bad news, then what you'll eventually get is someone who will respond to that harbinger of doom mentality. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I know. I know. There is no liberal media bias, right? Never has been, either, right? Well, here are just a few examples of said non-existent bias. I could fill this with pages and pages of the drivel, but I won't. Here is just two years of the most egregious examples.
This is always fun...

"Cheney is a terrorist. He terrorizes our enemies abroad and innocent citizens here at home indiscriminately. Who ever thought Harry Whittington would be the answer to America’s prayers. Finally, someone who might get that lying, thieving Cheney into a courtroom to answer some direct questions."
— Actor/left-wing activist Alec Baldwin in a February 17 blog entry posted at HuffingtonPost.com.

"There are causes worth fighting for, even if you know that you will lose. Unless you are willing to accept torture as part of a normal American political lexicon, unless you are willing to accept that leaving the Geneva Convention is fine and dandy, if you accept the expression [expansion?] of wiretapping as business as usual, the only way to express this now is to embrace the difficult and perhaps embarrassing process of impeachment."
— Actor Richard Dreyfuss in a February 16 speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
Richard Dreyfuss and Alec Baldwin? Oh man, that's a...what's the last thing anyone's seen that Dreyfuss has been in? Another Stakeout...and Alec Baldwin was in the Spongebob movie...Why this is stunning, some actors don't like Bush...what bias...

"He’s coming in [to Pakistan] like a drug dealer. I mean, having to sneak in like that, with the lights off, with the windows slammed shut on the plane. Is this a security question, really, or is it a problem of that government? Is it a problem that within the security service in Pakistan there are people out to hurt the President?...What message [does] this sends to the people of Pakistan? They know how the President’s coming in over there. Guess what, the leader of the greatest nation in the world, our ally in the war against terrorism, had to sneak into our country last night by cover of night."
— MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on the March 3 Hardball, asking security expert Roger Cressey and former Clinton aide David Gergen about President Bush’s Pakistan trip.
It is a fair question.

"In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal dis-aster officials warned President Bush and his Homeland Security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans’ Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage...."
— Lead paragraph of a March 1 AP dispatch on briefings given to President Bush prior to Hurricane Katrina’s landfall, a story which provoked widespread coverage claiming the President had been warned of a levee "breach."

"In a Wednesday story, the Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his Homeland Security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing. The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking."
— An AP "clarification" released late on Friday, March 3.
This is bias, how?

"Highlighting Saddam’s brutality nearly two years after his regime was toppled is the latest Bush effort to justify the Iraq war. But the event came on the same day the group Human Rights Watch released an annual report saying Mr. Bush may be no Saddam, but no saint either, concluding that in 2005, ‘the abuse of detainees had become a deliberate, central part of the Bush administration’s strategy of interrogating terrorist suspects.’"
— CNN’s Dana Bash on The Situation Room, January 18.
This is my favorite, the one that includes two sides of a story. I'm not sure you know what bias actually means...

I don’t think what happened in West Virginia is totally divorced from the K Street project. It was all about deregulation. Tom DeLay fervently and sincerely believes that every regulation — the regulations that have removed 99" percent of lead from the air, the regulations that have saved the Great Lakes — they are a burden and an onerous intrusion upon American business, and I think that what you’ve seen is Tom DeLay’s America in action."
— Columnist and PBS NewsHour panelist Mark Shields, referring to the deaths of 12 West Virginia coal miners, on Inside Washington, January 6. The cause of the mine disaster has not yet been determined.
To save myself some time, I'm going to just say that in order to prove bias with columnists you'd actually have to do a survey. Ann Coulter writes columns to, quoting a paragraph of her would no more prove conservative bias than quoting these proves liberal bias.

"No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we’re here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people, millions support your revolution, support your ideas and we are expressing our solidarity with you."
— Singer Harry Belafonte to Venezuela’s left-wing President Hugo Chavez during a televised rally on January 8, in a clip shown on FNC’s Hannity & Colmes the next day.
"As goes Harry Belefonte..." Name two songs by that guy without looking it up...

Reporter Brian Ross: "Mary Mapes was the woman behind the scenes, the producer who researched, wrote and put together Dan Rather’s 60 Minutes report on President Bush’s National Guard service, a report which Rather and CBS would later apologize for airing...."
Ross to Mapes: "Do you still think that story was true?"
Ex-CBS producer Mary Mapes: "The story? Absolutely."
Ross: "This seems remarkable to me that you would sit here now and say you still find that story to be up to your standards."
Mapes: "I’m perfectly willing to believe those documents are forgeries if there’s proof that I haven’t seen."
Ross: "But isn’t it the other way around? Don’t you have to prove they’re authentic?"
Mapes: "Well, I think that’s what critics of the story would say. I know more now than I did then and I think, I think they have not been proved to be false, yet."
Ross: "Have they proved to be authentic though? Isn’t that really what journalists do?"
Mapes: "No, I don’t think that’s the standard."
— ABC’s Good Morning America, November 9, 2005.
Actually don't want to get into this knot.

"The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for President, I’ll kill myself. All we need is one more liar."
— Hearst White House columnist Helen Thomas, as quoted in the "Under the Dome" column by Albert Eisele and Jeff Dufour in The Hill newspaper, July 28, 2005.
Already made my columnist entry.

“Senator Kerry, the gap between rich and poor is growing wider. More people are dropping into poverty. Yet the minimum wage has been stuck at, what, $5.15 an hour now for about seven years. Is it time to raise it?”
“Mr. President,...you said that if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you’d sign the legislation. But you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not?”
— Questions from CBS’s Bob Schieffer to Kerry and then Bush at the October 13, 2004 presidential debate.
Yeah, no. Need more than that, slugger.

“I read you once took a psychological profile test, and it said the position you’re most suited for is undertaker.”
— ABC’s Claire Shipman to Vice President Cheney in an interview on the August 31, 2004 Good Morning America.
Dumb question, granted. Bias? Not there yet, my friend.

“Before Reagan, people sleeping in the street were so rare that, outside of skid rows, they were almost a curiosity. After eight years of Reaganomics — and the slashes in low-income housing and social welfare programs that went along with it — they were seemingly everywhere. And America had a new household term: ‘The homeless.’”
— Reporter Kevin Fagan in the San Francisco Chronicle on June 10, 2004 five days after Reagan’s death.
History is biased.

Is there any wonder that Bush's approval ratings are at an all-time low?
Yeah, cause he keeps fucking up and you can only keep people so distracted.

I know. I know. There is no liberal media bias, right? Never has been, either, right? Well, here are just a few examples of said non-existent bias. I could fill this with pages and pages of the drivel, but I won't. Here is just two years of the most egregious examples.

"Cheney is a terrorist. He terrorizes our enemies abroad and innocent citizens here at home indiscriminately. Who ever thought Harry Whittington would be the answer to America’s prayers. Finally, someone who might get that lying, thieving Cheney into a courtroom to answer some direct questions."
— Actor/left-wing activist Alec Baldwin in a February 17 blog entry posted at HuffingtonPost.com. Actor. Ah yes. Good reason to take him seriously. He's not the media, he's an actor.

"There are causes worth fighting for, even if you know that you will lose. Unless you are willing to accept torture as part of a normal American political lexicon, unless you are willing to accept that leaving the Geneva Convention is fine and dandy, if you accept the expression [expansion?] of wiretapping as business as usual, the only way to express this now is to embrace the difficult and perhaps embarrassing process of impeachment."
— Actor Richard Dreyfuss in a February 16 speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Again, an actor. Doesn't concern me, isn't the media.

"He’s coming in [to Pakistan] like a drug dealer. I mean, having to sneak in like that, with the lights off, with the windows slammed shut on the plane. Is this a security question, really, or is it a problem of that government? Is it a problem that within the security service in Pakistan there are people out to hurt the President?...What message [does] this sends to the people of Pakistan? They know how the President’s coming in over there. Guess what, the leader of the greatest nation in the world, our ally in the war against terrorism, had to sneak into our country last night by cover of night."
— MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on the March 3 Hardball, asking security expert Roger Cressey and former Clinton aide David Gergen about President Bush’s Pakistan trip.Maybe because he wasn't so great there either? It's not like the president isn't secretive about sh*t. Even i expect that from him about some things.

"In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal dis-aster officials warned President Bush and his Homeland Security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans’ Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage...."
— Lead paragraph of a March 1 AP dispatch on briefings given to President Bush prior to Hurricane Katrina’s landfall, a story which provoked widespread coverage claiming the President had been warned of a levee "breach."

"In a Wednesday story, the Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his Homeland Security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing. The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking."
— An AP "clarification" released late on Friday, March 3.
Well, there were no WMD's. Just a clarification. So what? You'd rather they didn't correct themselves? Should we bring up FauX and its "projections" for the first election?

"Highlighting Saddam’s brutality nearly two years after his regime was toppled is the latest Bush effort to justify the Iraq war. But the event came on the same day the group Human Rights Watch released an annual report saying Mr. Bush may be no Saddam, but no saint either, concluding that in 2005, ‘the abuse of detainees had become a deliberate, central part of the Bush administration’s strategy of interrogating terrorist suspects.’"
— CNN’s Dana Bash on The Situation Room, January 18. I guess it's a good thing there's facts to substantiate these "little issues", isn't there?

I don’t think what happened in West Virginia is totally divorced from the K Street project. It was all about deregulation. Tom DeLay fervently and sincerely believes that every regulation — the regulations that have removed 99" percent of lead from the air, the regulations that have saved the Great Lakes — they are a burden and an onerous intrusion upon American business, and I think that what you’ve seen is Tom DeLay’s America in action."
— Columnist and PBS NewsHour panelist Mark Shields, referring to the deaths of 12 West Virginia coal miners, on Inside Washington, January 6. The cause of the mine disaster has not yet been determined.Well, as much as i <3 DeLay, this is irrelevant to your own post. And there's PLENTY to back up that assertion, anyway.

"No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we’re here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people, millions support your revolution, support your ideas and we are expressing our solidarity with you."
— Singer Harry Belafonte to Venezuela’s left-wing President Hugo Chavez during a televised rally on January 8, in a clip shown on FNC’s Hannity & Colmes the next day. So you don't like Harry Belafonte? Go beat him up or something. Seriously, you couldn't name off the top of your head his career since that banana thing. Again, he's not the media.

Reporter Brian Ross: "Mary Mapes was the woman behind the scenes, the producer who researched, wrote and put together Dan Rather’s 60 Minutes report on President Bush’s National Guard service, a report which Rather and CBS would later apologize for airing...."
Ross to Mapes: "Do you still think that story was true?"
Ex-CBS producer Mary Mapes: "The story? Absolutely."
Ross: "This seems remarkable to me that you would sit here now and say you still find that story to be up to your standards."
Mapes: "I’m perfectly willing to believe those documents are forgeries if there’s proof that I haven’t seen."
Ross: "But isn’t it the other way around? Don’t you have to prove they’re authentic?"
Mapes: "Well, I think that’s what critics of the story would say. I know more now than I did then and I think, I think they have not been proved to be false, yet."
Ross: "Have they proved to be authentic though? Isn’t that really what journalists do?"
Mapes: "No, I don’t think that’s the standard."
— ABC’s Good Morning America, November 9, 2005.
I'm glad you brought that up. The INFORMATION ITSELF has *NEVER* been refuted by Bush himself. EVER. Just the format of the info. If you like we can talk about how many times his info disappeared and reappeared during the presidential race. Especially after they had declared it "destroyed" and then somehow, miraculously "recovered" ... and then STILL not released.

"The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for President, I’ll kill myself. All we need is one more liar."
— Hearst White House columnist Helen Thomas, as quoted in the "Under the Dome" column by Albert Eisele and Jeff Dufour in The Hill newspaper, July 28, 2005. Oh well, i never heard of her either, so what? It's not like i can't find LITERALLY THOUSANDS of examples to support either side's opinion of how much an arsehole liar Bush or Cheney is. Besides, here's a lie from Cheney: it's FactCheck.org, not FactCheck.com. :D

“Senator Kerry, the gap between rich and poor is growing wider. More people are dropping into poverty. Yet the minimum wage has been stuck at, what, $5.15 an hour now for about seven years. Is it time to raise it?”
“Mr. President,...you said that if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you’d sign the legislation. But you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not?”
— Questions from CBS’s Bob Schieffer to Kerry and then Bush at the October 13, 2004 presidential debate.
I'm glad you brought this up too, since Bush got
ROYALLY PWNED in the debates. Well the first two, at least, it was a massacre. Bush did better about "feelings" - you know, the thing he actually knows something about.
Also, what did you expect? IT WAS A DEBATE! YOu want to see f*cked up, see what Bush said about McCain and how he had to suck it all up.
“I read you once took a psychological profile test, and it said the position you’re most suited for is undertaker.”
— ABC’s Claire Shipman to Vice President Cheney in an interview on the August 31, 2004 Good Morning America. Now it's just getting funny. I'm sure shooting that dude didn't help.

“Before Reagan, people sleeping in the street were so rare that, outside of skid rows, they were almost a curiosity. After eight years of Reaganomics — and the slashes in low-income housing and social welfare programs that went along with it — they were seemingly everywhere. And America had a new household term: ‘The homeless.’”
— Reporter Kevin Fagan in the San Francisco Chronicle on June 10, 2004 five days after Reagan’s death.
Again, NOTHING to do with Bush. I'm pretty convinced your giving blogbilge here and not bothering to stick to the point at all. And it isn't particularly "liberal" just because you don't support Reagan. That bullsh*t polarity mentality is what is f*cking everyone.

Is there any wonder that Bush's approval ratings are at an all-time low?It could be that people who argue in his favour can't stay on topic. I'm surprised you didn't attack Clinton more, really! ;)

EDIT:I should also apologize for taking so long. I'm tutoring my bro-in-law on the git-fiddle.
TO the point though, i'll just say that the dates that you have on here have DIRECT poll references for the time. If you weren't being disingenuous, you would have provided them simultaneously for comparison.
Otherwise, i can Google some rightwing puke and just print it and say there's conservative bias, which there obviously is.

This is always fun...


Richard Dreyfuss and Alec Baldwin? Oh man, that's a...what's the last thing anyone's seen that Dreyfuss has been in? Another Stakeout...and Alec Baldwin was in the Spongebob movie...Why this is stunning, some actors don't like Bush...what bias...


It is a fair question.


This is bias, how?


This is my favorite, the one that includes two sides of a story. I'm not sure you know what bias actually means...


To save myself some time, I'm going to just say that in order to prove bias with columnists you'd actually have to do a survey. Ann Coulter writes columns to, quoting a paragraph of her would no more prove conservative bias than quoting these proves liberal bias.


"As goes Harry Belefonte..." Name two songs by that guy without looking it up...


Actually don't want to get into this knot.


Already made my columnist entry.


Yeah, no. Need more than that, slugger.


Dumb question, granted. Bias? Not there yet, my friend.


History is biased.


Yeah, cause he keeps fucking up and you can only keep people so distracted.
Well, ya pwned me. I took too bloody long. Good post, mon capitan. *bows*

Well, ya pwned me. I took too bloody long. Good post, mon capitan. *bows*
Well, what actually needed to be said was said in your edit. Playing these quote games is a ridiculous waste of time on both sides, really. It's below even the comparisons of numbers of 'positive stories' and 'negative stories' as some sort of evidence. What becomes more and more evident is the ones who scream bias have no idea how to measure it.

Actor. Ah yes. Good reason to take him seriously. He's not the media, he's an actor.

Again, an actor. Doesn't concern me, isn't the media.

If the media report it as news, it becomes news. To say it isn't is being highly disingenuous. It doesn't matter who spouts the B.S.

Maybe because he wasn't so great there either? It's not like the president isn't secretive about sh*t. Even i expect that from him about some things.


Well, there were no WMD's. Just a clarification. So what? You'd rather they didn't correct themselves? Should we bring up FauX and its "projections" for the first election?

A very disputable conclusion. We could go on about the WMD issue forever.

I guess it's a good thing there's facts to substantiate these "little issues", isn't there?

Well, as much as i <3 DeLay, this is irrelevant to your own post. And there's PLENTY to back up that assertion, anyway.

I saw it as making political hay at the expense of a few dead miners who hadn't even quite cooled to room temperature yet. Tasteless, cruel, and false.
So you don't like Harry Belafonte? Go beat him up or something. Seriously, you couldn't name off the top of your head his career since that banana thing. Again, he's not the media.

Yet he did get a lot of press for this little bon mot, didn't he?

I'm glad you brought that up. The INFORMATION ITSELF has *NEVER* been refuted by Bush himself. EVER. Just the format of the info. If you like we can talk about how many times his info disappeared and reappeared during the presidential race. Especially after they had declared it "destroyed" and then somehow, miraculously "recovered" ... and then STILL not released.

Oh well, i never heard of her either, so what? It's not like i can't find LITERALLY THOUSANDS of examples to support either side's opinion of how much an arsehole liar Bush or Cheney is. Besides, here's a lie from Cheney: it's FactCheck.org, not FactCheck.com. :D

Nit picking details, and dodging the central issue, as per usual.

I'm glad you brought this up too, since Bush got
ROYALLY PWNED in the debates. Well the first two, at least, it was a massacre. Bush did better about "feelings" - you know, the thing he actually knows something about.
Also, what did you expect? IT WAS A DEBATE! YOu want to see f*cked up, see what Bush said about McCain and how he had to suck it all up.

A matter of interpretation. I know many people who thought that the debates exposed Kerry as the king of flip-flop.

Now it's just getting funny. I'm sure shooting that dude didn't help.

That happened about a year after this quote. It was irresponsible then, and it is irresponsible now. Hindsight is always 20-20, don't you think?

Again, NOTHING to do with Bush. I'm pretty convinced your giving blogbilge here and not bothering to stick to the point at all. And it isn't particularly "liberal" just because you don't support Reagan. That bullsh*t polarity mentality is what is f*cking everyone.

I never said this was all about Bush. You did. I said here are examples of liberal media bias.

It could be that people who argue in his favour can't stay on topic. I'm surprised you didn't attack Clinton more, really! ;)

Never mentioned Clinton, either. Not even once. Are you SURE you read the quotes?
EDIT:I should also apologize for taking so long. I'm tutoring my bro-in-law on the git-fiddle.
TO the point though, i'll just say that the dates that you have on here have DIRECT poll references for the time. If you weren't being disingenuous, you would have provided them simultaneously for comparison.
Otherwise, i can Google some rightwing puke and just print it and say there's conservative bias, which there obviously is.

Great. Find some. And post it. Until then you are just blowing smoke out of your anal orifice.

Remember--in the 1994 elections.
Yeah! Bob Dole!
But really, Bush is a moron and everybody knows it, but until the democrats get their shit together it doesn't matter. Their failure to do so is no one's fault but their own. There's no lack of support for their ideas or agendas either in the people or the media. They just can't pull it together and put out a decent cantidate. I mean, no matter what your politics you can't honestly think that Kerry was a good cantidate. If kerry were the only problem, things wouldn't be so bad; unfortunately he is just representative of the disorganization and decay of the party as a whole.
I suggest a more elegant solution. Give Bob Dole unlimited dictatorial powers over the country.

LONG LIVE BOB DOLE!!!

Yup. And I just did. Look above. Besides, if all you report is bad news, then what you'll eventually get is someone who will respond to that harbinger of doom mentality. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."-George W. Bush, Athena Performing Arts Center at Greece Athena Middle and High School Tuesday, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY

--
People win their wars *WITH* clear, decisive judgment. Not due other people talking. Indeed, consider neo-con philosophies. Just think about it a while.

EDIT:Moddamn there's too much going on at once. My apologies for incoherence of syntax/grammar in my post - at leat the unintentional stuff.

Great. Find some. And post it. Until then you are just blowing smoke out of your anal orifice.
*EDIT: Sorry i misread that. Too many people wanting my attention simultaneously.*
So, do you have issue then with CTOAN as well? Is this a flatus conference?
Further, i called you on what you posted. The smoke/flatus saturated the thread because of *YOU*, not m'self. I was the match that was lit AFTER CTOAN wafted away all the bad parts.
Besides, you're welcome to retrieve info from the Forum archives, i'm sure at least one of us has some kind of history on this.

Actor. Ah yes. Good reason to take him seriously. He's not the media, he's an actor.

Again, an actor. Doesn't concern me, isn't the media.

If the media report it as news, it becomes news. To say it isn't is being highly disingenuous. It doesn't matter who spouts the B.S.
You're fighting an uphill, LOSING battle thinking you have the sole authority to determine what credentials things have due the SOLE function of them being broadcast and received. It's not news, it's commentary. YOU are the one being disingenuous.

Maybe because he wasn't so great there either? It's not like the president isn't secretive about sh*t. Even i expect that from him about some things.


Well, there were no WMD's. Just a clarification. So what? You'd rather they didn't correct themselves? Should we bring up FauX and its "projections" for the first election?

A very disputable conclusion. We could go on about the WMD issue forever.Only until you take the conclusions of the experts and everyone involved that WASN'T siding with the admininstration's intent. Sure it's disputable, but so is dancing about architecture using this approach.

Well, as much as i <3 DeLay, this is irrelevant to your own post. And there's PLENTY to back up that assertion, anyway.

I saw it as making political hay at the expense of a few dead miners who hadn't even quite cooled to room temperature yet. Tasteless, cruel, and false.
Tasteless perhaps. Cruel, well, that also is a possibility. False, no. Look it up. I've already posted on this as well. With luck the server didn't "lose" the post like it did my "Big Oil" and "Jessica Simpson" threads. *grrr*

So you don't like Harry Belafonte? Go beat him up or something. Seriously, you couldn't name off the top of your head his career since that banana thing. Again, he's not the media.

Yet he did get a lot of press for this little bon mot, didn't he? For one day he might've. I would agree that there was some sensationalism about that, but that's understandable, given the negativity between Chavez and the administration. It was contemporary and unimportant, as MANY, MANY things are.

I'm glad you brought that up. The INFORMATION ITSELF has *NEVER* been refuted by Bush himself. EVER. Just the format of the info. If you like we can talk about how many times his info disappeared and reappeared during the presidential race. Especially after they had declared it "destroyed" and then somehow, miraculously "recovered" ... and then STILL not released.

Oh well, i never heard of her either, so what? It's not like i can't find LITERALLY THOUSANDS of examples to support either side's opinion of how much an arsehole liar Bush or Cheney is. Besides, here's a lie from Cheney: it's FactCheck.org, not FactCheck.com.

Nit picking details, and dodging the central issue, as per usual.Not even close. Praise from Caesar?

I'm glad you brought this up too, since Bush got
ROYALLY PWNED in the debates. Well the first two, at least, it was a massacre. Bush did better about "feelings" - you know, the thing he actually knows something about.
Also, what did you expect? IT WAS A DEBATE! YOu want to see f*cked up, see what Bush said about McCain and how he had to suck it all up.

A matter of interpretation. I know many people who thought that the debates exposed Kerry as the king of flip-flop.
I'll take the bolded part as your concession. I'm sure you'll understand. ;)
Here ya go on that topic. And remember, YOU ASKED FOR IT:
President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: "I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.

1. Social Security Surplus

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

2. Patient's Right to Sue

GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]

...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]

...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]

3. Tobacco Buyout

BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]

4. North Korea

BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]

5. Abortion

BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

6. OPEC

BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]

...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

7. Iraq Funding

BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony

BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]

...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]

9. Science

BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

10. Ahmed Chalabi

BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]

...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

11. Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

12. Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

13. Free Trade

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

14. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

15. The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... ", Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide."

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

16. WMD Commission

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

20. Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

21. Nation Building

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

23. U.N. Resolution

BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

25. Campaign Finance

BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

26. 527s

Bush opposes restrictions on 527s: "I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising [in McCain Feingold], which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import." [President Bush, 3/27/02]

…Bush says 527s bad for system: "I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it…I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold." [President Bush, 8/23/04]

27. Medical Records

Bush says medical records must remain private: "I believe that we must protect…the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private." [President Bush, 4/12/01]

…Bush says patients' histories are not confidntial: The Justice Department…asserts that patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." [BusinessWeek, 4/30/04]

28. Timelines For Dictators

Bush sets timeline for Saddam: "If Iraq does not accept the terms within a week of passage or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the resolution authorizes 'all necessary means' to force compliance--in other words, a military attack." [LA Times, 10/3/02]

…Bush says he's against timelines: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators." [President Bush, 8/27/04]

29. The Great Lakes

Bush wants to divert great lakes: "Even though experts say 'diverting any water from the Great Lakes region sets a bad precedent' Bush 'said he wants to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien about piping water to parched states in the west and southwest.'– [AP, 7/19/01]

Bush says he'll never divert Great Lakes: "We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin...My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water." [President Bush, 8/16/04]

30. Winning The War On Terror

Bush claims he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04]

…Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]

…Bush says he will win the war on terror: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/31/04]


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

Now it's just getting funny. I'm sure shooting that dude didn't help.

That happened about a year after this quote. It was irresponsible then, and it is irresponsible now. Hindsight is always 20-20, don't you think?
Not with my hind cataracts! :D
Besides, i was referring to his overall public image. I'm saying shooting the dude didn't help.

Again, NOTHING to do with Bush. I'm pretty convinced your giving blogbilge here and not bothering to stick to the point at all. And it isn't particularly "liberal" just because you don't support Reagan. That bullsh*t polarity mentality is what is f*cking everyone.

I never said this was all about Bush. You did. I said here are examples of liberal media bias.And you FINISHED IT WITH THIS:
[I][B]Is there any wonder that Bush's approval ratings are at an all-time low?

It could be that people who argue in his favour can't stay on topic. I'm surprised you didn't attack Clinton more, really!


Never mentioned Clinton, either. Not even once. Are you SURE you read the quotes? Funny, m'self AND CTOAN did read the quotes, as evidenced by our similar responses. Perhaps both of us have more than one type of cataract :D

More to the point, it would appear the assessment that <sarcasm> doesn't translate well on line is, sadly, all too true.

EDIT:I should also apologize for taking so long. I'm tutoring my bro-in-law on the git-fiddle.
TO the point though, i'll just say that the dates that you have on here have DIRECT poll references for the time. If you weren't being disingenuous, you would have provided them simultaneously for comparison.
Otherwise, i can Google some rightwing puke and just print it and say there's conservative bias, which there obviously is.

Great. Find some. And post it. Until then you are just blowing smoke out of your anal orifice.Oh am i? You have some absolutely delectable irony of your essence. So, you're called, and now you want US on the defensive? How 'bout we stick with what we got here, eh?

Tick, tock.

I could copy and paste quibbits from Drudge report (wouldn't do that to Matt), Fox news, Coulter, and probably half the news papers in America that "prove" bias.
The fact is they are out of context, and those that are are opinion, not news. Blogs are opinion, not news. Columns are opinion, not news.
The fact is, most of the media that actually presents news (CNN.com, Foxnews.com, MSNBC.com) are pretty unbiased. Do they have their leanings? Yes. Everything and everyone does. But they keep it in check pretty well.

In response to the media broadcasting only the negative, well, two points.
a) negative sells better. They did the same for Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Nixon...you name it, they did it.
b) You work with what you have. So far, the media has been very slow to attack Bush, as far as I'm concerned. Additionally, polls are usually not inherently biased (if they are professionally done, as this one was)

snip

Like... damn. My eyes hurt just scanning through that post. :p

I know... I'm quite frustrated with my state, considering we're the ones that got him elected and now hate him the most of all the states that he won >.>

In fairness, it may not have been you so much as Diebold.

In fairness, it may not have been you so much as Diebold.
Much as I dislike and distrust Diebold, I think Ken Blackwell had more to do with it than they did. There are multiple ways to legally, yet unethically swing an election. You can do what Katherine Harris did--institute voter purges that wipe out tens of thousands of eligible voters and give them no recourse on election day. Or you can do what Blackwell did, which was put fewer voting machines and polling places per capita in Democratic areas than in Republican areas, which makes voting lines longer. You can set the system up so that it responds more slowly to machine problems in predominantly Democratic districts than it does to similar problems in predominantly Republican districts. And there's a whole slew of other ways to fuck with the system.

The problem isn't the Republicans, either--it's the system that puts oversight of elections in such blatantly partisan hands, regardless of the party in charge. If I could run it, I'd stop gerrymandering as much as possible, set up competitive districts throughout my state so that no one runs in a "safe" seat, set up polling places on a strictly per capita basis, with enough resources so that no party gets an unfair advantage, and instruct the locals running the places on the ground, when there's a doubt about a voter's eligibility, err on the side of the voter, not the party. If that means we have to count and check out thousands of provisional votes, so be it. The important thing is that the vote be counted accurately and fairly.

Much as I dislike and distrust Diebold, I think Ken Blackwell had more to do with it than they did. There are multiple ways to legally, yet unethically swing an election. You can do what Katherine Harris did--institute voter purges that wipe out tens of thousands of eligible voters and give them no recourse on election day. Or you can do what Blackwell did, which was put fewer voting machines and polling places per capita in Democratic areas than in Republican areas, which makes voting lines longer. You can set the system up so that it responds more slowly to machine problems in predominantly Democratic districts than it does to similar problems in predominantly Republican districts. And there's a whole slew of other ways to fuck with the system.

The problem isn't the Republicans, either--it's the system that puts oversight of elections in such blatantly partisan hands, regardless of the party in charge. If I could run it, I'd stop gerrymandering as much as possible, set up competitive districts throughout my state so that no one runs in a "safe" seat, set up polling places on a strictly per capita basis, with enough resources so that no party gets an unfair advantage, and instruct the locals running the places on the ground, when there's a doubt about a voter's eligibility, err on the side of the voter, not the party. If that means we have to count and check out thousands of provisional votes, so be it. The important thing is that the vote be counted accurately and fairly.
Excellent post. This definitely adjusts my respect for you in the positive manner. *bows*

My English professor still thinks they can pull it off.
What does your English professor think they are trying to do?

Like... damn. My eyes hurt just scanning through that post. :p
Man, after seeing the so-called "news" of people raising sandals into the air at his public statements, i'd had enough bullsh*t from people with their complete lack of personal critical thinking and reflection.
As i said, he'd asked for it. And the tick, tock ... that of course is indicitive of his brevity.

Further, an obvious example came to mind today, about right-wing bias, that should probably get mentioned. I may or may not go into detail at some point, but not here. Other than mentioning
Cal Thomas and his involvement with FauX "news" while simultaneously running "Values Through Media", which on each daily broadcast, asks for "tax deductible contributions" to help keep his political commentary up and running with other people's money. And of course, Thomas gets his spot with FauX.

I'll take the bolded part as your concession. I'm sure you'll understand. ;)
Here ya go on that topic. And remember, YOU ASKED FOR IT:
President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: "I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.

1. Social Security Surplus

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

2. Patient's Right to Sue

GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]

...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]

...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]

3. Tobacco Buyout

BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]

4. North Korea

BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]

5. Abortion

BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

6. OPEC

BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]

...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

7. Iraq Funding

BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony

BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]

...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]

9. Science

BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

10. Ahmed Chalabi

BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]

...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

11. Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

12. Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

13. Free Trade

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

14. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

15. The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

16. WMD Commission

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

20. Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

21. Nation Building

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

23. U.N. Resolution

BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

25. Campaign Finance

BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

26. 527s

Bush opposes restrictions on 527s: "I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising [in McCain Feingold], which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import." [President Bush, 3/27/02]

…Bush says 527s bad for system: "I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it…I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold." [President Bush, 8/23/04]

27. Medical Records

Bush says medical records must remain private: "I believe that we must protect…the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private." [President Bush, 4/12/01]

…Bush says patients' histories are not confidntial: The Justice Department…asserts that patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." [BusinessWeek, 4/30/04]

28. Timelines For Dictators

Bush sets timeline for Saddam: "If Iraq does not accept the terms within a week of passage or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the resolution authorizes 'all necessary means' to force compliance--in other words, a military attack." [LA Times, 10/3/02]

…Bush says he's against timelines: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators." [President Bush, 8/27/04]

29. The Great Lakes

Bush wants to divert great lakes: "Even though experts say 'diverting any water from the Great Lakes region sets a bad precedent' Bush 'said he wants to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien about piping water to parched states in the west and southwest.'– [AP, 7/19/01]

Bush says he'll never divert Great Lakes: "We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin...My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water." [President Bush, 8/16/04]

30. Winning The War On Terror

Bush claims he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04]

…Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]

…Bush says he will win the war on terror: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/31/04]

Straughn with super move on MyopicAmnesia.

http://www.shoryuken.com/features/cvs2/ShinShoRyuKenKO.jpg

SHIN- (CRACK!!) SHORYUKEN!! (THWACK-WHACK-SMACK!!)

Fatality.

:D

Isn't this really the people saying 64% approve of what he's NOT doing? When you look at it like that he's doing pretty good. I mean the economy is good, right? What more do you want?

Straughn with super move on MyopicAmnesia.

http://www.shoryuken.com/features/cvs2/ShinShoRyuKenKO.jpg

SHIN- (CRACK!!) SHORYUKEN!! (THWACK-WHACK-SMACK!!)

Fatality.

:D

Hello again, dear friend

I just made a comment that Kerry had a tendency to flip-flop a lot during the debates and the campaign preceding it. But this was kinda off topic. I did not at any point state that Bush is not without his faults. Then you went at this Narcisstic side trip with a dedication and focus and intensity that you rarely see equaled outside of a striped *ss baboon fondling himself to the latest issue of Striped *ss Baboon Digest. And, unfortunately, so off topic that you took a hard right into la-la land. Brought along a passenger too, I see. I understand that this is very important to you, as this obviously took a lot of time to gather, and you obviously had it saved for just such an occasion. Congratulations. It's nice to see that your reason for existence has been validated. I will respond with a long, long, (did I forget to say long?) excruciatingly long response when I get more time to play.

I will say this as many times as it takes to get it through your neanderthal, thick as a McDonald's milkshake craniums. I do not worship George Bush. I do not attribute high and lofty ideals to him. I do not believe he can do no wrong. You are in short, barking up the wrong tree. I am not going to defend Dub just for fun, or to play devils advocate, unless I believe in whatever the issue happens to be. And if he turns out to be right, I will say it then. But if wrong, I will say that as well.

Still a better man for the job than that indecisive heiress gold digger that wanted to be president though.

As far as I'm concerned, Straughn not only did not score a K.O., he just merely took Gauthier out with a wild swing while he was preaching to his sycophantic choirboy.

Much as I dislike and distrust Diebold, I think Ken Blackwell had more to do with it than they did. There are multiple ways to legally, yet unethically swing an election. You can do what Katherine Harris did--institute voter purges that wipe out tens of thousands of eligible voters and give them no recourse on election day. Or you can do what Blackwell did, which was put fewer voting machines and polling places per capita in Democratic areas than in Republican areas, which makes voting lines longer. You can set the system up so that it responds more slowly to machine problems in predominantly Democratic districts than it does to similar problems in predominantly Republican districts. And there's a whole slew of other ways to fuck with the system.

The problem isn't the Republicans, either--it's the system that puts oversight of elections in such blatantly partisan hands, regardless of the party in charge. If I could run it, I'd stop gerrymandering as much as possible, set up competitive districts throughout my state so that no one runs in a "safe" seat, set up polling places on a strictly per capita basis, with enough resources so that no party gets an unfair advantage, and instruct the locals running the places on the ground, when there's a doubt about a voter's eligibility, err on the side of the voter, not the party. If that means we have to count and check out thousands of provisional votes, so be it. The important thing is that the vote be counted accurately and fairly.
You need to get rid of the voting machines and go to a simple paper ballot and well scrutinized polling stations/vote counting.

That situation with Katherine Harris just makes the US look bad....really bad. The fiasco in Ohio also looks bad. :(

Man, after seeing the so-called "news" of people raising sandals into the air at his public statements, i'd had enough bullsh*t from people with their complete lack of personal critical thinking and reflection.
As i said, he'd asked for it. And the tick, tock ... that of course is indicitive of his brevity.

Further, an obvious example came to mind today, about right-wing bias, that should probably get mentioned. I may or may not go into detail at some point, but not here. Other than mentioning
Cal Thomas and his involvement with FauX "news" while simultaneously running "Values Through Media", which on each daily broadcast, asks for "tax deductible contributions" to help keep his political commentary up and running with other people's money. And of course, Thomas gets his spot with FauX.

Let's see if you can come up with any examples of right wing bias that does not include Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh or Fox News whilst attempting to make a case for this. Having one or two examples does not a proof of a media bias make. I, on the other hand, can go for hours without repeating the same source.

Doesn't Alan Colmes still work for Fox News? Just checking.

Goodnight all. (tick, tock.)

Hello again, dear friend

I just made a comment that Kerry had a tendency to flip-flop a lot during the debates and the campaign preceding it. But this was kinda off topic. I did not at any point state that Bush is not without his faults. Then you went at this Narcisstic side trip with a dedication and focus and intensity that you rarely see equaled outside of a striped *ss baboon fondling himself to the latest issue of Striped *ss Baboon Digest. And, unfortunately, so off topic that you took a hard right into la-la land. Brought along a passenger too, I see. I understand that this is very important to you, as this obviously took a lot of time to gather, and you obviously had it saved for just such an occasion. Congratulations. It's nice to see that your reason for existence has been validated. I will respond with a long, long, (did I forget to say long?)excruciatingly long response when I get more time to play.
This is a little pot and kettle, don't you think? Considering your listing post? Isn't it more likely that he pulled it off some site just as you likely pulled your little list off a web site? Either way, glass houses to be chidding someone with a list when you started the list war.

I will say this as many times as it takes to get it through your neanderthal, thick as a McDonald's milkshake craniums. I do not worship George Bush. I do not attribute high and lofty ideals to him. I do not believe he can do no wrong. You are in short, barking up the wrong tree. I am not going to defend Dub just for fun, or to play devils advocate, unless I believe in whatever the issue happens to be. And if he turns out to be right, I will say it then. But if wrong, I will say that as well.
Since this hasn't really been the topic of conversation your bile seems misplaced.

Still a better man for the job than that indecisive heiress gold digger that wanted to be president though.
Now there is something we can debate, but your choice of adjectives does not give me high hopes for the quality of it...

As far as I'm concerned, Straughn not only did not score a K.O., he just merely took Gauthier out with a wild swing while he was preaching to his sycophantic choirboy.
You put up a notion of flip flopper as opposed to Bush, he listed evidence of Bush being inconsistant within his own term. Claim vs. Evidence, evidence wins. Lots of evidence against unsupported claim, K.O. You don't have to acknowledge it. I'm sure a lot of boxers get up after being knocked the hell out and still think the fights on...

Let's see if you can come up with any examples of right wing bias that does not include Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh or Fox News whilst attempting to make a case for this. Having one or two examples does not a bias make.

Doesn't Alan Colmes work for Fox News? Just checking.

Goodnight all.
I give you AM radio. Just for starters.

Hello again, dear friend

I just made a comment that Kerry had a tendency to flip-flop a lot during the debates and the campaign preceding it. But this was kinda off topic. I did not at any point state that Bush is not without his faults. Then you went at this Narcisstic side trip with a dedication and focus and intensity that you rarely see equaled outside of a striped *ss baboon fondling himself to the latest issue of Striped *ss Baboon Digest. And, unfortunately, so off topic that you took a hard right into la-la land. Brought along a passenger too, I see. I understand that this is very important to you, as this obviously took a lot of time to gather, and you obviously had it saved for just such an occasion. Congratulations. It's nice to see that your reason for existence has been validated. I will respond with a long, long, (did I forget to say long?)excruciatingly long response when I get more time to play.

I will say this as many times as it takes to get it through your neanderthal, thick as a McDonald's milkshake craniums. I do not worship George Bush. I do not attribute high and lofty ideals to him. I do not believe he can do no wrong. You are in short, barking up the wrong tree. I am not going to defend Dub just for fun, or to play devils advocate, unless I believe in whatever the issue happens to be. And if he turns out to be right, I will say it then. But if wrong, I will say that as well.

Still a better man for the job than that indecisive heiress gold digger that wanted to be president though.

As far as I'm concerned, Straughn not only did not score a K.O., he just merely took Gauthier out with a wild swing while he was preaching to his sycophantic choirboy.

*Clap Clap Clap* You know how to use a thesaurus and write like Masterpiece Theater![SARCASM]

But now a little more seriously. I can understand how you're trying to salvage some modicum of pride after having one of your major argument shot down by documented truth and so have to resort to a pathetic ad-hominem characterisation that *had* to include some crude masturbation reference.

It's okay. Everybody gets owned eventually, even you. And if calling me a masturbating baboon soothes your hurt fragile ego, it's perfectly fine.

By the way, Bush and his supporters/worshippers made Kerry's supposed flip-flopping one of the major mudslingings against him during the 04 Campaign. Straughn merely pointed out the biggest hypocrisy especially when Bush's flip-flopping has directly affected and damaged United States national policy and world standing far more than Kerry's ever did... and yet they never think once about that when they chant "Flip Flop!" in reference to Kerry.

Anyone who voted for Bush- a time-proven incompetent and fundamentalist puppet- because they didn't like Kerry's public image rather than take a chance at a fresh perspective in the Oval Office- has no right to bitch about how Shrub is screwing things up. They made their own beds and they damn well better lay in it along with everyone in a Blue State.

I give you AM radio. Just for starters.

Vague, and evasive. Could ya be more specific.....?

But now a little more seriously. I can understand how you're trying to salvage some modicum of pride after having one of your major argument shot down by documented truth and so have to resort to a pathetic ad-hominem characterisation that *had* to include some crude masturbation reference.

Save your pocket psychoanalysis. Go back and read the original post again. Major argument? Hardly. It was only a small part of a much larger post, regarding left wing media bias. Just the one he decided to seize on with his treaste, since he had the material at hand, ready to go.

Save your pocket psychoanalysis. Go back and read the original post again. Major argument? Hardly. It was only a small part of a much larger post, regarding left wing media bias. Just the one he decided to seize on with his treaste, since he had the material at hand, ready to go.

Oh please, you're the one who started the pocket psychoanalysis with your creative Masturbating Baboon remark.

:upyours:

Left Wing Media Bias. That old myth again.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2

How does Bush get a relative pass from a "Left Wing Media" that never made serious critique of his questionable policies over his two terms until it culminated in even his spin doctors not being able to conceal the debacle that Iraq and "The War on Terror" is becoming?

Vague, and evasive. Could ya be more specific.....?
It's not my game, so no, not really. The bulk of talk radio, the bread and butter of AM, is conservative talk show hosts. That was the whole reason behind Air America.

But really, while close these aren't an effective way to really measure bias. So no, I'm not going to start mining the internet for a list of consevative talk show hosts on AM radio. If you're going to argue that there AM radio isn't dominated by the conservative voice you do run the risk of looking like you're arguing that the sky isn't blue, but it's not a big enough deal to spend the time on google trying to prove the obvious.

There are things like this:
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/original/punditchart.jpg
that are closer to the mark.
source (http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/television/group_sunday_shows_skewed_32372.asp)

Utah, Wyoming and Alabama. Its good to know where the last remnants of Bush's neonservative lunacy supporters are.

FACT: According to recent polls, [CNN] the more educated you are the less likely you are to approve of Bush.

What bothers me most about these low approval ratings is the fact that anyone with the ability to think for himself way back before the Iraq invasion, already knew the exponential growth in problems the Iraq invasion would cause at this particular moment in history. My question is this... What took you so god damn long???

Took the USA a while to work this out ...

No. It's more the utter lack of an alternative.

People are afraid of nightmares. ( WMD, Osama, whatever )
Nightmares may be utterly devoid of... substance.
But regardless of substance, those who are afraid of nightmares want something done about it.

As long as the Dems have nothing to say but: 'we don't believe in nightmares', the Dem. Party simply is not acceptable as an alternative.

The party may be right - but that does not stop them from being out of touch with the 60 percent or so of Americans who ARE afraid of nightmares.

Sorry i was gone a little while, did i miss anything? ;)

*props to Gauthier
and
Cannot think of a name*

I'm gonna sig a few of you, if you don't mind. That was beautiful. *wipes a tear*

People have to reelect the guy and then decide they don't like him after all. Really aggravating.

Perhaps there was something wrong with the election......remember the exit polls.......

Enjoy :D

I find it amusing that people still claim that there were "voting irregularities" in the 2004 election. Trust me - if anyone on the Democratic side felt that there were legitimate irregularities, they'd still be in court today trying to overturn the election.

There are always errors in elections. Its a fact of life. But rarely, if ever, do they result in an election being overturned. Even in 2000 it didn't happen. As for going to strictly paper ballots, they are actually worse than machine or computer ballots because they take longer to process and are easier to fake. Add to the fact that we expect election returns the day of the election, and there's no way to go back to a paper ballot only system.

Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet, and he deserves them. He's done a miserable job lately.

I think it's amusing how much of the tin-foil-hat type of arguments the Canadians on here buy into. It's kind of funny.

I find it amusing that people still claim that there were "voting irregularities" in the 2004 election. Trust me - if anyone on the Democratic side felt that there were legitimate irregularities, they'd still be in court today trying to overturn the election.
There were unquestionably irregularities in the 2004 election, especially in Ohio--just because there were irregularities doesn't mean that there were actionable violations of election law. Under Ohio law, the SecState has the power to set up the stuff I talked about earlier--the number of voting machines at polling places, etc.--which can unquestionably swing an election. Not illegal, but certainly subverting the "will of the people.

It's not my game, so no, not really. The bulk of talk radio, the bread and butter of AM, is conservative talk show hosts. That was the whole reason behind Air America.

But really, while close these aren't an effective way to really measure bias. So no, I'm not going to start mining the internet for a list of consevative talk show hosts on AM radio. If you're going to argue that there AM radio isn't dominated by the conservative voice you do run the risk of looking like you're arguing that the sky isn't blue, but it's not a big enough deal to spend the time on google trying to prove the obvious.

There are things like this:
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/original/punditchart.jpg
that are closer to the mark.
source (http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/television/group_sunday_shows_skewed_32372.asp)

I had a look at your link. My comment was really about more the television and print media, however, AM radio's conservative overall bent is actually a vaild point. Although your own chart you linked to only puts the percentage at 56%

The only thing that chart shows is that conservative talk radio is bigger in Washington, really. The assertion in the article that NBC's Meet The Press could be considered a "conservative" talk show was so ludicrous it made me spew my soft drink all over my keyboard. But if all you are trying to say with your post is that AM talk radio today is of a predominantly conservative bent, even on a nationwide basis, you are probably correct. I'll give you that. But.....

You ever wonder why? Because it sells. People like it. It is more popular in most major markets than its' liberal talk opposition. If conservative talk radio was unpopular, you would see less of it than liberal talk radio. The free market would have its' say and it would quietly disappear. But it is not. Far from it. By your own admission, it is thriving. The reason why Air America is primarily only available on satellite radio is because, with the exception of a very few markets, it is simply not very popular. Moreover, it is in financial trouble and bleeding red ink from every conceivable orifice.

Thanks for helping me out.

The following article can be found at the National Review website.


Air America’s Year of Decline

The liberal network scores its lowest-ever ratings.
The latest radio ratings are in, and they show continued bad news for Air America, the liberal talk-radio network featuring Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Janeane Garofolo, and others.
While it is difficult to pinpoint Air America's ratings nationally — it is on the air in about 50 stations across the country, and has been on some of them for just the last few months — it is possible to measure the network's performance in the nation's number-one market, New York City.
The new Arbitron ratings for Winter 2005, which covers January, February, and March, show that WLIB, the station which carries Air America in New York, won a 1.2-percent share of all listeners 12 years and older. That is down one tenth of one point from the station's 1.3 percent share in Winter 2004, the last period when it aired its old format of Caribbean music and talk.
Air America debuted on March 31, 2004. In the network's first quarter on the air, Spring of 2004, which covered April, May, and June, Air America won a 1.3-percent share of the market audience. That number rose slightly to 1.4 percent in the Summer 2004 July/August/September period, and fell back to 1.2 percent in the Fall 2004 October/November/December period, where it remains today.
Those numbers are, again, for all listeners 12 years and older. Air America executives, however, often point to the network's performance among listeners 25 to 54 years of age, the preferred demographic target for radio advertisers. But in that area, too, Air America is struggling.
Between the hours of 10 A.M. and 3 P.M., the period that includes Al Franken's program, Air America drew a 1.4-percent share of the New York audience aged 25 to 54 in Winter 2005. That number is the latest in a nearly year-long decline. In Spring of 2004, Air America's first quarter on the air, it drew a 2.2-percent share of the audience. That rose to 2.3 percent in the Summer of 2004, then fell to 1.6 percent in the Fall of 2004, and is now 1.4 percent — Air America's lowest-ever quarterly rating in that time and demographic slot.
The ratings also show WABC radio, which airs Rush Limbaugh, consistently beating Air America in New York City even though Franken had at one time claimed to be beating the conservative host there. In the 10 a.m. to 3 P.M. period in the Winter of 2005, WABC (and Limbaugh) won 2.7 percent of the audience to Air America's 1.4 percent. In Spring 2004, WABC beat Air America 2.7 percent to 2.2 percent. In Summer 2004, WABC won 2.7 percent to 2.3 percent. In Fall 2004, WABC won 3.6 percent to 1.6 percent.
That last number surprised some observers because it showed Air America faltering in October and November 2004, the period when the presidential election was reaching its finish and political passions were presumably at their highest. But even then, Air America's decline continued. And now, it has fallen even farther.
— Byron York

I had a look at your link. My comment was really about more the television and print media, however, AM radio's conservative overall bent is actually a vaild point. Although your own chart you linked to only puts the percentage at 56%

The only thing that chart shows is that conservative talk radio is bigger in Washington, really. The assertion in the article that NBC's Meet The Press could be considered a "conservative" talk show was so ludicrous it made me spew my soft drink all over my keyboard. But if all you are trying to say with your post is that AM talk radio today is of a predominantly conservative bent, even on a nationwide basis, you are probably correct. I'll give you that. But.....
God dammit...you didn't read the link very closely. Go back, figure out where you fucked up. We'll wait. It's a big one-one that you could have gotten by looking at the title of the graphic, so...take your time...

You ever wonder why? Because it sells. People like it. It is more popular in most major markets than its' liberal talk opposition. If conservative talk radio was unpopular, you would see less of it than liberal talk radio. The free market would have its' say and it would quietly disappear. But it is not. Far from it. By your own admission, it is thriving. The reason why Air America is primarily only available on satellite radio is because, with the exception of a very few markets, it is simply not very popular. Moreover, it is in financial trouble and bleeding red ink from every conceivable orifice.

Thanks for helping me out.

The following article can be found at the National Review website.


Air America’s Year of Decline

The liberal network scores its lowest-ever ratings.
The latest radio ratings are in, and they show continued bad news for Air America, the liberal talk-radio network featuring Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Janeane Garofolo, and others.
While it is difficult to pinpoint Air America's ratings nationally — it is on the air in about 50 stations across the country, and has been on some of them for just the last few months — it is possible to measure the network's performance in the nation's number-one market, New York City.
The new Arbitron ratings for Winter 2005, which covers January, February, and March, show that WLIB, the station which carries Air America in New York, won a 1.2-percent share of all listeners 12 years and older. That is down one tenth of one point from the station's 1.3 percent share in Winter 2004, the last period when it aired its old format of Caribbean music and talk.
Air America debuted on March 31, 2004. In the network's first quarter on the air, Spring of 2004, which covered April, May, and June, Air America won a 1.3-percent share of the market audience. That number rose slightly to 1.4 percent in the Summer 2004 July/August/September period, and fell back to 1.2 percent in the Fall 2004 October/November/December period, where it remains today.
Those numbers are, again, for all listeners 12 years and older. Air America executives, however, often point to the network's performance among listeners 25 to 54 years of age, the preferred demographic target for radio advertisers. But in that area, too, Air America is struggling.
Between the hours of 10 A.M. and 3 P.M., the period that includes Al Franken's program, Air America drew a 1.4-percent share of the New York audience aged 25 to 54 in Winter 2005. That number is the latest in a nearly year-long decline. In Spring of 2004, Air America's first quarter on the air, it drew a 2.2-percent share of the audience. That rose to 2.3 percent in the Summer of 2004, then fell to 1.6 percent in the Fall of 2004, and is now 1.4 percent — Air America's lowest-ever quarterly rating in that time and demographic slot.
The ratings also show WABC radio, which airs Rush Limbaugh, consistently beating Air America in New York City even though Franken had at one time claimed to be beating the conservative host there. In the 10 a.m. to 3 P.M. period in the Winter of 2005, WABC (and Limbaugh) won 2.7 percent of the audience to Air America's 1.4 percent. In Spring 2004, WABC beat Air America 2.7 percent to 2.2 percent. In Summer 2004, WABC won 2.7 percent to 2.3 percent. In Fall 2004, WABC won 3.6 percent to 1.6 percent.
That last number surprised some observers because it showed Air America faltering in October and November 2004, the period when the presidential election was reaching its finish and political passions were presumably at their highest. But even then, Air America's decline continued. And now, it has fallen even farther.
— Byron York
Just to be clear, have we switched from "Media has a liberal bias" to "It has a conservative bias because it sells?" I just want to make sure what goalpost I'm aiming at. (I'll take the hit that I was the first to change subjects a little...even if you missed the turn...)

As for The National Review attempting to dance on the grave of Air America...first-start ups have problems. Especially very large ones. Not to be unexpected. There are any number of factors that could and have gone into thier troubles. Forgive me if I don't take The National Review's assessment of what that is. Conservative's here have been trying to dance on Air America's grave since it was announced.

I find it amusing that people still claim that there were "voting irregularities" in the 2004 election. Trust me - if anyone on the Democratic side felt that there were legitimate irregularities, they'd still be in court today trying to overturn the election.

The only irregularities of the 2004 election was the fact that Bean-brain-Bush won and that the DP couldn't produce a decent candidate, as usual.


I think it's amusing how much of the tin-foil-hat type of arguments the Canadians on here buy into. It's kind of funny.
Oh the irony... Meanwhile nearly 50% of Americans today, still think Saddam had something to do 9/11. Now that's what I call funny looking tin-foil-hat.

Maybe you americans ar'nt as idiotic and inbred as people think...
Meh.
You've all ruined your credability tho.
we still hate you.
but we might forgive you ;)

VOTE DEMOCRATS NEXT TIME.

From SUSA (http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateBushApproval060315Net.htm).

George W. Bush has approval ratings above fifty percent in 3 states--that is not a typo. Only Utah, Wyoming and Alabama have him above 50%, with Utah the leader at 55%. Idaho is 4th with Bush at 50%. Only seven states have Bush with a net approval rating--the four above, along with Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Nebraska.

Everywhere else, he's in the negatives. Among the states that he carried in 2004, he's the least popular in Ohio, where he has a 34% approval rating compared to a 64% disapproval rating, and he's most loathed in Massachussetts, where his split is 26-71.

So when will the press come out and say openly what everyone else already seems to know--that Bush is flat out unpopular right now? Hell, when will the Democrats as a party stop acting like it would be a bad move to challenge him and his party openly? Where I come from, if you've got the bully on the ground, you kick him in the ribs. The Democrats need to do some kicking of their own.
Whoa... looks like there's actually a shoud of sanity left in the US :D

Most of the media only puts on air what the government (and its supporting corporations) tell it to, so you can wait a long time for any news on this appearing... :rolleyes:

As for going to strictly paper ballots, they are actually worse than machine or computer ballots because they take longer to process and are easier to fake. Add to the fact that we expect election returns the day of the election, and there's no way to go back to a paper ballot only system.
We use paper ballots in Canada and we have the results in hours.

How long did it take to sort out the US election in 2000? Only 36 days? Sounds like a superior system to me. :rolleyes:

What went wrong in Ohio? A 102 page document prepared by the US House of Representatives. (http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf)

2004 United States election voting controversies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies)

Why Recount Ohio? (http://www.iwantmyvote.com/recount/whyitmatters/map.html)

This stuff shouldn't be happening in the US?

VOTE DEMOCRATS NEXT TIME.


Here here!!

We use paper ballots in Canada and we have the results in hours.

How long did it take to sort out the US election in 2000? Only 36 days? Sounds like a superior system to me. :rolleyes: That puts even Liberia to shame. And the recount was only in Florida.

There were unquestionably irregularities in the 2004 election, especially in Ohio--just because there were irregularities doesn't mean that there were actionable violations of election law. Under Ohio law, the SecState has the power to set up the stuff I talked about earlier--the number of voting machines at polling places, etc.--which can unquestionably swing an election. Not illegal, but certainly subverting the "will of the people.

The Secretary of State in Ohio is an elected position. If the the people believe that their will was subverted, they can elect someone else.

Again, if there were enough irregularities that it could have made a difference in the election, Kerry would have kept fighting. Bush won in 2004 with a majority of the electoral college and a majority of the popular vote, unlike in 2000.

As I said before, there are errors in every election. I'm sure there were errors in Ohio. But the margin of victory for Bush there was high enough that the Democrats didn't force the issue.

If you're an American and you worry about election fraud, I'd suggest you volunteer to be a poll watcher next election.

The only irregularities of the 2004 election was the fact that Bean-brain-Bush won and that the DP couldn't produce a decent candidate, as usual.

If that's "as usual", then I don't think you can consider it an irregularity.

Oh the irony... Meanwhile nearly 50% of Americans today, still think Saddam had something to do 9/11. Now that's what I call funny looking tin-foil-hat.

I think its far more reasonable, based on what our government has insinuated, to think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Isn't that one of your complaints?

But I don't see anyone putting into anyone's head the idea that Diebold swung the election for Bush, or any of the other ridiculous conspiracy theories that get thrown around on these forums by non-Americans who can't accept the fact that people could have liked Bush at one point enough to elect him twice.

I think its far more reasonable, based on what our government has insinuated, to think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Isn't that one of your complaints? That those Americans have swallowed whatever their government shoved down their throat? Yes it is one of my complaints.

But I don't see anyone putting into anyone's head the idea that Diebold swung the election for Bush, or any of the other ridiculous conspiracy theories that get thrown around on these forums by non-Americans who can't accept the fact that people could have liked Bush at one point enough to elect him twice.
I don't even know who Diebold is. 04 was a fair election as far as I'm concerned. I haven't bitched about 00 in quite a few years. Its spilled and dried milk.

If that's "as usual", then I don't think you can consider it an irregularity.
In case you haven't noticed I'm using the word "irregularity" as a metaphor for unfortunate.

We use paper ballots in Canada and we have the results in hours.

There are 150 million registered voters in the US. That's 120 million more registered voters than you have people in your entire country.

How long did it take to sort out the US election in 2000? Only 36 days? Sounds like a superior system to me. :rolleyes:

Don't play dumb. You know full well that the vast majority of the country had all their votes tabulated in one night. Florida did also.

What went wrong in Ohio? A 102 page document prepared by the US House of Representatives. (http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf)

Nice try. That's a partisan document prepared by the House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff.

Like I said before, there are always issues in every election. But rarely does it rise to the level where it affects the results of the election.

Its still funny to me - the only people who seem to legitimately think that Bush stole the '04 election are conspiracy theorists and Canadians.

In case you haven't noticed I'm using the word "irregularity" as a metaphor for unfortunate.

I'm sorry. I assumed you were using it by its actual definition.

There are 150 million registered voters in the US. That's 120 million more registered voters than you have people in your entire country.
The recount was in Florida only. 15 million in population. I'm guessing 8 milllion voters.

The recount was in Florida only. 15 million in population. I'm guessing 8 milllion voters.

You're missing the point. Canuck was saying that Canada doesn't have a problem using paper ballots and they get their returns in the same night. I'm saying that that may work fine in a country with a population of 32 million, but we had 111 million vote in 2000 - paper ballots just aren't going to cut it here.

You're missing the point. Canuck was saying that Canada doesn't have a problem using paper ballots and they get their returns in the same night. I'm saying that that may work fine in a country with a population of 32 million, but we had 111 million vote in 2000 - paper ballots just aren't going to cut it here.
Balderdash. Its a simple question of proportions. More voters imply having more people counting votes.

Balderdash. Its a simply question of proportions. More voters imply having more people counting votes.

Most of the vote counting is done by volunteers. Most people would rather not do it.

Besides, the US Constitution mandates that the manner of holding elections is to be governed by the states, not the federal government. It is within each state's discretion as to how they run their elections.

We couldn't force the entire country to go back to paper ballots if we wanted to. And even if we did, that system is way more open to fraud and abuse than mechanical or computer based systems.

Which is why I'm not opposed to it.

We couldn't force the entire country to go back to paper ballots if we wanted to. And even if we did, that system is way more open to fraud and abuse than mechanical or computer based systems.
From what I have read, it appears that there is all kinds of problems with voting machines. How are they less open to "fraud and abuse"?

Most of the vote counting is done by volunteers. Most people would rather not do it.
Red herring, unless you assume that as the number of people increases, the proportion of those willing to count votes decreases.

Besides, the US Constitution mandates that the manner of holding elections is to be governed by the states, not the federal government. It is within each state's discretion as to how they run their elections.
Wookie defense, this does not address the point made that paper ballots are certainly a valid means of conducting an election. That said, it's a valid point to make that such a change would be difficult, and perhaps from that the point can be made that for federal elections, there should be federal standards and procedures established.

We couldn't force the entire country to go back to paper ballots if we wanted to. And even if we did, that system is way more open to fraud and abuse than mechanical or computer based systems.Correct but missing the point. Paper ballots are far more open to fraud and abuse *on an individual scale* than electronic schemes. Electronic vote counting requires that everybody trusts the voting machine maker. A single fraudulent voter, or even vote counter, is unlikely to be able to sway the course of the election since their results will be tempered by those of all the other voters and counters.

With an electronic system in place, a much larger percentage of the vote goes through a single party -- meaning the opportunities for fraud that can affect the election are much larger.

However, I always find this attitude interesting of "I don't like/trust the source, so the entire report is worthless" It seems a much more reasonable attitude would be to approach such reports with extreme skepticism and be prepared to question any statistic that does not seem reasonable.

Wookie defense, this does not address the point made that paper ballots are certainly a valid means of conducting an election. That said, it's a valid point to make that such a change would be difficult, and perhaps from that the point can be made that for federal elections, there should be federal standards and procedures established.
Not only should federal elections be conducted using federal standards, but the process could be simplified? When we vote in a federal election in Canada, it is under federal guidelines and we are voting for one thing and one thing only. We are voting for a national government based on the results from each riding. The ballot is not cluttered with secondary voting issues.

With an electronic system in place, a much larger percentage of the vote goes through a single party -- meaning the opportunities for fraud that can affect the election are much larger.
This is exactly what I was alluding to. If I was voting in a US election, I would be very concerned if my vote was actually being counted.

In line with the current conversation ...

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060316/GPG0101/603160744/1207/GPGnews

Posted March 16, 2006

Many states struggling with election changes

By Deborah Barfield Berry
Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON — Despite a federal mandate to upgrade state election systems, voters in New York will use the same antiquated lever machines they have used for decades. And election officials will rely on a statewide voter registration list that may not be up to date.


New York is so out of compliance with the federal election law that the Justice Department recently sued the state — the first such case under the Help America Vote Act. The first court date is scheduled for Tuesday.


In response to concerns that sprang from the Florida debacle in the 2000 presidential election, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 and gave states $3.1 billion to upgrade equipment, develop computerized registration lists and improve access for the disabled and language-impaired. The measure also created the Election Assistance Commission to oversee implementation and provide guidance to states.


While New York lags far behind most states in complying with the law, experts say other states have also struggled to meet deadlines and more than half may not be in full compliance by the November midterm elections.


"Every other state has made some efforts. New York is kind of sitting out there like a big red thumb," said Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, adding that few observers are surprised about the New York lawsuit. "New York put a target on itself."


Still, the Justice Department is looking into whether 55 states and U.S. territories have met the HAVA mandates, said Eric Holland, an agency spokesman. And the Election Assistance Commission's inspector general recently launched plans to audit state spending of HAVA money. The first focus is on New Jersey because of past administrative problems unrelated to HAVA and because it is among the top 15 recipients.


While one in three voters this year will use new voting equipment, experts express concern over how voters and election officials will adapt to changes in equipment and regulations.


"A lot of people in Washington and elsewhere thought once the federal government passed HAVA that states would sort of fall into line given the unprecedented level of federal investment and new federal mandates," said Doug Chapin, director of Electionline.org, a nonpartisan election research group. "They're finding now that the pace of change in the states is slower than they expected and not just because of inertia, but because implementation of HAVA sometimes runs up against local law and local traditions."


States faced hurdles in implementing the HAVA requirements, including deciding which voting system to buy. Several states were waiting for the Election Assistance Commission to establish federal standards for the machines, particularly electronic voting machines, before they made the costly purchases.


Paul DeGregorio, commission chairman, attributes early glitches in state efforts to adopt new election systems to "growing pains."


"This is major," he said. "This is the first time in America there's been this kind of money spent in this short time. Most states have been working very hard to get this done."


Since 2002, more than half the states have bought new equipment. Many states turned to optical scans in which voters use a pen-like device to fill in a computer-readable ballot. By November, 1,502 counties will use optical scans compared with 1,423 in 2004 and 1,275 in 2000, according to a recent survey by Election Data Services.


Last week, officials in Maryland's House of Delegates approved legislation to temporarily switch from touch-screen voting machines to optical scans. Maryland was one of the first states to use electronic voting machines statewide, but election officials have raised concerns about the lack of a paper trail to verify a vote was recorded. Optical scans provide a paper record for officials.


More than 25 states have implemented some type of system that provides a paper record.


There are still concerns about the reliability and security of electronic voting machines.


Meanwhile, states are watching what happens in New York, where talks between the state and Justice officials are ongoing. The state risks losing some of the $220 million in HAVA funding it has received, including $49 million for new equipment.


The suit charges that New York violated HAVA by not having in place adequate system to allow disabled voters to have full access and that it also hadn't set up a statewide computer voter registration database. Both were due by Jan. 1, 2006.


Lee Daghlian, a spokesman for the New York State Board of Elections, said the state proposed an interim plan that would provide disabled voters with marking devices to use at polling places. Officials also pledged to have a voter registration list in place by the elections though they couldn't guarantee it would be current.


"That was all we could get done" by this election, Daghlian said, adding that the state could be ready by 2007.


"We thought we had an agreement with them," he said. "Apparently they were impatient."

Not only should federal elections be conducted using federal standards, but the process could be simplified? When we vote in a federal election in Canada, it is under federal guidelines and we are voting for one thing and one thing only. We are voting for a national government based on the results from each riding. The ballot is not cluttered with secondary voting issues.


This is exactly what I was alluding to. If I was voting in a US election, I would be very concerned if my vote was actually being counted.
I meant to get 'round to this earlier ....
i thought this might be of interest ...:

http://dnc.org/a/2005/12/alaska_diebold.php
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7301446p-7213196c.html
The official vote results from the 2004 general election are riddled with mistakes and discrepancies, are impossible for the public to make sense of, and should be corrected as soon as possible, the Alaska Democratic Party says.
To most Alaskans, the election may seem like a long-done deal, something that concerns only political junkies, candidates and analysts. But questions have been swirling ever since the polls closed about how the results were tabulated and the reliability of the electronic voting machines, said Kay Brown, spokeswoman for the Democratic Party.

For instance, when district-by-district vote counts are totaled, President Bush received 292,267 votes, according to an analysis by the Democrats. But his official total was 190,889, a difference of more than 100,000 votes, according to the state Web site.

Everyone agrees you cannot figure out how many votes a statewide candidate got in a particular district with the present system.

"The numbers just do not add up, and we'd like to get to the bottom of why," Brown said.


The story goes on to note how in some districts, more than 200% of registered voters cast ballots. This comes on the heels of news from Florida that an elections chief, Ion Sancho, was able to hack into Diebold-made electronic voting machines and alter vote totals.

The Democrats are not asserting that anyone hacked into the computers or that anyone who lost a race really should have won, Brown said.
"We are trying to determine how many votes each candidate got in each district, and we can't tell that from the public data," she said.


As in Florida, this isn't about trying to overturn elections--this is about having an electoral process where everyone can be confident that every ballot cast will be counted and that there is no foul play. It's regrettable that even the appearance of impropriety hangs above one of the most basic tenets of our democracy...the right vote.

---

I was actually a vote counter with paper ballots. The way it was done was there were 4 people (two from each party) They split into teams of two (one from each party in each team). The votes were then counted twice (Once by each team). If there were a difference in the count, they were recounted twice again. If there were still a difference, all 4 got together and did a recount. If there were a question about what the voter meant the four got together and at least three of the four had to agree, or it went to disputed ballot (I can't imagine how a computer could tell how a person wanted to vote when they wrote comments on the side). Counting started when 25 ballots were cast and we could get a box every time 25 were cast. So we were done about an hour after the polls closed.

I don't know how there could be much fraud with paper. The problem isn't fraud, it's speed and cost. People today want results 10 minutes after the polls close. And they don't want to pay people to count.

I meant to get 'round to this earlier ....
i thought this might be of interest ...:

http://dnc.org/a/2005/12/alaska_diebold.php
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7301446p-7213196c.html

Now that is just scary stuff!!

Why aren't people in an uproar about this kind of nonsense?

100,000 extra votes in Alaska is huge. 200% ballots cast? Totally unacceptable in a modern democracy. :(

Good post Straughn!! :)

Now that is just scary stuff!!

Why aren't people in an uproar about this kind of nonsense?

100,000 extra votes in Alaska is huge. 200% ballots cast? Totally unacceptable in a modern democracy. :(

Good post Straughn!! :)
Thank you. *bows*
I endeavour to provide some substance to things i actually argue about.
The weird thing is, up here, i've heard that most of the votes actually erred FOR democrats, but strangely enough, it's STILL the republicans bitching about the democrats crying ! :confused:
I just occurred to me that this is a *huge* issue in favour of democratic principle. Huge.

I should add these parts, for emphasis:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7301446p-7213196c.html
"The information is accurate. It is just not being reported in the form the Democratic Party would prefer," Brewster said.
...
Efforts to speak with a Diebold company representative late Monday were unsuccessful.

Alaska has confidence in the Diebold AccuVote machines because recounts and hand counts have always verified the electronic results, said Shelly Growden, elections supervisor in the Fairbanks regional office.
...
The state Elections Division publishes voting results on the Web in two ways. An "official results" summary gives vote totals by candidate. A "statement of votes cast" breaks down the data in more detail by House district. It's also considered an official result.

The district-by-district report appears to be full of quirks, Brown said. The Democrats added all of the votes cast for Bush or Democrat John Kerry by district and came up with thousands more votes than in the official summary. Some local races were off too. In a Fairbanks Senate race, Democrat Rita Allee earned 5,366 votes, according to the district-by-district report, but just 4,854 in the summary report, Brown said.

In addition, more than 200 percent of the registered voters in some districts cast ballots, which should be impossible.
...
"If you don't have a degree in mathematics or engineering, it will always be confusing," ( :D ) said Randy Ruedrich, chairman of the Alaska Republican Party, who said he's asked the state to change its format next time around.

----
AFAIK, Diebold still refuses to cooperate.