Just how much does it take to get DUBBya impeached?

[graypencil]

Okay ..I know, here comes another lefty screed for Monte and his varios minions to pick on ..but consider these facts:

1. DUBBya has gotten us into a seemingly unwinable mess in Iraq and getting over 1700 American soldiers and untold Iraqis killed in the process. There now seems credible evidence ( the Downing Street Memo ) that the whole thing was predestined by the DUBByas in spite of the shaky "facts" about WMDs etc.

There is also the internation stain upon Americas reputation brought on by the actions at our varios prison camps.

He has also had someone on his staff ( a non scientist )cooking the scientific evidence about global warming.

Doesn't even ONE or more of these activities rise to the level to begin impeachment proceedings?

After all, the last president got a blowjob and lied about it ( note: no one died ) ..

..and HE got impeached.

I don't think we can afford three more years of these criminals.

( BTW: we should impeach Cheney as well IMO )

[BFrank]

These guys are working on it: After Downing Street

Monte has minions?????!!!!!!




Mr. Smith, I believe it's about time we had a little talk!!!


Grayp Ayp,

Don't know what to tell you, brother. I didn't agree with Clinton being impeached, and I also don't agree that Bush should be impeached. Somebody should kick him in the nuts for the global warming thing, but other than that I find impeachment to be laughable.

Although, I have seen this advanced before. Best as I can tell, you're all just jealous because the Republicans and their hitmen whipped Willie's ass. And your boys now? Well, they're just showing what a bunch of slackers they really are.

Hate the player and not the game, baby!!!

[crawjo]

The Downing Street Memo doesn't contain any bombshell information that I can see. OF COURSE the U.S. was planning a war all along. Wasn't that obvious at the time? It seems to me that the authors of this memo were simply stating the obvious political reality at the time: that war was coming.

[Chaz Longue]

I've just seen
Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room...

I'm wondering why Bush is still in office too.

Because he hasn't died or been impeached?

Of course, our last impeached President proved that even impeachment can't necessarily remove one from office.

[frankiepop]

i am one to defer to the electoral process. bush won the election and he deserves to be president even if he is a liar. i dont see no outcry for an impeachment. vent vent vent, nor do i see any high crimes and misdemeanors here. however, it is amusing now to see dolan change his stripes on clinton. morals man...what about morals ...

[frankiepop]

if i was to pursue a course of impeachment on bush, then i might set my sights on Guantanamo Bay...........good luck

[Monte Smith]

Dana Milbank's take on the "Conyers committee" was priceless in the Wa. Post yesterday:

Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War
By Dana Milbank

Friday, June 17, 2005; Page A06

In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe.

They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official.

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him "Mr. Chairman." He liked that so much that he started calling himself "the chairman" and spouted other chairmanly phrases, such as "unanimous consent" and "without objection so ordered." The dress-up game looked realistic enough on C-SPAN, so two dozen more Democrats came downstairs to play along.

The session was a mock impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war. As luck would have it, all four of the witnesses agreed that President Bush lied to the nation and was guilty of high crimes -- and that a British memo on "fixed" intelligence that surfaced last month was the smoking gun equivalent to the Watergate tapes. Conyers was having so much fun that he ignored aides' entreaties to end the session.

"At the next hearing," he told his colleagues, "we could use a little subpoena power." That brought the house down.

As Conyers and his hearty band of playmates know, subpoena power and other perks of a real committee are but a fantasy unless Democrats can regain the majority in the House. But that's only one of the obstacles they're up against as they try to convince America that the "Downing Street Memo" is important.

A search of the congressional record yesterday found that of the 535 members of Congress, only one -- Conyers -- had mentioned the memo on the floor of either chamber. House Democratic leaders did not join in Conyers's session, and Senate Democrats, who have the power to hold such events in real committee rooms, have not troubled themselves.

The hearing was only nominally about the Downing Street Memo and its assertion that in the summer of 2002 Bush was already determined to go to war and was making the intelligence fit his case. Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador whose wife was outed as a CIA operative, barely mentioned the memo in his opening statement. Cindy Sheehan, who lost a son in Iraq, said the memo "only confirms what I already suspected."

No matter: The lawmakers and the witnesses saw this as a chance to rally against the war. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) proclaimed it "one of the biggest scandals in the history of this country." Conyers said the memos "establish a prima facie case of going to war under false pretenses." Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) concluded that "the time has come to get out" of Iraq.

The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation," McGovern said. "The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic."

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq's threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his "candid answer."

At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations -- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks.

The event organizer, Democrats.com, distributed stickers saying "Bush lied/100,000 people died." One man's T-shirt proclaimed, "Whether you like Bush or not, he's still an incompetent liar," while a large poster of Uncle Sam announced: "Got kids? I want yours for cannon fodder."

Conyers's firm hand on the gavel could not prevent something of a free-for-all; at one point, a former State Department worker rose from the audience to propose criminal charges against Bush officials. Early in the hearing, somebody accidentally turned off the lights; later, a witness knocked down a flag. Matters were even worse at Democratic headquarters, where the C-SPAN feed ended after just an hour, causing the activists to groan and one to shout "Conspiracy!"

The glitches and the antiwar theatrics proved something of a distraction from the message the organizers aimed to deliver: that for the Bush White House, as lawyer John C. Bonifaz put it, the British memo is "the equivalent to the revelation that there was a taping system in the Nixon White House."

Of course, Democrats controlled the real committees back then -- though Conyers was not deterred. "We have a lot of work to do as a result of this first panel," he told his colleagues. " 'Tis the beginning of our work."

-end-

Originally Posted by frankiepop

however, it is amusing now to see dolan change his stripes on clinton. morals man...what about morals ...

Change my stripes?

How do you come up with this stuff? I've never defended what he did, nor am I now. I just said I didn't believe that he should have been impeached.

In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe.

Or Byrdland as I like to call it.

[tristano's ghost]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Dana Milbank's take on the "Conyers committee" was priceless in the Wa. Post yesterday

And also an inaccurate piece of crap, as journalism goes:

Mr. Michael Abramowitz, National Editor
Mr. Michael Getler, Ombudsman
Mr. Dana Milbank
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20071

Dear Sirs:

I write to express my profound disappointment with Dana Milbank's June 17 report, "Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War," which purports to describe a Democratic hearing I chaired in the Capitol yesterday. In sum, the piece cherry-picks some facts, manufactures others out of whole cloth, and does a disservice to some 30 members of Congress who persevered under difficult circumstances, not of our own making, to examine a very serious subject: whether the American people were deliberately misled in the lead up to war. The fact that this was the Post's only coverage of this event makes the journalistic shortcomings in this piece even more egregious.

In an inaccurate piece of reporting that typifies the article, Milbank implies that one of the obstacles the Members in the meeting have is that "only one" member has mentioned the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of either the House or Senate. This is not only incorrect but misleading. In fact, just yesterday, the Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid, mentioned it on the Senate floor. Senator Boxer talked at some length about it at the recent confirmation hearing for the Ambassador to Iraq. The House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi, recently signed on to my letter, along with 121 other Democrats asking for answers about the memo. This information is not difficult to find either. For example, the Reid speech was the subject of an AP wire service report posted on the Washington Post website with the headline "Democrats Cite Downing Street Memo in Bolton Fight". Other similar mistakes, mischaracterizations and cheap shots are littered throughout the article.

The article begins with an especially mean and nasty tone, claiming that House Democrats "pretended" a small conference was the Judiciary Committee hearing room and deriding the decor of the room. Milbank fails to share with his readers one essential fact: the reason the hearing was held in that room, an important piece of context. Despite the fact that a number of other suitable rooms were available in the Capitol and House office buildings, Republicans declined my request for each and every one of them. Milbank could have written about the perseverance of many of my colleagues in the face of such adverse circumstances, but declined to do so. Milbank also ignores the critical fact picked up by the AP, CNN and other newsletters that at the very moment the hearing was scheduled to begin, the Republican Leadership scheduled an almost unprecedented number of 11 consecutive floor votes, making it next to impossible for most Members to participate in the first hour and one half of the hearing.

In what can only be described as a deliberate effort to discredit the entire hearing, Milbank quotes one of the witnesses as making an anti-semitic assertion and further describes anti-semitic literature that was being handed out in the overflow room for the event. First, let me be clear: I consider myself to be friend and supporter of Israel and there were a number of other staunchly pro-Israel members who were in attendance at the hearing. I do not agree with, support, or condone any comments asserting Israeli control over U.S. policy, and I find any allegation that Israel is trying to dominate the world or had anything to do with the September 11 tragedy disgusting and offensive.

That said, to give such emphasis to 100 seconds of a 3 hour and five minute hearing that included the powerful and sad testimony (hardly mentioned by Milbank) of a woman who lost her son in the Iraq war and now feels lied to as a result of the Downing Street Minutes, is incredibly misleading. Many, many different pamphlets were being passed out at the overflow room, including pamphlets about getting out of the Iraq war and anti-Central American Free Trade Agreement, and it is puzzling why Milbank saw fit to only mention the one he did.

In a typically derisive and uninformed passage, Milbank makes much of other lawmakers calling me "Mr. Chairman" and says I liked it so much that I used "chairmanly phrases." Milbank may not know that I was the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee from 1988 to 1994. By protocol and tradition in the House, once you have been a Chairman you are always referred to as such. Thus, there was nothing unusual about my being referred to as Mr. Chairman.

To administer his coup-de-grace, Milbank literally makes up another cheap shot that I "was having so much fun that [I] ignored aides' entreaties to end the session." This did not occur. None of my aides offered entreaties to end the session and I have no idea where Milbank gets that information. The hearing certainly ran longer than expected, but that was because so many Members of Congress persevered under very difficult circumstances to attend, and I thought - given that - the least I could do was allow them to say their piece. That is called courtesy, not "fun."

By the way, the "Downing Street Memo" is actually the minutes of a British cabinet meeting. In the meeting, British officials - having just met with their American counterparts - describe their discussions with such counterparts. I mention this because that basic piece of context, a simple description of the memo, is found nowhere in Milbank's article.

The fact that I and my fellow Democrats had to stuff a hearing into a room the size of a large closet to hold a hearing on an important issue shouldn't make us the object of ridicule. In my opinion, the ridicule should be placed in two places: first, at the feet of Republicans who are so afraid to discuss ideas and facts that they try to sabotage our efforts to do so; and second, on Dana Milbank and the Washington Post, who do not feel the need to give serious coverage on a serious hearing about a serious matter-whether more than 1700 Americans have died because of a deliberate lie. Milbank may disagree, but the Post certainly owed its readers some coverage of that viewpoint.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.

Gotta love that SCLM...

[tristano's ghost]

When I go looking for a thigh-slapper, I just dial up that video of W. a-huntin' for WMDs in the Oval Office... talk about priceless! If only they had strewn a few corpses of American soldiers around him--even bigger yuks. He sure is the "life of the party," eh?

[patricia]

Originally Posted by tristano's ghost

When I go looking for a thigh-slapper, I just dial up that video of W. a-huntin' for WMDs in the Oval Office... talk about priceless! If only they had strewn a few corpses of American soldiers around him--even bigger yuks. He sure is the "life of the party," eh?

I guess down in Texas there's nothing funnier than mocking the families of all the dead military men and women who gave their lives in the launching of this ego-driven fiasco. President Bush must chuckle, of an evening, at the ease with which the American people were taken in by his clarion call to arms. Obscene!! That film clip is, IMO, pornography in it's purest and most classic form.

[frankiepop]

add on top of that all of the dead american and otherwise civilian in iraq who gave ther lives. many of them were former military. and they were performing military function while the bush adm does not keep records or states on them even though many are doing military work such security or guarding or prisons..........

[frankiepop]

I just said I didn't believe that he should have been impeached.

bullshit

[Dr Dave]

There isn't going to be any impeachment. There is a Republican majority. Bush is quickly becoming irrelevant, anyway. He's not going to get his Social Security "reform" and he's going to stick with his half-assed Iraq war because he can't think of any alternatives. He isn't going to get the Energy bill he wants, either. He'll just go on riding his exercise bicycle and speaking before smaller and smaller friendly audiences. And meanwhile, we, the electorate, will go on complaining about taxes and how maybe the war wasn't such a good idea after all and gee, what if General Motors actually goes out of business, and jeez, all the paycheck goes to the credit cards...

[RedJazz]

So you'd actually prefer Cheney? Rather short sighted, I'd say.

Originally Posted by frankiepop

bullshit

Elaborate.

[clinthopson]

Considering that he wasn't originally elected to the office, impeachment would be sorta ironic, but very justified as long as they impeached Cheney at the same time, he's the one that has been pulling the strings over the Iraq fiasco.

Of course, it will never happen - Shrub didn't lie about a blow job.

[tristano's ghost]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

Of course, it will never happen - Shrub didn't lie about a blow job.

As far as we know--nobody yet has figured out what male hooker & media whore Jeff Gannon was doing running around the White House on days when there weren't even press conferences.

[Juju]

Here's a follow-up and response about that horrible Milbank article:

FAIR-L
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2561

ACTIVISM UPDATE:
Post Explains "Wing Nuts" Label

June 21, 2005

Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler used his June 19 column to respond to FAIR's June 14 Action Alert regarding Post reporter Dana Milbank's use of the term "wing nuts" to describe activists pressing the media to take the Downing Street memos more seriously.

The relevant portion of Getler's column is below, followed by FAIR's response.

*****************
The Washington Post
June 19, 2005 Sunday

HEADLINE: Memos, 'Wing Nuts' and 'Hit Lists'

BYLINE: Michael Getler

BODY:

The bulk of the mail last week, by far, was focused once again on the "Downing Street Memo." This is the memo produced by a national security aide to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, based on notes taken in a meeting with Blair and his top advisers on July 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion of Iraq. It is marked "Secret and strictly personal--UK eyes only" but was leaked to the Sunday Times of London and published May 1.

Included in the note-taker's account was an assessment by the chief of British intelligence, after returning from a visit to Washington, that: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

The memo, and the coverage and interpretation of it, continue to generate contention, especially among critics of the war and Bush administration policy. The overwhelming majority of e-mails I received last week seemed to have been prompted by a write-in campaign sponsored mostly by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a liberal, self-described media watchdog organization.

Their target this time was a column by Post staff writer Dana Milbank on June 8 in which the term "wing nuts" was used. Many of the e-mailers said the reference disparaged the real concerns of many people that the administration misrepresented the situation that led the country to war.

Milbank is one of the paper's most talented and observant reporters. On the other hand, for the past several months he has also been serving as a columnist, frequently writing observations that go beyond straight reporting in a column labeled "Washington Sketch" that appears in the news pages of the A-section. On Friday, for example, The Post covered an unofficial antiwar hearing on Capitol Hill only in a Milbank column. Several readers found this inappropriate.

Unfortunately, it has never been announced or explained to Post readers that reporter Milbank is also now columnist Milbank. The reference to "wing nuts," as in left-wing nuts and right-wing nuts, appeared in the June 8 column, not a "news story," as many e-mailers wrongly stated. This is also understandable because FAIR neglected to tell its subscribers that this was clearly marked as a "Washington Sketch" and not a news story.

Milbank's column was about the June 7 Bush-Blair news conference in Washington and it reported that "Democrats.com, a group of left-wing activists" had sent e-mails offering a "reward" for anyone who could get an answer from Bush about the report that intelligence had been "fixed" around Iraq policy. Later in the column, Milbank wrote that a reporter who did ask such a question, and who had no idea of the activists' e-mails, "wasn't trying to satisfy the wing nuts."

Post Assistant Managing Editor Liz Spayd said "the term referred to one specific group" and not everyone who was questioning coverage of the memo. As for the term "wing nuts," she said "that word is probably sharper than it should have been." I agree. It was a needless red flag that undoubtedly would be read as disparaging beyond the group that Milbank was referring to. But columnists do get more leeway and the term has infiltrated political discussion in these heated times.

Here's Milbank's view: "While you have been within your rights as ombudsman over the past five years to attempt to excise any trace of colorful or provocative writing from the Post, you are out of bounds in asserting that a columnist cannot identify as 'wingnuts' a group whose followers have long been harassing this and other reporters and their families with hateful, obscene and sometimes anti-Semitic speech."

Much of the mail criticizing Milbank was also directed at op-ed columnist Michael Kinsley, who, in a June 12 column, said leftist activists' continued focus on the memo showed an ability to develop "a paranoid theory." Later in the week, The Post's editorial page also weighed in on the Downing Street memos (another has been leaked), saying: "They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002." That also brought mail.

I have a different view. The July 23 memo is important because it is an official document produced at the highest level of government of the most important U.S. ally. Its authenticity has not been disputed. Whatever some people said or wrote three years ago, there has never been--except for this memo--any official, authoritative claim or confirmation that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Blair denied that at the news conference. But could the secret minutes of such a meeting be wrong? Maybe there's a different interpretation, or maybe "fixed" means something different in British-speak.

Or maybe Blair could produce the former intelligence chief, and the note-taker, for a news conference or open parliamentary session and let reporters or legislators ask for an elaboration on the assessments in the memo.

*****************


FAIR continues to be puzzled by Getler's persistent references to FAIR as a "self-described media watchdog organization," which seems to be an attempt to marginalize FAIR's work. One could just as easily call Post reporters "self-described" journalists working for a "self-described" newspaper.

Getler's attempt to rationalize Milbank's choice of words is also peculiar. Getler stressed that Milbank has a special status at the paper as a "columnist, frequently writing observations that go beyond straight reporting in a column labeled 'Washington Sketch' that appears in the news pages of the A-section." This could present problems, according to Getler: "Unfortunately, it has never been announced or explained to Post readers that reporter Milbank is also now columnist Milbank."

Indeed, the Post could do a much better job of explaining Milbank's status. It's worth noting that you get to Milbank's pieces through the "News" section of the Washington Post's website, not through the "Opinion" section. Milbank's latest piece (6/18/05) has a line at the end noting, "Staff writer Lila de Tantillo contributed to this report"--an odd thing for the Post to add to an opinion column.

Still, despite the Post's lack of clarity, the ombudsman blames FAIR for any confusion:

"The reference to 'wing nuts,' as in left-wing nuts and right-wing nuts, appeared in the June 8 column, not a 'news story,' as many e-mailers wrongly stated. This is also understandable because FAIR neglected to tell its subscribers that this was clearly marked as a 'Washington Sketch' and not a news story."

This comment suggests that "Washington Sketch" is a well-known category of opinion journalism, and not a name that the Post invented to label some of Milbank's writings starting in March. Similar labels are often put on "news analysis" pieces, such as Elizabeth Bumiller's "White House Letter" in the New York Times.

In the end, however, what category the Post thinks Milbank's writing should be placed in is beside the point. Whatever you want to call it, his piece used the slur "wing nuts" to describe people calling for coverage of a patently newsworthy controversy that was largely ignored by mainstream media--in other words, people calling on the media to do their jobs.

Getler notes that the term "wing nuts" "undoubtedly would be read as disparaging beyond the group that Milbank was referring to." But even the use of the term to refer only to Democrats.com is problematic. In back-and-forth emails posted on the Democrats.com website ( http://www.democrats.com/milbank ), Milbank provides no evidence that the group was responsible for any "hateful, obscene [or] anti-Semitic speech."

It is not unusual for people who work in the public eye to receive criticism, some of it intemperate, angry and abusive. FAIR receives such emails and calls on a daily basis, sometimes including anti-Semitic taunts and death threats. But to respond in kind to such hostility in one's journalism is a mistake-- in a news article or a "Washington Sketch" column. In the "wing nuts" piece, Milbank refers to another journalist as a "consummate professional." Milbank's use of name-calling removes him from that category.

Indeed, Milbank's displeasure with Downing Street Memo activists seems to be unprofessionally twisting his coverage of the issue. When Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) convened a panel to discuss the issue, Milbank ridiculed the event in what Getler correctly notes was the Post's only coverage of the event (6/17/05):


"In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe. They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official."


Milbank dragged Democrats.com into the story, misleadingly referring to the group as "the event organizer"; After Downing Street, a coalition of some 60 groups including Democrats.com, put together an off-site closed-circuit viewing of the panel for the overflow crowd, though the way Milbank refers to the "organizers" of the actual panel two paragraphs later a reader could easily conclude that Democrats.com were responsible for the panel itself. Milbank harped on stickers, T-shirts and leaflets seen at the overflow viewing; needless to say, the Washington Post does not usually cover congressional hearings by talking about the material distributed by random individuals on the Capitol steps.

Conyers wrote a letter in response to Milbank's article, noting that the meeting was held in a basement room for a reason: "Despite the fact that a number of other suitable rooms were available in the Capitol and House office buildings, Republicans declined my request for each and every one of them."

Milbank went to great lengths to mock the event, turning a Republican effort to block an investigation of a significant document into evidence of Democratic delusions. One can't help but wonder whether Milbank has allowed a personal grievance to slant his coverage of a major topic.


NOTE: Dana Milbank can be reached at sketch@washpost.com. As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if you maintain a polite tone.

[JamesH]

Of course, Bush won't be impeached and America will continue paying for his administrations crimes, for most likely the rest of the decade.

The real question is: How brainwashed, numbed out and stupid are the American people.

Discount the half of Bush's supporters who are just plain evil and greedy. At least intellectually I can understand greed that leads to evil. But will the under-educated poverty stricken and working poor that make up the rest of his supporters ever get a grip on reality. Are the threat of non-whites, strong women and homosexuals so severe to these people that they'll gladly give up their money, freedom, and in some cases their lives in Iraq, to be protected from a non-existent menace?

And I don't want to even talk about apathetic liberals who could have easily defeated this clown if they simply..............VOTED!

Discount the half of Bush's supporters who are just plain evil and greedy. At least intellectually I can understand greed that leads to evil. But will the under-educated poverty stricken and working poor that make up the rest of his supporters ever get a grip on reality.

Hmmmm..

If you think those are the only two factions that support President Bush, you have a whole lot to learn.

Are the threat of non-whites........so severe to these people that they'll gladly give up their money, freedom, and in some cases their lives in Iraq, to be protected from a non-existent menace?

You'll need to explain this a bit more. Or are you back in your "fly on the wall at a Klan meeting" mode again?

And I don't want to even talk about apathetic liberals who could have easily defeated this clown if they simply..............VOTED!

So are you saying that only liberlas stayed home last November?

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

So are you saying that only liberlas stayed home last November?

There's the rub, huh? November 04 was "the most important election of our lifetime." The youth vote was rallied, the labor vote was rallied, the internet vote was rallied, the minority vote was rallied. Bruce Springsteen was rallied! The Democrats were fed up and they weren't going to take it anymore. CHARGE!!!!

Well, Democrat turn out was up by an astounding 12%. That's huge. Unfortunately, the Republican turn out was up by a fifth. Which, if you do the math, is huge-r.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Hmmmm..
If you think those are the only two factions that support President Bush, you have a whole lot to learn.

I think that there are many factions but when you boil it down it comes down to a) money and power (read: the wealthy and middile class who just want to pay less on their taxes and the religious conservative who just want power over others through their brand of backward morality), and b) working poor who worship money/power and are afraid of what happens to their lives when the rich aren't their to protect them from the non religious, non-white, non heterosexual, non male slackers.

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

You'll need to explain this a bit more. Or are you back in your "fly on the wall at a Klan meeting" mode again?

I called it like I saw it Scott. If you ever sounded like a Klansman I'd call you out too.

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

So are you saying that only liberlas stayed home last November?

Democrats got out and voted in larger numbers. But not large enough. If democrats voted in larger numbers (like middle class Republicans) we'd have a different President in spite of what happened in Ohio. (Blacks standing in line for blocks late in the evening to vote).

Originally Posted by JamesH, angry young man

I called it like I saw it Scott. If you ever sounded like a Klansman I'd call you out too.

But you've used that tactic previously, and I'd be willing to bet there isn't a single Klansman here. So why needlessly go that route?

Democrats got out and voted in larger numbers. But not large enough.

Either that, or too many Republicans voted. Remember James, the optimist says the glass is half full, the pessimist says the glass is half empty, while the engineer says the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

(Blacks standing in line for blocks late in the evening to vote).

You mean the voting lines were segregated? Were they kept from voting?

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

But you've used that tactic previously, and I'd be willing to bet there isn't a single Klansman here. So why needlessly go that route?

I don't think there is a Klansman either. But a few posters sounded like they new the lingo.

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Either that, or too many Republicans voted. Remember James, the optimist says the glass is half full, the pessimist says the glass is half empty, while the engineer says the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.?

And the realist tries to find answers as to why things are so fucked.

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

You mean the voting lines were segregated? Were they kept from voting?

As you know many cities and counties are populated by citizens of one majority ethnicity. Those areas in Ohio where blacks were in the majority convienently did not have enough voting booths. As a result there were blacks standing in line most of the night trying to exercise their rights as citizens. Some say Ohio may have gone to the Democrats had this not happened (many blacks couldn't vote).

Suprised you hadn't heard about this.


(And I'm not so young)

[LennyH]

I wonder how much higher Republican voter turnout was in states where they got gay marriage on the ballot. That was a master stroke.

Originally Posted by JamesH

And the realist tries to find answers as to why things are so fucked.

Damn, brother.

I'm more depressed every time I read a post of yours. Is life really that bad?

Suprised you hadn't heard about this.

I had.

Just never read anything that substantiated the claim.