Slashdot Mirror
Politics, Assassination, and Debates
Here's a really interesting story on
The New Science of Character Assassination which lists a bunch of things gore said that the media has used regularly to misrepresent him. Very worthwhile reading to help remember how the press skews things (no, I'm not an exception to the rule: but at least you guys can disagree with me below). Its not exactly about the election, but Does the US Electoral College Still Work?. Lastly for now,
the presidential debate commision is looking for feedback. I just personally wanted to note that the submissions are extremely lopsided; virtually nil for any 3rd party candidates (except a few Nader) and only a little more for Bush. We're trying to give the major candidates linkage, so if you find good sources on the net (or want to write one!) submit it!
The reference to "a body of citizens" is irrelevent except in a dictionary. Many "republics" don't bother with elections, or only go through the motions. By contrast, many monarchies hold elections -- in some cases, even for the monarch!
(I assume you got this stuff from a dictionary. You shouldn't treat Noah's children as ultimate lexical authorities -- they're records of how people do use words, not absolute arbiters of how people should use words. In point of fact, "republic" is originally just Latin for "the public thing" -- that is, the state.)
I react negatively to the word "republic" becuase the word is often used to denote a state that restricts the franchise to the "right people". (I've known many conservatives fond of saying "We're a republic, not a democracy.") In the US, this has often been done with voting fees ("poll taxes") and property requirements. There's still an element of this in our voting laws: procedures for registering and voting are full of bureaucratic nonsense. Officially this is to prevent fraud, but in practice this is a direct way of restricting the franchise. During the heyday of the civil rights movement, African Americans always seemed to run afoul of some rule or another. My favorite was the registrar who denied a black his ballot "becaus of pur spuling."
Which is not to argue against safeguards against popular whimsy. But the Electoral College is not such a safeguard. It's a half-functional relic of an ancient, irrelevent political comprimise. If the founders were alive today, they'd be the first to call for its abolition.
__________
At least Gore can explain his
I've heard Bush explain his just as well. If you are following this election through "Gore colored glasses" (a new phrase I just made up and patented) than of course it's going to look like Gore is explaining everything and Bush is just bumbling. It works the other way around also. Actually objectivly listen to what they say and propose and they are both just about on equal footing, with the only real differences being policy.
openly gay people allowed into the millitary
Anyone ask the millitary if they want this? I don't the the nations fighting force is where we should be playing social games. Isn't moral low enough yet?
Bush's responces have generally been a variation of "well, *I* don't distcriminate against anybody."
Isn't that the way is should be?
Funny, I didn't hear any sighs until TV shows increased the volume on the clips by about 500%.
I heard them during the debates, so did everyone else watching them with me. The news immediatly picked up on it. I haven't heard any of these "enhanced" clips you are talking about. My only poinnt was if you are going to somehow claim Bush was whimpering, I'm going to remind you of how childish Gore also acted.
Finkployd
I agree his policy sounds a little radical, but remember the bill will go through committees and both houses before it is final. Unless he takes the Clinton route and circumvents the process by signing executive orders, then the bill will be modified from his origional plan. Sort of an "open source" way of writing laws with many eyes looking it over and changing the radical parts.
:) It takes more than that.
I look at Bush as the only one who will even try to fix the messed up educational system in the country, since Gore is too much in the pockets of the teacher's unions to make and kind of substancial change. He will just throw more of my money around to make the class size lower. This is all well and good, but lower class size does not a good class make
Finkployd
Not at all. What is impossible with giving states automony with how they choose to teach, but holding them accountable for the results? That sounds reasonable to me.
What if I told you to write a program, I don't care what language you write it in, as long as it produced the proper results?
Finkployd
I had prof. Urken for a class (Computers & Society) where he discussed voting methods and stuff. He's really good, but he emphasized using different voting methods (not just one) to be able to better visualize the data.
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
The fact is that that this level of reporting of democrats is new, and despite the fact that the media STILL has the gloves on it smarts
Uh, yeah -- 'cause no one has printed anything mean about Clinton in the past decade. Good thing we've kept the kid gloves on...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
What if I consider the "people's right to keep and bear arms" a liberty?
Not trying to start a gun control debate, just saying that both sides would love to squash liberties for political gain.
Finkployd
1992 Clinton with 43% popular and 69% electoral
1912 Wilson with 41.8% popular and 82% electoral!!!!
1860 Lincoln with 39.9% popular and 59% electoral
1824 Adams with 29.8% popular and 32% electoral
The Man,
Actually IRV will appear on the ballot in as an intiative in Alaska in 2002 and Vermont and New Mexico are seriously considering IRV. In those cases very strong Green parties are helping elect Republicans in what would otherwise be heavily Democratic states. If Greens really want change they need to let Bush win Oregon and Washington with a strong turnout for Nader and cost Gore the election. Or even imagine California going to Bush because Nader gets 15% of the vote. I guarentee you residents of those states would strongly consider IRV for the 2004 election. Ditto in states where Libertarians can swing the election. John Q Public needs to be shocked by electing who he likes least. Once that happens the road to election reforms begins.
BTW - Modern Technology makes IRV and other more 'complicated' counting methods as easy as changing your counting algorithm. It's a shame we don't use modern technology to assist our elections, after all we don't do math on a slide-rule anymore (even though I do own one for nostalgia)! (just wanted to inject some techno stuff since this is /. ) :P
Actually, a select few were exaggerations/lies. Most of them are true and in fact a matter of public record. Take the illegal campaign donations for example. The lie about his mom singing to baby Gore the "look for the union lable" song, the andio and video of Gore asking who "these guys" are (they were busts of Washington, Jefferson, etc), the "I didn't know it was a buddist temple" line, etc. This guy just took the "created the internet" (which Gore said, and is in itself a huge exaggeration) and showed how it's blown out of proportion. Well, boo-freaking-hoo. It's just a liberal reporter frustrated that his candidate doesn't have as much support as he would like, so he tried to find a scapegoat. If people were so swayed by the media, then Bush would have the poll numbers of Nader, with all the negative publicity they heap on him.
As for Bush, sure he sometimes stumbles over words, but that doesn't make one dumb. And the coke thing is completly without evidence. All I'm saying is that the same thing happens on both sides, and whining about it bacause the majority doesn't like your candidate doesn't mean it's only happening to you.
Finkployd
Absolutely true. If you don't rank a candidate under this system, your vote is never counted towards that candidate under any circumstances.
... which is an important feature I left out.
Again, there is this tendency to wear blinders. In order to really see what is going on, you have to look at the Electoral College in context.
And the context? The States funded the Federal Government before the Income Tax was adopted. In short, each State figured out who they wanted as the Chief Executive, and through the EC sent representatives of their view to Washington DC. Because the decision was by State, and not by overall popular vote, every state had a say proportional to their contribution to the coffers.
Too bad that when the 16th amendement was passed that the EC wasn't realigned as well.
Amar
I think Dan Quayle would take issue with just how "new" it is. Maybe new against Democrats.
It's mostly people who don't have the amount of money they want. So instead of trying harder, they just vote for the candidate who promises to take the money from "the rich, evil people" and give it to them.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it's Communism failing all over the world? And isn't the US (with it's evil capitalistics ways) the most powerful country in the world? Coincidence? Not even close.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
The Electoral college works as prescribed in the Federalist Papers. It was a compromise to preserve a balance of power between the states and the new union. Since states create the rules by which electors are selected and how they should and can vote, it appears that the states still have a say in how the President is elected.
I do think, however , that the founding fathers envisioned electors as being more independent than they are now. Currently, 48 states prescribe that the electors vote for the candidates that win the popular vote of the state. There leaves little room for elector's excercising their concience.
Over the past 200 years, 99% of electoral votes went according to the state's popular vote. The two notable exceptions recently occured in '76 when an electory bypasseed Gerald Ford and voted for Reagan and in '88 when an elector chose Bentsen for President and Dukakis as Vice-President.
The answer is ALL. If it was 47%, there wouldn't be any % difference between the popular vote results nationwide and the electoral college system. That would render the use of electoral college as an intermediary pretty much useless since they would really be converting the voting units from 'people' to 'electoral college votes.'
Yes, I read the articles. He could have correctly said he led the initiative in funding the internet, but he certainly did not 'create' it.
I think plenty about issues.. I don't like the democratic stance of more rules for more people. Things like hate crime legislation bother me. Are you any more or less murdered if you are white or black? Everyone gave bush grief over his response in the second debate regarding the death penalty when he was answering a question about 'hate crime' legislation. Something along the lines of 'we are putting them to death what more can we do to them?'. He was smiling because he so obviously won the debate point. If texas is ready to administer the appropriate punishment for the crime then obviously they do not need additional rules to further incarcerate someone based on the ability of the judge to 'read the mind' of the convicted.
(let me just add that the majority of americans, proven by polls, favor the death penalty)
The Democrats believe in equalizing the american people by taxing the rich and giving to the poor. Ask anyone in a former communist nation, government forcing equalization makes everyone except those in government equally poor.
There's some issues for you. But lets get back to the lying thing. Al Gore is a habitual liar, and lies to try to create 'an affinity the audience'. Well if he's lying about trivial things like union songs, doggie medicine, and visits to texas than what lies is he telling about the policies he'd like to put in place? Is he promising seniors a drug benefit because he plans to implement it or because he's creating 'affinity'?? Same with other issues like school aid or environmentalism. When he say's licensing firearms will not lead to confiscation are we to believe him?
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
I understand the poll's working tricks, and they have been in use for both sides as long as I can remember (most likely much longer than that). I wholeheartedly agree that they may be invalid, but I can't find ANY polls that support the simply stated "fact" by the article's author that the public supports Gore's policies over Bush's.
It really doesn't matter what the people of this country think about the issues. It only matter what the media SAYS they think.
You hit tha nail on the head there. And this is what the author of the article was doing by telling as fact that the majority of American's favor Gore's policies. I was just playing devil's advocate and questioning this baseless "assumption". We may never know where America's preferences are since the election seems to be based on who is dumber and who lies more. The policies seem a secondary consideration.
Finkployd
Mathematically speaking, your vote is always irrelevant unless the election is decided by exactly one vote. It won't even let you "make your voice heard" because there will be no difference in the reports if Bush or Gore gets 50,123,456 or 50,123,457 votes. And voting for a third party doesn't help either; I'll vote for Harry Browne so maybe he'll get 1,050,442 votes instead of 1,050,441. Big deal.
It's a bit of a paradox, nobody's vote determines the election but if based on that everybody decided to stay home, the system wouldn't work. So why will I vote? The same reason I run seti@home and distributed.net clients, so that I can feel that at least in a small way I'm doing something constructive. Even though nobody would notice if I didn't, it makes me feel good.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Please moderate this up. The media seem to have decided that liberals are "correct" on all the issues, and their only flaws are occasional character lapses. This is obviously not the case for a large number of people. For me, Gore's deceptions and demagoguery on Social Security and tax cuts are much more of a reason to vote against him than his exaggerations about creating the Internet.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
As originally chartered, the College was totally unworkable. A single vote, with the runner-up getting the VP job. That's fine when there's an obvious person everyone can get behind (old GW for the first two elections), but once the Federalist-Democrat, North-South, Industry-Agriculture, and other catfights started up, it became conspicuously absurd. The last straw was the nasty race between Jefferson and Burr -- who were supposed to be running on the same ticket. Naturally that led to some tweaking.
Hey, how many people realize that the College was a direct cause of the Civil War? In 1860, the Republicans were a brand new party, and didn't have the resources to put Electors on the ballot in every state. So they concentrated on their strong states, all of which were north of the Mason-Dixon line. But that was enough to elect Abraham Lincoln without a single southerner getting a chance to vote against him. Small wonder they decided that there was no place for them in the Union.
And here's the final absurdity. When your state chooses Bush or Gore (or Nader or Buchanan or that guy who teachs levitation), there's no guarantee that the state Electors will actually honor that choice. Oh there are legal sanctions (usually a small fine for not voting the ticket) and of course the parties try to pick the most loyal people they can. But you still see the odd wildcard voting his or her conscience instead of the ticket. This suggests some interesting possibilities, which I will not share with the more irresponsible Slashdotters!
The obvious thing is to do what most strong-executive democracies do: direct election, with a runoff if necessary. (The Vice President should be abolished, or at least elected separately. A job that exists for such blatently political purposes is as dangerous as hell.) The idea that states are sovereign entities, and thus deserve a direct role in electing the President is totally out of date. Of course, such a change would upset to many applecarts to happen anytime soon.
__________
No amendment. It is defined in Article II section 1.
The 'winner take all' is not a constitutional requirement. The states picked that one on their own.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
I am not an apathetic voter. In fact, I encourage everyone to vote, and look down on those who don't as unpatriotic. But, the fact remains, my vote does not matter in this election? Why? Because I live in Texas, and Texas is already sending its electoral college votes to Dubya (save for a comment from Bush along the lines of 'Who needs those dumb rednecks anyway?').
The only thing my vote matters to is in the next election, and even then, it's not something democratic, but rather some political party can get money. No power. No voice. Just money.
Does that strike anyone else as horribly wrong? I can effectively say that I have no voice in government. While I can support groups that want to change the system, changing the system is going to require voting, and I'm sure there are enough people out there who have realized that their vote doesn't matter and so they don't vote at all.
So what's my vote going to go for this election? I don't know. I was thinking me. Maybe then I will get some money from the government.
Yes. I agree security for the POTU and VPOUS is very important. But, do you really think they needed to do this during rush hour so they could attend a partisan fund-raisers....a fund-raiser, BTW, given by a serious Hollywood liberal for the VP of the United States the very day AFTER Gore said he would be not be their lackey (not those terms, precisely, but close enough).
If it were an official visit to negotiate world peace or something, I wouldn't have any complaints. But, for a fund-raiser at $2,500 a head? Get real. Would I complain if he decided to do it 2:30 PM or after rush hour? No, as it doesn't really impose on the citizens he wants to represent.
Better planning on his part would have alleviated the anger and frustration of many people just wanting to get home to their families and showed he really cares about them rather than his wallet.
Interesting. How do you feel about a non-New Yorker coming in and running for senate? What qualifies her to pack her bags, come to NY, and represent you. Does she truly have a better handle on the issues or is she the best the democrats can do having exausted their supply of native democrats? Think about it.
As for Reagan coming to your HS. Was it a fund-raiser for Republicans or rally speech for all citizens at a time when he was asking businesses to increase production? Was he asking for donations or charging admission?
But, its not particularly about partisanship (although I freely admit I can't stand Gore), but about common sense. A little more planning and consideration would save a lot grief and garner support from people who might still be swing voters.
BTW, in Reagan's case, it really didn't matter cause I think there was only region that didn't give their support, the District of Columbia, because the democratic candiate was so weak.
Frankly, I don't think the democrats had a prayer having been through a percieved weak presidency and high inflation with Carter (I don't necessarily think it was all warranted, however, as Carter inherited a mess to begin with from the Nixon/Ford era).
Yes. It would piss me off even if a Republican did it. I don't think its right for any fundraising activities of political parties to get between me, my family, or my dinner. .
I only agree with inconveniencing people for legitimate purposes such as world peace summits and such where the presense of the P or VP is crucial for the success of the mission. Fundraising doesn't qualify in my book.
RD
In an election where there are five parties capable of gaining seats, a win of 50% (popular vote) or more would be difficult at best.
---
Ya, and "Wag the Dog"
And "Primary Colors"
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
Personally, I still like the idea that a state is a somewhat powerful political entity.
:)
If we removed the electoral college, consider this: if every state were in favor of Bush, 51-49, and California was 100% behind Gore, Gore would win - despite the fact that he had a minority in 49 states.
Yes, I know it's an extreme example of what could go wrong. But, then, people only tend to focus on the extreme examples of what goes wrong in the status quo
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
I posted that entire essay, completely redone in HTML by me, AND with WORKING links, yesterday. Took me hours to turn that crappy text into pretty HTML. Suddenly, today, here it is on the front page of /. but all ugly and broken. But I don't care... really I don't... I'm used to being ignored by the proprietors of this site. Notice how Taco doesn't even mention anything like "UserX submitted this essay about..."? It's almost like he just came up with the entire idea himself. I don't even bother submitting interesting stories anymore because they invariably get rejected (even though they suddenly show up weeks later with credit given to someone else who submitted it weeks after I did). Guess I haven't kissed enough ass to be One Of The Cronies yet.
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."
but I am very intolerant (alert! P.C. blacklist word!) of emotional reactions (as yours clearly was) to factual, moral or ethical questions
Overreact much? First off, I made a glib one-liner, not a political pronouncement, so I can hardly comprehend how someone would see it as an "emotional" reaction.
Secondly, how can you be "intolerant of emotional reactions to...moral or ethical question"? What other kind of reaction should a person have to a moral or ethical issue?
You seem to be having a pretty emotional reaction of your own, there, if a one-liner can get you accusing me of supporting every hypocritical NOW statement of the past decade. No offense, but maybe holding me to a different standard than yourself (vis-a-vis emotional reactions) is why you have the common accusation of being hate-filled? You're tolerant of emotional reactions so long as they coincide exactly with yours?
Believe it or not, one doesn't have to swallow everything from the left in order to see the hypocracy on the right, or vice-versa. I laugh just as hard when NOW does a backflip trying to defend Clinton while criticizing Packwood -- the same kind of laugh that I use when i hear republicans giving out prescription drug plans instead of paying down the debt. It's funny how circumstances can change once inviolable standards of responsibility (whether it be moral or fiscal)...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Republicans are still completely for personal freedom and a minimum of government...whenever it suits them. Bring up gun regulation or welfare and Republicans scream about "Big Government". But as soon as someone wants to control their own reproductive rights, smoke a joint, or play Quake, then all of the sudden the government should be involved.
-B
It doesn't have to be either Republican or Democrat. I wish people would see this.
I wish EVERYONE would see this.
It's really easy. Everybody should just vote Harry Browne (or some other 3rd party).
If you hate Gore and Bush, don't pick the one you hate "least", simply pick someone else. What happened to good old common sense?
-=-
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Does this mean that if 47% of the popular vote was for Bush and
40% was for Gore (13% for everyone else) that Bush would receive
47% of the state's electoral votes - or ALL of them?
I don't know - which is why I am asking - but if the answer is "ALL" something is very wrong...
First they burn books, then they burn people.
On Gore:
0 08/18/000818dem_kgore.html
t ml
w /45811.htm
r .html
http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2000/0
He attended private schools and graduated cum laude from Harvard University.
http://www.uwire.com/content/topnews032100001.h
According to the Post, Gore earned "one D, one C-minus, two C's, two C-pluses, and one B-minus," during his sophomore year at Harvard. His classmates remember him that year as spending a lot of time "shooting pool, watching television, eating hamburgers, and occasionally smoking marijuana."
However, his junior year, he earned a B, B-plus and A-minus in three government courses.
His strong senior thesis on the impact of television on the presidency allowed him to graduate cum laude.
On Bush
http://www.sltrib.com/1999/nov/11101999/nation_
http://www.american-politics.com/111399MacArthu
Like many Freshmen, BushBaby ended his first semester at Yale with a whopping 75 average. But he learned his lesson, and during the Spring of 1965 he put in grueling hours at the library bringing his GPA up by almost a full point -- for a an impressive 75.8!
The american politics site actually has an image of Bush's graduation transcript.
Nader's parents were Lebanese immigrants, not Congressmen or Senators. He got into and graduated from Princeton. From there he got into and graduated from Harvard Law. You can do the math on how smart that makes him - someone without connections ascending through the finest programs in the US. Or course, even then, Nader was a rabble rouser, trying to get Princeton to ban DDT because dead birds were on campus, and rallying against hot dog packaging plans. You can note both of these efforts later proved spot on accurate, although they were not necessarily supported at the time. Heck, DDT nearly wiped out bald eagles in the lower 48.
I didn't follow every link to verify his claims. However, I did notice that he was selective in his examples. For example, his narrative of his sister's death.
Mr. Agre focused on those who doubt whether he was present during her death. However, most of the articles I have read that cited that speech didn't question whether he was present. They pointed out his statement about being opposed to big tobacco ever since that day. Then they point to his pro-tobacco votes after his sister's death.
Mr. Agre also ignores the fact that many of his supporters also feel that Gore exaggerates.
Agre's discussed this in some other articles. It's a tough case to make for this being new, agreed, but perhaps new watersheds are being crossed...
Since no links were pointed to this discussion, I can't evaluate it. However, I seriously doubt that any new height has been reached. As others have pointed out, the sad but true fact is that the press tends to sterotype candidates. Bush's intellegence, Ford's clumsiness, etc. By focusing on the 'exageration' question, Mr. Agre can truthfully claim that no other candidate has had the same scrutiny as Gore. However, it is not true that other candidates have not had their positions or attributes distorted to a greater degree by the press.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
Also, it seems to me that the media is picking on whichever candidate is in the lead, in hopes of keeping the race tight and thus keeping the public glued to the media outlets.
Back when Bush originally had a commanding lead in the polls, the media picked on him regularly, and were relatively mum about Gore's glaring faults. Then when Gore jumped to a substantial lead, the media turned on him in turn, and mostly ignored Bush's glaring faults. (And interestingly, they seemed more interested in criticizing Gore's makeup and mannerisms during the debates, rather than his genuine faults).
This is nothing but a dog and pony show, more appropriate for People magazine than for informing the public.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
But the "perception" you mention has a lot more to do with the way law gets made than you are giving it credit for. Also, the President's veto power, coupled with a narrow majority in Congress and with the rules of the Senate requiring a super-majority for business to move forward give President's a great deal of power. Reagan rammed much of his legislation through a strongly Democratic congress, and Clinton succesfully defanged his Republican opposition.
Presidents do get random credit or blame for economic conditions as you suggest, but they do deserve it for the legislation that takes place under their watches.
Slashdot is the wrong place to trot out the "a republic not a democracy" bit. Has the smell of elitism.
But I'm grateful for a chance to quote a joke from my favorite political TV show (bite me, Sorkin, you feelgood geek):
"We've done it that way for 350 years!"
"But is that really an argument?"
"It has been -- for 350 years!"
__________
Real link : Does the electoral college still work?
Education is the silver bullet.
Thank You!!!
No more of that nerdy news!!!
This is what I come to this site for, left leaning political discussion that really matters!!!
Thanks Again!!!!!!!!!
Of course, that turns out to be not quite true. This link points out the idiocy of having banned DDT.
Randall.
Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
The link, from page source, is http://www.discover.com/nov_00/gthere.html?article =featbestman.html
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I thought you just declare the assasination and the DM makes you roll an agility check or whatever he deems appropriate?
-Chris
Did you know that the presidental debates are brought to you by:
? I sure didn't.
That's disgusting.
-Waldo
More importantly, it eliminated the "lesser of two evils" argument -- if you want to vote for Browne but are worried about the election tipping to Gore (or want to vote for Nader but are worried about the election tipping to Bush), vote for your preferred candidate in the general election and the lesser of two evils in the runoff.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
No. In the event that no candidate receives the necessary electoral votes, members of the electoral college don't just get to continue voting any old way they like until somebody wins (though, in fact, they could vote any way they like, but they only get to do it once). Instead, the House delegations get to vote until somebody wins. HoR != EC.
If I remember correctly from government class, it was orginally created because those in charge of the government did not trust the common people with little or no education to be able to vote responsibly, so they implented this as a system of being able to override that. This way, the wealthy few were in charge of the rest of the nation. (see previous article with letter by Brin)
The electoral college is broken. You can win an election without getting a majority because of it. There are many proposed solutions, but this problem has been known of for years. The people in charge don't want it changed, because then they may no longer be in charge.
Personally, I think the best solution is to get rid of it. If you get the most votes in the election, you win. Period.
If that doesn't work, divide the electoral votes by congressional district, rather than state. Doesn't give California and New York so much swing anymore since it would be broken down. Or, divide the electoral votes up percentage wise among candidates in each state. (For example, Nader gets 45% of the votes in California, Gore gets 50% and, Bush gets 5%, if CA had 100 electoral votes, Nader would get 45, Gore would get 50, and Bush would get 5) This would mean that those voting for Nader or Bush in CA votes would still have meaning, and not be tossed out the window.
So get rid of it, or divide them evenly, pretty much the same result.
What?
This election does matter for high-tech people. Gore would continue to bloat up the federal administration and increase it's effect on high-tech endeavours. Ever read what he did when 'inventing' the internet? He did not want it opened to research, much less public usage.
I've worked in a country with too much direction of high-tech research (Japan). MITI throttles all industrial research in Japan. Al Gore's minions pouring over high tech is the last thing we need here. SDI pushed forward, like Bush wants would do far more to creating high-tech jobs than any of Al Gore's programs.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Good thing /. isn't claiming to be impartial at the top of the story, either. But the article linked from the Daily Howler makes some excellent points; The Republican press is definitely printing out and out lies. There's no way to look at it other than irresponsible. Not, mind you, that the Democrat press is going to be all halos.
As an aside, examine the other comments in parallel with mine (IE, the one you're reading now), numbers 54 and 63. They both agree with comment 25 which I am replying to (which is a well-constructed piece of text if ever I have seen one) and they both contain a number of misspellings. Were I to use the tactics of the press I could liken them to Dan Quayle, and score some conversational points against them and their argument, even though it is completely irrelevant to their points.
Whoops! I just did that very thing, without actually doing so - And this is exactly what is happening to Vice President Gore. And by the way, the long, long list of things that Quayle said that were in fact completely boneheaded even when taken in context seem to justify his treatment by the press. Similarly (but only just slightly) I have very little faith in Bush's ability to chair the nation.
I do think it's ironic to call it "The New Science" when it's clearly only an extension of something that's as old as press coverage of politics. But I still find it unacceptable when grown adults who know themselves to have a broad audience of people who will treat their word as trustworthy knowingly commit acts of slander. They know what they're saying is inaccurate to the point of fabrication, but they persist. I don't exactly think that's appropriate, and this particular piece getting a hilight on a forum which contains a significant number (or even percentage!) of educated, literate voters seems right to me.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Public speaking ability != intelligence. How about if we get you up on a debate platform in front of the whole world and see you smooth the words flow?
Read his policy statements. You do know how to read, right? Or does only smooth talking impress you?
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Anyone interested in the Electoral College and alternate voting and/or election methods should check out The Center for Voting and Democracy The have a lot of great information on alternative voting methods including those listed in the Discover article, but in much more detail.
and BTW the only reason human drugs are more expensive then pet drugs is that they must pass much more stringent tests involving many years of trials
Nope.. They're usually the same drugs, made by the same company on the same equipment in the same factory. There is no difference between the Prozac prescribed by your doctor and the Prozac prescribed for your dog, except that the drug company charges 10 times as much for it, because you have no choice but to pay them.
.sig: Now legally binding!
I have always believed that the electoral college was created in an era when communication was slow at best. It was needed then... now I am not so sure.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
It's suddenly dawning on you that the media does this? Welcome to political reality. Once the media gets its teeth on a vision of a politician, that's his/her image forever. Any reinforcement is noted, while contrary evidence is ignored. Gerald Ford was probably one of the most athletic Presidents, yet a couple of missteps and he bacame known as a stumblebum. Dan Quayle did a bad intro of himself to the press and forever after he was tarred with the brush of being a complete moron. Bush is now seen as a word-slurring dimwit frat-boy, contradictory evidence notwithstanding. Gore is just geting his turn in the barrel. I think what bugs you is that it's now happening to a candidate you favor.
Uh, if you're going to post this, why not post something balanced, or at least post something comparable about the dirty tricks of the other side? Both major parties constantly participate in this kind of crap. The Republicans are harping on Gore's misstatements, the Dems are harping on Bush's misstatements. It's been going on for a long time, and both sides are guilty. How long did we have to hear about Qualye's "potatoe"?
Ahem.
/. are complaining, rather loudly, that Taco, Hemos, and the gang are running stories that are pro-Gore.
It seems that the conservatives on
Interestingly, the "pro-Gore" article run today is more "anti-anti-Gore," but that's beside the point.
The point is that Taco tells us I just personally wanted to note that the submissions are extremely lopsided; virtually nil for any 3rd party candidates (except a few Nader) and only a little more for Bush. We're trying to give the major candidates linkage, so if you find good sources on the net (or want to write one!) submit it!, and the reaction has been to complain about how sneaky Taco is for not posting Bush articles.
It's a frigging BBS, fellas. He can't post articles that you don't submit. Furthermore -- just as a disclaimer before you start submitting -- he can't post articles that aren't interesting and don't have some smidgen of integrity.
Taco makes mistakes a lot. Like when he tells us that an article questions the functionality of the Electoral College, when it's really question the functionality of a plurality-wins popular vote system in the primary and November elections. But by God, man, his heart's in the right place, and he's trying to pull for you.
Well, there goes my karma. I'll see you on the other side, where my user name will be T. Nivek.
--Kevin
Is that like those Slashot articles on a paticular product actually being a cleverly disguised advertisement? Better tune my tinfoil hat. :)
Now, I am truly saddened. Every so often I read the kind of misguided propoganda as touted in "The New Science of Character Assassination" and realize that supposedly intelligent people believe it.
/. linking to this sort of so-called information, proclaiming it as gospel, and then taking the time to say "We're tying to give the major candidates linkgage, so if you find good sources on the net (or want to write one!) submit it".
/. to provide me with up-to-date information on a variety of subjects. Sometimes, I take the time to post. Other times I don't because I have nothing meaningful to contribute.
What's worse is seing
What consititutes a "good" source? From the ramblings of CmdrTaco, it would seem that only links to put Gore in a good light and Bush (or Republicans in general) in a bad light are "good".
So much for objective coverage.
I look to
But, when such an important decision is pending such as the election of a new president, I find myself disgusted by the liberal and leftist views expressed by the primary moderators of this forum.
A conservative by choice, I and many other "conservatives" don't necessarily think the ideals of the democrats are necessarily bad or evil. We are not all right-wingers or bible thumpers, believe it or not.
I'm conservative by choice yet support a woman's right to choose. But, as a working member of society who has bills to pay and children to feed, I don't believe in the high cost of government that would result if Gore's "vision" is implemented. I want the ability to use it to provide a better future for my family.
I believe that we need to clean up the environment.
I believe we need new, renewable, energy sources.
I'm a Gulf War veteran and a former naval officer. I left service BECAUSE of the downsizing of the military under Clinton's watch and the subsequent demoralizatoin. Yes, congress ( a republican one) has had much to do with this.
The cold-war was over, efforts needed to be done to bolster or economy. They did at the expense of the miltary. The military OP-tempo is 400% that of what it was both before and immediately after the Gulf War. Navy ships that were four months at sea and one year in port were now 6 in/ 6 out. That is not smarter utilization of our fleet, its stupidity.
But, truth be told, the President has very little to do with the economy other than perception. Rather, it is congress and the senate that make the laws (actually bills). The president only signs them into the law. The more the president signs the more he takes credit for. If the economy goes well and grows, he looks like a savior. If it goes bad, we remove him from office.
The president is a figure head. He/she is supposed to represent the ideals of America and be presidential. Character plays a big part here. So, do you want a habitual "Bender of the truth" or a straight shooter (pun intended).
Do you want Hollywood dictating the policy of the country or the people? Do you want judges dictating social policy rather than enforcing law?
Do we want to vote for somebody simply because of their particular stand on abortion (BTW, check the facts, Gore IS NOT "pro-choice". In the past, he has said otherwise. He just changes his views depending upon whatever the populists say he should represent).
Yes, these are big statements. This is a big election. You may not agree with my views nor I yours. But, get the facts before voting. The answers may suprise you. If you are a journalist, report fairly. To say the media is pro-democrate, look at CNN.com. The have extensive coverage of Gore in the "Democracy in America" section. Little, if any information regarding Bush. The polls are two days old as they were following the previous debate. Why? Because the public said Bush won... a view contrary to theirs.
What would I like to see? How about a one bill/one law law that prevents "riders". Each bill should be voted on its merit and not on what is attached. Too much good legislation has been defeated because of the current system.
RD
Is there any chance that the voting methods in this country can be changed? The Borda count seems like a pretty good idea (though you do need to know your candidates). At least that way, most people at least get a candidate that they don't absolutely despise (hopefully, it's somebody that most people are at least neutral about, and maybe somewhat positive about).
Anyway, I'm curious -- does anyone know exactly where it has been defined that we need to vote the way we do? For the Presidential race in particular, are the voting methods defined in the states, at the federal level, or is it a combination? Can a state just go say, ``we're going to use Approval or Borda voting''?
--
Ski-U-Mah!
I also don't give one tenth of one shit about someone's grades in school. I had lousy grades, but I consider myself to be a pretty sharp individual. So why would I care if Gore graduated at all? I didn't.
First of all, I would claim it is obvious you want someone reasonably intelligent in the White House.
Grades can be a good predictor of someone's intelligence. If someone went to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton, and got good grades, you would be assured he was intelligent. If someone went to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton, and was a C student, you can be pretty sure that person either did not care about grades, or was not highly intelligent. In any case, the person was not highly attentive to his coursework. Anyone with the background of Bush or Gore was easily capable of being a B student if he applied himself. A C student was simply overmatched at the Ivy League, or didn't give a shit about academics. I am not certain I want either of those in the White House.
Besides, what is the assurance that someone who did poorly in school, poorly in industry, was bailed out by Daddy time and time again, and drank his life away for forty years, would not just turn and collapse at some inopportune moment ? Come on, I've known alcoholics, and sometimes they just go back on the bottle. Is that really what you want when some terrorist drives plastic explosives into an american destroyer in Yemen ? Sorry general, but the president is drunk again. We are trying hard to sober him up right now. We'll get back to you.
If someone went to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton, and got good grades, you would be assured he was intelligent.
/.
Perhaps. You're just as likely to get someone who communicated like this:
How are auditory stimuli influenced by contextual cues such as other stimuli ?
Good point. But in considering communication one should consider one's target audience. My brief home page is certainly not written for
Our educational system serves more to enforce the division of social classes than it does to help humanity. Which is why people with degrees are so insistent that they are smarter than everyone else, and always are the first to defend the status quo.
No one was discussing the issue of intelligence for someone without a degree. Record in school cannot be used as an indication of intelligence for someone that did not attend school, obviously. But it can be used to compare people who went through similar educational experiences at similar times in life, like Bush, Gore, and Nader. At least one of those did well as an undergraduate, and it wasn't Bush or Gore.
The Electoral College pretty much means that your vote is meaningless if the majority of the people in your state disagree with you. Because of this a number of people don't vote because they do not feel that their vote really counts. I live in Georgia, a decidely conservative state politically. I tend to lean towards the more liberal side and would vote for the Libertarian Party if thought it would make any bit of difference. But I already know that it will not.
And really it is not worth my time to travel to the polls and vote when I know that even if I decide to take, in my opinion, the lesser of the two evils. it still won't matter because a majority of my neighbors are going to vote the republican party line.
Its really quite depressing that the land of the free where we take such pride in allowing our citizens to vote for who they choose. Has such a system that a lot of people are just not going to vote because they feel disillusioned by our system of voting.
Reagan wasn't aiding our enemies in direct opposition to congress. He was aiding our marginal allies (which was what was forbidden by congress) by selling arms to our enemies...(at least that is how the allegations go) which might have broken a law other then just plain common sense.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Was passed. It was called the "Line Item Veto"... but was ruled unconstitutional as soon as President Clinton tried to use it.
yours,
yours,
kbs
So he misphrased it. Here's what he did do:
Introducing legislation is often known (in Congress-ese) as 'taking the initiative.'
Heck, Bush is probably still anxiously waiting to meet the leader of Fredonia. I live in the state he supposedly "leads." If the rest of the nation knew just how little real power is in the hands of a Texas governor, they'd understand why he was good enough for that job, and not nearly qualified enough for a real job.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Oh Puhleeeeeeze. The "Character" article is a cheezy, obviously left-wing, spin-doctored, joke. Frankly I'm surprised Taco included a link to it. It's not journalism or news - it's propaganda.
Let us consider the New York Times story in detail. Written by Alison Mitchell, it describes Al Gore's abject apology for two trivial and much-exaggerated errors in the first debate as "the culmination of a skillful and sustained 18-month campaign by Republicans to portray the vice president as flawed and untrustworthy".
Seriously - Mr. Gore doesn't need a shred of help from Republicans to appear any more flawed and untrustworthy than he already appears.
They call me the working man. I guess that's what I am.
- Eric Cartman
Hello, we techies aren't a bunch of pot-smoking save the earth hippies!
God, you'd think we were all RMSs. I know techies to be more equally divided politically, perhaps more libertarians, like myself.
Here we see some balance to Bush's mistakes of grammar, (Mid-western oriented) pronunciation, and nonsensical quotes.
As you can see, there are a bunch of illogical, absurd, and funny statements which make it clear why he may have failed vanderbilt and considers coddled journalistic... anyway...
http://www.copie.com/politics/goreisms. htm
-Ben
Note: I have switched my vote to Gore. After all, he did take the initiative in creating the internet.
Presumably you couldn't do this today, since people would figure out pretty quickly what was up. (Imagine if the "democratic" candidate for Pres. was Bill Bradley in the Northeast, and Gore elsewhere? Or if the Republican were McCain in the NE and Bush elsewhere?) But I thought it was an interesting idea.
Note, also, that the intent of the EC was also in part to force the winning candidate to have appeal which subsumed geographic lines -- if you went by a straight popular vote, overwhelming majorities in only a few states could decide the election.
At least Gore can point to things he's done that have actually improved things. Prescription drugs, you say? How about pharmaceutical price gouging hearings that Gore conducted in 1978? Education? Co-sponsored the bill creating the Department of Education. Environment? Do you really need me to run down the list?
Thats funny, most of what I heard from Gore is how prescription drug prices are too expensive, how the school system is falling apart, and how 'big oil' is taking advantage of american citizens. Obviously on the first two he's done nothing to improve the situation because they are still problems. The last one is thanks to his environmental agenda, as the Clinton/Gore administration have actively worked to lower domestic oil exploration and refining, thus increasing US dependency on forign oil. Not only does this 'feel good' environmental policy increase our worldwide vulnerability but it also takes land away from otherwise innocent american citizens. How many ranchers / farmers / landowners have been kicked off their land or restricted in it's use because of all the new 'federally protected' land the government has usurped? Plenty.
What are we thinking, using their tax money to keep people from dying of hunger, exposure, and disease! God forbid the government should exhibit a social conscience!
Do you see a person on the street and think that you have more right to their money then they have? After all either they or their relatives worked hard and/or smart to earn that money. You did nothing to deserve that money.. How is it that you (or anyone else for that matter) have more of a right to it than the person who busted their ass earning it? Instead of the democrat solution of 'throwing money at the problem' perhaps we should instead get to the root of why people are homeless, out of work, or whatever.
How far of a strech is it that if the government should have a 'social conscience' about protecting poor people that it should also use that same conscience to protect childeren from internet pornography, or protect US citizens from crypto-weilding terrorists? Not far. The constiution does not outline providing for the less fortunate of society for good reason.. It's a slippery slope to go from providing a helping hand to ruling with an iron fist in the name of protecting it's citizenry.
I do not believe that Al Gore is a liar
I suppose if you believe hard enough in santa no amount of proving the thermodynamic imposibility of delivering presents to everyone in the world will change your mind either.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
but the situation could be even worse (though arguably more unlikely) in a straight popular vote. that is, by pulling huge majorities in a geographically limited area, a candidate could capture the presidency while completely ignoring the concerns of a large chunk of the country. the electoral college system isn't perfect, but it does manage to strike a minimal balance between representation by geography and representation by population.
maybe I'm a little bitter right now from the *definite* pro-gore slant of the previous slashdot articles (not just David Brin's screed either)...
Before everyone starts complaining about how Bush is assasinating Gore, keep in mind that Character assasination is performed by both sides, not just the GOP. The Gore compagin has been assasinating Bush's character since last year. How did they do this you might ask?
Bush's college/graduate school record is much better than Gore's. In fact, Gore never graduated from Vanderbilt.
The following Op-Ed appeared in the Boston Globe on september 7th. Before flaming this post (or the opposite), please take the time to read it.
Op-Ed
GORE'S DUBIOUS SCHOOL RECORD
JENNIFER C. BRACERAS
JENNIFER C. BRACERAS Jennifer C. Braceras is an attorney and research fellow at Harvard Law School. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.
When will the liberal media stop treating left-wing ideology as a
proxy for intelligence? For months the press has questioned the
intellect of Republican candidate George W. Bush, while describing Al
Gore as "serious," "intellectual" - even "wonkish."
The basis for the media's unfair attacks on Bush's intelligence is his
30-year-old Yale College transcript (purloined last fall and published by The New Yorker). Yet The Washington Post's subsequent revelation of Gore's
unimpressive academic record has done little to alter the media's false
portrayal of Gore as "the smartest kid in the class." It is a record
that is worth reviewing, if only to debunk the myth of Gore as a serious
student.
Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's,
including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science
course, and a C-plus in another. "In his sophomore year at Harvard,"
the Post reported, "Gore's grades were lower than any semester
recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale." Moreover, Gore's graduate
school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing
short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity
School where, according to Bill Turque, author of "Inventing Al
Gore," he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the
course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a
degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from
Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and
received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from
Harvard).
But whereas the liberal press has described Bush's college days as
a time of misspent youth, media accounts of Gore's undergraduate
years are grossly fawning. (The New York Times: "As Mr. Bush was
frolicking around Yale, a young man named Al Gore was studying at
Harvard"; "Harvard nurtured the part of [Gore] that is in love with
the world of ideas." The New Republic: "At Harvard, Gore set himself
formidable intellectual challenges.")
And then there is the laughable October issue of Psychology Today.
As part of a cover story20 entitled, "Gore and Bush on the Couch," the
magazine reports the results of a spurious "analysis" of 10 of the
candidates speeches and/or interviews. The authors claim that the
study "verifies" the popular stereotype that "Bush is not as deep a
thinker as Gore."
Two pages later, readers will be shocked - shocked! - to learn
that the magazine's (no doubt scientific) study of the candidates'
facial gestures reveals that Gore is the "more serious, constrained,
controlled, weighty, ponderous, [and] dominant of the two
candidates." More ponderous, perhaps . . . but, please, spare me the pop
psychology.
Biased reporters, however, are not the only ones to blame. Indeed,
the vice president himself has cultivated this genius persona (one of
many). Thus, he did not correct PBS News anchor Gwen Ifill when she
referred to him as a graduate of Vanderbilt Law School. Even more
significant was the line in Gore's convention acceptance speech in
which he stated, "I know my own imperfections. I know that sometimes
people say I'm too serious, that I talk too much substance and
policy." Poor Al, he's just too smart for the job.
Of course, the stereotyping of conservative candidates as dumb and
liberal candidates as "brilliant" is nothing new. During the 1950s,
the media lionized Democrat Adlai Stevenson as an intellectual,
while ridiculing Republican Dwight Eisenhower as an ineffectual
simpleton. Back the n, the members of the press knew full well that
Stevenson attended Harvard Law School and, yet, had not received a
degree. But the media gave Stevenson a pass. (Sound familiar?) Had
resourceful journalists investigated, they might have learned (as we
now know from Stevenson's biographer John Bartlow Martin) that
Harvard Law School Dean Erwin Griswold had hidden Stevenson's transcript
in a locked cabinet in his office. What was he hiding? Stevenson, the
so-called "thinking man's candidate," had, in fact, flunked out of Harvard Law.
In the end, neither intellect nor academic performance is an
especially importan criterion by which to judge our presidents.
Ronald Reagan and Harry Truman were no scholars, but they rank amon g
the best presidents in our country's history. And what about many
liberals' favorite president - Franklin Roosevelt? Social, popular,
and famously unserious as an undergraduate at Harvard, FDR had an
undistinguished academic record. Yet, later in life, Roosevelt's
charisma and his ability to persuade, compromise, and lead helped him
to become a "reformer with results."
This election is not an I.Q. test; it is about which candidate has
better judgment. And that is why, despite the media's love affair
with the celluloid image of Al Gore the policy-wonk, it is the
affable, authentic, and sensible Bush who would make the better
leader.
9/7/00 BOSTONG A15
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
Boy this is so incorrect it is scary. To say every person who voted for Perot would have chosen to vote for Bush is wrong. I voted for Perot and would have voted for Clinton over Bush. Now, this does not dismiss you very valid point though. I believe the primary system strips us of the better candidates. Instead, I believe we should have a National Primary in March of the election year with the top four candidates (regardless of party) being the official candidates who will then have a 100% public financed campaign. Then we have run-off elections until a clear absolute 50.1+% of the electorate vote for one candidate. This isn't fully fleshed out as it has been an idea I just came up with last week after feeling like I got ripped off because I never had a chance to vote for either McCain or Bradley. 3% of the nation selected Bush and Gore (this is an unproven percentage and should not be taken as a literal factual number...it is meant to emphasize the fact that a low number of the electorate actually choose the two front runners).
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Uh huh. And when Dan Quayle, admittedly not the most articulate politician ever but a competent and reasonably thoughtful Senator, was universally described in the media as a drooling moron, was that a right-wing plot also? When fabricated story after story, like "I enjoyed visiting Latin America. I wish I spoke Latin." was presented as fact, where was Philip Agre?
The problem here is the Jay Leno / David Letterman mentality of repeating anything as long as it continues to get a laugh. It's unfunny when they do it and shameful when journalists do it.
No, J. Edgar Hoover was not gay or a transvestite. A single filmmaker quoted a single source who claims to have once seen a picture of Hoover in a dress. Where's Philip Agre on that one?
---------
/. never promised to be an objective witness to anything. /. is unashamedly partisan on lots of issues. To a very great extent, /. is still CmdrTaco and Hemos's personal website, no matter how popular or well funded it is. If the links that they find most interesting about the presidential elections tend to be unsympathetic to Bush, then that's the way they feel and that's what they post. Don't confuse /. with a real news source - it's still a very personal creation.
--
Xenu loves you!
You have some good stuff to say here, but there's one thing that really sticks in my craw. You wanna vote for Bush because you think you agree with him on the issues, that's one thing, but to pretend that he's got some kind of superior character is just... just... well, it's just mind-blowing to me. Do you know anything at all about the guy?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Gore or Clinton are some kind of saints over Bush, either. Far as I'm concerned they're all a pack of weasels. But geez, saying "character counts" and pointing to Bush as the positive example is like saying "security counts" and pointing to Microsoft.
Tell me something. When a conservative makes a truck, does it pull right? The answer is No.
But, seriously, it's virtually impossible to influence politics through the way you create a truck or what have you. The media, on the other hand, has a very significant influence on the public by simply producing their sole product: information. Put simply, they are the SOURCE from which 99.99% of the public relies on for information beyond their immediate surroundings. It's not as if each and every person personally hears what a politican has to say, or can accurately measure the state of the economy beyond their own hometown. Instead, they turn to the likes of CNN from their information on the candidates, what they say, and on the issues. When those quotes are selectively biased against a particular candidate, or when the "facts" about a candidate are distorted, or when the information of the state of the economy is withheld from people, you can be sure that's going to have some influence.
To sum it all up, there's a word for this. GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. If you feed the people crap, you can hardly depend on them making anything other than crappy decisions. Now maybe crap is a little strong of a word, but the point is that the more crap you foist on the public, the more apt the public is to bring about bad policy. The more leftist the media coverage is, the more likely the public is to be friendly to leftist policies.
I, for one, believe in the public, on the aggregate. In other words, if you give the public a decent reporting of the facts, the majority of the answers are apt to be things that you'll agree with. The flipside, of course, is when the media gives its typically glossy coverover of the news, they'll have little understanding or appreciation for the more subtle issues.
Source: My Ass
Let's face it, we are stuck with a bunch of losers. And those people who want to support Nader, you'd better tack a real close look at his Tech Policies and how he wishes to handle foreign affairs.
I'm voting Gore and voting for the most curmudgeony Senator I can and the most liberal representative I can to make sure if either Bush or Gore get elected, they'll face a Congress that won't put up with any of their tripe.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
As you say in your page, most of these I recognize as Quayleisms from several years ago.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Uh guys......Bill Bradley, his Democratic opponent in the Democratic primary, and quite a liberal in his own right, asked Al Gore in their debate if
"you (Al Gore) can't tell the truth as a candidate, why should we believe you will tell the truth as president?"
Do you honestly think Bill Bradley is part of this vast right wing conspiracy?
Gore lies....and he got caught.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
The real kick in the ass came in 1824 when Andrew Jackson won a majority of both the popular and electoral vote yet still lost the election to John Quincy Adams.
(Neither man got a majority of the electoral votes, so the election was decided by the House of Representatives, which voted by state 13-7 for Adams with 3 going for William Crawford.)
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
I would like to see a Presidential debate where each candidate could bring a laptop computer and consult it during the debate. "Well, I downloaded Senator Bedfellow's platform last night, and it clearly says here ... on the other hand, if you look at the 2002 Federal budget, on this line...."
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Well, my feedback (which I'll also furnish to the debate commission) is that Jim Lehrer is a horrible moderator. Not only were most of his questions insipid, (or in the case of debate 3, ill-chosen) but he allowed repeated violations of the rules. It's probably too much to hope that any candidates would go for this, but I'd prefer to see a mix of agressive journalists/commentators rotated thru the moderator position. I'd love to see people like Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, and Bill O'Reilly asking the questions. And I don't think any of them would just sit there while people went over-time or started asking each other questions.
I agree. It is wrong to ever utter a wyrd that could possybly offend anyone. What we need are fylters that can remove every wyrd that has any negatyve connotation wyth any specyfic mynority or oppressed group.
That will leave us wyth about seven wyrds we can use to communycate. Sure it wyll be dyfficult, but we must protect the feelyngs of everyone at all costs.
Sheesh
Finkployd
If you recall, during the Reagan/Bush administration, the buildup was to make the military strong (I quote the 600 ship Navy and SDI). The percieved strength of our military forced the Soviet Union to overextend themselves. Eventually, communism in the SU failed and the "wall came tumbling down".
Reagan also had to deal with the cluster F of Nixon/Ford and Carter and what's his name. Gov't grew greatly under Carter (as did inflation). I don't necessarily blame Carter for all of it. He did many good things (like regional trauma centers). Carter was a smart man who inherited a mess. He then made the mess bigger by going along with a democratic house.
Anyway...back to Reagan...
A lot of factors existed here. Had we not been in arms race with the SU, I'd suspect gov't would have been a lot smaller. But, we would have been unprepared for the events that occured in the Bush/Quale administration.
During Bush/Quale, there was the initial hit of going to war. Following the war, the economy hit the skids. Unfortunate, but it happened and it was predictable. Without the "war machine" running, layoffs occurred and domestic life went south.
Clinton/Gore did continue to reduce the size of the miltary. The navy has shrunk down to under 400 ships if I am not mistaken. Op-tempo has increased by 400%. My old ship (now decommissioned and destined to become a barrier reef) saw Somalia, the Middle-East, and South America and a few other "conflicts" before returning home for decommissioning. Many left service because of the "liberalizing" and "nation building" philosophy imposed upon the military. Active reserve programs were disbanded.
While some say a Navy's job is to be at sea, there is prudence in making sure they get home, see their families, and maintain their ship. When at sea, much of the maintenance doesn't happen. Things break and people get hurt.
The view that Bush/Cheney propose is a lot smaller. While Bush has not given specifics on exactly how he'll rebuild the military, I'd suspect it would entail a build up of ships and increasing morale by bringing troops home, increasing their benefits (for the lower enlisted ranks, many are in poverty) and then giving them the purpose of being the military rather than the peace corp.
His plan to move many programs to the state and local levels will allow them to custom craft their programs. Money will still be spent, but it will be (hopefully) better targeted and utilized.
Gore's plans, while they sound fantastic (I'd LOVE to see many of them, BTW), are going to cost us a fortune. Somebody has to pay for those programs. This means that the tax cuts we've been promised since 1992 are not going to happen. Our "surplus" will initially go to funding these programs. But, eventually, we will be saddled with the price tag. If Gore is reelected in 2004 (assuming he is elected in 2000), you can bet we'll see tax hikes to pay for these programs.
If a republican takes office in 2004, either those programs created by Gore will need to be funded or killed. So, expect to see either no tax cut and a reduction in some of the programs or a serious killing of programs in the next term. This would make the public view of the republican president pretty poor as he's hurting the poor. Its a no win situation for the president (or the American people) in 2004 if Gore is elected.
If Bush is elected and he makes too many cuts. He looks bad now, but he will have the opportunity to either create new programs (hey..congress is elected every 2 years, right?) or risk being removed from office in 2004. End game - a return to the democrats in office to start the cycle all over again.
RD
IMO, Slashdot should state the candidates they support and not be wishy-washy about it.
I watch the sea.
I saw it on TV.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
According to the Daily Howler the "Gore invented the internet" story was popularized by Wired writer Declan McCullagh in this story. Declan finally gives Gore some credit, 19 months later, here. But by then, practically every journalist in the US had piled on, many of them exaggerating the story. And Declan is still ducking responsibility for the stories he & wired spread; you can read Phil Agre's dissection.
To his credit, Newt Gingerich tried to set the record straight on 9/1/2000 when he took part in a colloquium for the American Political Science Association. The panel was broadcast live on C-SPAN. Speaking about the 1996 Telecommunications Bill, Gingrich at one point said this: Remember: this is Newt Gingerich speaking. You can't dismiss his remarks as another case of liberal bias. But I'll bet ya never saw that story in the news!
And while I'm debunking, here's a line from a story that appeard in the Boston Globe 4/11/2000: The truth is, Gore worked five years for the Nashville Tennessean, and prior to that he spent two years as a reporter in the U.S. army. Two plus five equals seven. But the Globe never saw fit to retract their lie.
So Phil Agre is absolutely right: the RNC has gotten away with an amazing campaign of character assassination. Now it's time to tell the truth.
Prove it.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Software that was used to rate the candidates truthfulness during the debate. Cool stuff. I would have loved to just sit there during the debates with this thing running flagging everything they said.
.co m/time/campaign2000/story/0,7243,58092,00.html
http://www.time
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I'm glad someone on the left took time away from trying to portray Bush as a stupid coke head, Cheney as old and dying, and republicians as evil to recognise the disgusting actions of those on the other side who have the audacity to do the same thing to their exualted party.
It's a sad state of affairs when a liberal has to take time away from hate mongering and slandering to respond to the same thing from conservatives.
Thank you Taco, for bringing this injustice to our attention.
Sheesh
Finkployd
Also, did you know he was denied access to the debates, not only as a debater, but as a viewer? Twice, he had valid tickets to enter the premises, and twice, he was denied access by the debate commission, with police threatening arrest. Tell me there was any reason other than his political affiliation... I imagine that will go to court as well.
Oh, and get your Nader Funky Beats here.
---
So am I.
But then Al Gore claims internet creatorship because he sponsored finance bills which helped turn Darpanet into the internet?
No. Look up the word 'initiative' as it pertains to the working of committees in Congress. He doesn't claim 'creatorship.' He does claim that he initiated the process of procuring funding (through congressional action) to help spawn the Internet from ARPANET.
He never claimed 'creatorship.' Ever.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Ok, I'm Australian, and I find the American political system perhaps slightly more boring than even our own dodgy political system. But I have been interested in what appears to be, even to the casual international observer, character assassination of everyone but Bush.
For example, Ralph Nader is known even over here in Australia (at least if you've had more than a rudimentary education). He's clearly a smart guy, yet it seems he's getting the sharp end of the stick at every turn. Why?
And Al Gore. We've all seen the 100s of posts in his defence disproving his "gaffes", pointing out that they're not gaffes but blatant lies and misrepresentations by the media. So why do the lies and misrepresentations continue?
I say it's for entertainment. It's clearly a bad news-day/week/month and the media is playing your election up for all it's worth. If they were honest and portrayed the candidates in a fair and unbiased light then you'd have no contest. It'd be like a boxing match between Tyson and Pee-Wee Herman (and that fully exhausts my knowledge of American celebrities). Your Tyson is of course Al Gore. Not only is Al Gore obviously smarter than his #1 competitor, he also has more experience, he did better at school, he looks better on TV, he has more hair, his teeth are much shinier and whiter, and he's taller than everyone else too. What more do you Americans want from a President?
Nobody would watch the debates if the media had portrayed the candidates fairly. So in an attempt to boost TV ratings and newspaper sales, your media is doing a snow-job on Bush and a smear-campaign on Gore and ignoring all the other candidates (because you can't have a fair and unbiassed election if there are more than two choices! everybody knows this).
Your presidents are picked by TV. I think you lot should know this by now. The TV conglomerates not only pick the winner they force it to happen through media attention and persuasion. Who cares who becomes president when there's a buck to be made! I think you should all vote Rupert Murdoch for president and acknowledge who the real leader of your country is, once and for all!
When we wonder how intelligent somebody is, how do we measure that?
The other day, I saw exceprts from Gore's transcript from college. The low grades in economics (I think it was a C or D) and other pertinent courses ( like math) makes it clear that not only did he invent fuzzy logic, but also fuzzy math and fuzzy economics .
I'd really love to see Bush's transcript as well. Since both are went to "tough" and "respected" schools (Havard vs Yale) for the rich, it would be a nice comparison.
Seriously, do I think Gore cares about the environment and people. Yes, I do. But, do I think he's the one to lead this country? Hell no.
Do I think Bush cares about the environment and people? Yes, I do. But I think he's the better candidate for the job when given the choice of available candidates. I really like to see a blending of Gore and Bush, but Star Trek tranporter malfunctions are pretty rare in this day and age.
As for sending Bush on overseas diplomacy visits. Last I checked, the VP is really the one to handle foreign policy. Cheney is ideal for this. In critical situations, meet here in the US and have the veep and the prez attend.
BTW, while I really do hate bringing religion into politics, do you honestly think a jew can bring peace and honest brokering to the Middle-East given the hatred the Palestinians have for the jews?
Do I think Lieberman is qualified for the job as VP? Yes and No. I say no because he has already shown that he works both sides of the fence in regards to Hollywood.
Do I think Gore really wants campaign finance reform? Yes...but only because he got caught in the middle of it all. Does Bush? Probably not to the extent that McCain wants it.
BTW, did anybody check out the fact that during a recent Gore fundraiser in New York (at Bon Jovi's house), they closed off the major traffic arteries for 45 minutes until Gore passed during rush hour? Where was Gore's caring for the American worker when all the American worker wanted to do was get home to their families? Even Howard Stern lit into Gore for this one.
For those that really care, this fundraiser was held the day after the second debate when Gore said, in pretty clear terms, that he wasn't a Hollywood lackey.
RD
The convention speech is a perfect example of Agre's selecting facts that support his arguement while ignoring those that do not. In the convenction speech, he used the story of his sister's death to illustrate how from "that day" he vowed to fight big tobacco interests. Mr. Agre focuses on the claims of Gore's presence, or lack, at his sister's death bed. He ignores the fact that Gore's voting records calls into doubt whether he made the vow that day.
And as I hope is clear, this rarely reaches the point of fabricating considerable numbers of untrue examples (not characterizations, but reported 'facts': "Gore said...") to back up the stereotype. That is something very differnet
The only difference is it is happening to Gore instead of a republican. Many of the 'fabrications' that Mr. Agre complains about can be considered paraphrases instead of direct quotes. "Took the inititive in the creation of the internet" is not that far off from "invented the internet". Many of Mr. Agre's defenses have the "definition of the word is is" feel to them. They appear to be post-mortem attempts to spin the statement.
If you think this is anything new, you should do some research into newspaper articles about candidates during the first 100 years of american history.
BTW This is not a defense of Bush or an attack on Gore (I am not voting for either). It is merely the recognition, from a non-partisen viewpoint, that both sides do the same thing.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
Are the Democrats really considered liberal? They seem rather conservative to me. I'm not American, so I'm kind of baffled by that label.
And as long as we vote for shitty choices we'll get shitty results. Period. If Bush wins I hope he fscks the country so bad it will wake the liberals out of their stupor induced by corporate money, and give them a real bad hangover, maybe enough to actually do something about it.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Exactly how many of Agre's examples were actually in quotes. There is a difference between saying:
Al Gore said that he invented the internet.
and:
Al Gore said "he invented the internet". The first is paraprasing. The second is quoting. In the first example, you can argue about the accuracy of the paraprasing; but, you can't claim it is "fabricated" since it is a paraphrase of his actual "took the inititive in the creation of the internet" quote.
In the second case, you can say that the quote was fabricated. Many examples that Agre uses are in the former rather then the later category.
Are there examples of this happening to Republicans?
I saw something similar on tonight's PBS program about the Clinton-Lazio race. During their debate, Lazio said that Buffalo's economay "turned the corner". Clinton and some newspapers in upper New York pillored him for claiming that Buffalo's economy was doing great.
Check out AIM and FAIR. Both organizations have the same goal: disclaim inaccuracies in the medias reporting. One comes from the conservative viewpoint, the other a liberal viewpoint. It is interesting reading to compare to their two sites since they never complain about the same stories.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
A minority of eligible voters actually register and vote. If the reason they aren't voting is because of disgust with politics (i.e. they don't think either major candidate will make a difference, or find them homogeneous), this means that these people might vote for a 3rd party candidate if they knew more about them. A 3rd party candidate who can carry the currently undecided/uninterested voters could win by a large majority. No president in recent history has actually been elected by a majority of eligible voters, just by a slim majority of participating voters.
-m
Are you saying you don't agree with the article then? And the integrity of the slashdot editors?Well don't force your opinions on us, buddy, we've got a right to think on our own! Troll! Booooo, go away!
And I'm stealing your tinfoil hat.
I am voting neither republican or democrat, but the character assassination peace seems to be somewhat trite, one sided, and paranoid. I would have expected a more objective article. In my experience the media tends to favor democrats anyhow.
Shyt, Pyss, Fyck, Cynt, Cycksycker, Motherfycker, and Tyts?
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
I don't know about that - I recall a certain conservative president whose administration not so long ago was aiding the enemies of the United States in direct defiance of Congress, but was not removed from office (and was nowhere near as close as President Clinton wasto being removed). Whatever the actions of the current administration, the level and scope of their words and deeds doesn't approach the treasonous activities which Reagan countenanced within the Oval Office.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
It already did. 1876 -- The Republican ticket of Hayes and Wheeler got 4,034,311 popular votes and 185 EC votes; the Democratic ticket of Tilden and Hendricks got 4,288,546 popular votes -- barely more -- but only 184 EC votes.
Ditto in 1888, Harrison and Morton vs Cleveland and Thurman (again, Republicans with fewer popular votes but more ECs -- 47.82%/233 vs 48.62%/168).
One also gets wildly disproportionate counts -- like Landon and Knox in '36 losing with 36.54% popular, but only 8 EC votes out of 531... and Mondale got 40.56% popular but only 13 out of 538. Ouch.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
First, since 1945, the US was in a constant battle to "contain" communism (hence, the Cold War). Democrats and Republicans alike contributed to this effort (it was the "American" thing to do). Funding, in generally, went through the roof for this effort. I admit that during Reagan/Bush, the gov't did grow as did the military (which is what I focused on since that is my background).
I started off enlisted destined for submarine duty. I ended up a navy officer via ROTC and was in the Surface navy. I saw the military from both points of view. I saw morale in the military at an all-time high during the Reagan/Bush era. I also saw it decline during the Clinton/Gore era.
If we did not grow as we did, what would the world situation be today? Would the Soviet Union exist? Maybe, maybe not. But, in their efforts to keep up with us (and us with them (even if the info was basically wrong)), the SU overextended themselves militarily at the expense of the people. People got pissed and communism came to an end in the SU. Are they better off for it? Tough call given the difficulty of the transition.
Who was in charge of Congress during the Reagan/Bush era? Well, since it was a Republican house and senate, naturally, more legislation went through unimpeded. Congress and the senate ran the country. If the American people put that many republicans in office during that time, don't you think that is what they wanted at the time? They were tired of hearing the plight of the Viet Nam soldiers, the poor material condition and disrespect for the military. We're talking about WWII era people who saw the US as a leader. They wanted that status back again.
As for the gov't shrinking under Clinton...it had to to get out of the recession generated by the ending of forty five years of cold war. But, it came at a heavy cost to the military.
As for balancing the budget and paying of the national dept. Balancing the budget is a good idea. We have to do everyday or we either go bankrupt or to jail. I agree our gov't must do the same and they must be held accountable. Paying of the national debt when other owe us as well (and with no accountability) is not.
We excused Mexico's debt (they pretty much decided not to pay us anyway). What were the ramifications? We opened up increased trade via NAFTA with them instead.
Whose in charge of the Congress now? The Republicans. And, who makes the laws in this country? Who make the laws for policy to go into effect? Can you say the Congress and Senate? If we are in such an ecomonic boon, then who really made it possible? Republicans or Democrats?
We are so quick to denounce the Republicans and corporations. Yet, if it weren't for them, where would most household incomes come from? You'd probably be sitting on steam vent with a cardboard box for a house since there would be no jobs or living in public housing. Or, we'd have a socialist (or communist) gov't or we'd revert to a pre-industrial revolution state (there is some positive argument for this one, BTW).
So, is it really bad to make companies prosperous if that means more jobs? Well, that depends. If those workers are working for paltry wages and paying tons of taxes or working longer hours and prices keep going up...then its not so great.
If there were checks on prices, export markets expanded, wages were decent and taxes low, I think most in the country would be better off.
How about you? Do you have ambitions of working to pay the gov't or working to have the better things in life? Do you want to own your own business or work for somebody else all your life and complain when THEY do well?
I hope all political parties are watching this race. It's close (as of now) and both sides have valid points. Maybe both sides will come away with something positive. One can only hope.
Our country's destiny is in your hands. I may not have convinced you to vote against for the Republicans. But, I hope that I convinced you of the importance to vote. If you don't vote, then you really have no basis to gripe if things don't go your way.
If you're in school now, remember that when you graduate, you'll be looking for a job. It would be nice if the jobs were there for you when you do graduate. Of course, it would also be nice if the world you enter had clean water and air and we didn't have to wear Sunblock 2000 when the ozone layer is gone.
Just like you, I want a better world (well, I assume you do too). A lot of what the democrats propose is worthwhile. But, if the democrats come to power, who will pay for all those wonderful programs?
Gore actually got worse grades in college than Bush ever did! The Washington Post did an front-page article comparing the two on March 19, 2000. The Post charges $2.50 to dig stuff out of their archives but a little searching turned up a copy here.
--LP
Go Alliance go!
What you say is what happenned in BC. The BC Liberal party had (from memory) 43% of the popular vote, the NDP had 40%, and the BC Reform party, idealogically equivalent (at the time) to the Liberals, had about 15%.
The NDP won the election with a two seat majority. This is why the federal PC party now polls at about 4% in BC. The bulk of the population realises that they cannot split the vote so badly again. (As an interesting side note, some polls at the end of August had the BC Liberal party winning every single seat in the province handily. That's potentially as frightening as another term with the NDP in power.)
--
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
95% of the time he talks in vauge, feel good generalities
As does Gore, but they both HAVE put forth some specific plans.
does he support gay rights or not.
Were you watching the same debate? Gore was just as vague, if not more as Bush on this. It seems neither of them support gay marriage, and everything else is up in the air.
Christ, he whimpered in the first debate when pressed on the issue of the abortion pill.
I certainly don't remember hearing anyone whimper. But if we are going to get into childish, immature sounds while debating, I don't think you want to be defending mr *audible forced sigh* Gore.
Finkployd
You have given the first real intelligant argument for Bush that I heard/read from all other Bush supports that I have listen to. Most are like your first post where they talk about character and they talk about Tax cuts but not about what Bush will really do about it. Tax cuts are something that is nice, but what do we lose in the mean time. I don't believe we should talk about tax cuts utill we have entirely paid off the national dept. Yes, I was a Perot supporter, but now I believe that Gore will do more for this aim then Bush does.
/. leaning towards Gore. Hey, I listened to Gore go against Microsoft. He told them to their face that the government has a case against them. And these were likely voters as well as MS employees. So who do you think slashdot will go towards. Someone that stands up against MS, or someone that MS pours a lot of money to?
:-)
As another poster said, we can't go by character because there's nothing to show that Bush has a better character than Gore. In fact, looking at their histories of when they were younger, I would say Gore has a better character. I believe that Gore really wants to benefit the country but has a charisma of a door knob. That and his flip flopping has hurt his image. During the debates, Gore would always say "Yes, I support that" or "No I don't" and I agree with most of what he does. But Bush never seem to give a straight answer.
I'm a strong believer in the saying of "I may not agree with you, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". So I like to hear others views, but only if they actually give it some thought. Not just some blind thinking of "I like the way he/she talks". But if they actually listen and agree to views, with facts(or what seems to be the facts, since I know people will argue that), then great. Yes I hear the same stupid thoughts from the Dems as well.
Bush really does scare me. I'm afraid of what it will be like when (if elected) he goes over seas to talk to other world leaders. This is not because I don't agree with his ideas, but how intelligent he really is. I would be much more comfortable with the more conservative President like Dick Cheney. I disagree with most of Dick's views, but damn, he's smart. I much rather have a intelligent President then a charismatic one. With the exception of Reagan. The United States needed someone like Reagan at the time. But we had to pay later for what he did. But I agree, it was worth the cost. I disliked Bush Sr, since he seemed to carry the Reagan ways at a time it wasn't necessary.
As for
Not to mention "Gore invented the Internet"
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
While Nader and Buchanan were bitching about not getting to schmooze right next to Shrub and Deadwood, Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne actually DID something about it:h arry_browne_tscript.asp
h arry_browne_tscript.asp
s ernum=67
http://clubs.lycos.com/live/Events/Transcripts/
In other news, the Libertarian Party also announced the winner of the second presidential debate to be moderator Jim Lehrer, who had a hard time finding the differences between Bush and Gore:
http://clubs.lycos.com/live/Events/Transcripts/
You want somebody willing to address the issues? Browne takes a stance on an issue that Bush and Gore seem to dance around and ignore-- gay marriage:
http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/feature.html?
If nothing else, read the debate transcript. It's positively superb.
From the "character" link:
the people support Al Gore's policies, but the polls are shifting toward George W. Bush because the media is filled with false attacks on Al Gore's character.
Not that this sounds ANYTHING like sore-loser whining, but it's also blatently false, according to nearly every Reuters/Zogby poll.
(http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/zo/)
While some of Bush's policies are opposed by almost half the population (vouchers and gore's upping minumium wage are favored), these polls clearly show Bush's policies favored. Some examples of headlines:
Bush's Star Wars Anti-Ballistic Shield Favored
Majority Opposed to Selling High-Tech Weapons to China
More Autonomy for States to Set School Standards
Accountability Narrowly Beat Out Smaller Class Size
State Rights Favored Over Federal Regulations on Health Care
Teaching Certification Based on Teacher's Ability Favored
Half Favor Bush's Social Security Investment Plan
Bush-Cheney's Military Build-Up Narrowly Approved
More Than Fifty Percent Favor Bush-Cheney's Homeless Plan
Yes, I know these are just polls (although pretty well-respect polls) and are subject to inconsistancies and could be way off, but I have yet to see a major poll say that Gore's policies are favored.
Taco, I respect your right to have you opinion, and to publish it on your own website (which I enjoy), however by not doing your own research and posting your opinion supported by false articles and sloppy reporting, you are only destryoing your own credibility. Stop buying everything spoon fed to you about how bad Bush is and how great Gore is, and do your own research.
Finkployd
That's the straw man offered by the Republicrat debate commission in defense of its exclusionary rule. (I realize that you aren't necessarily defending their position.)
An objective standard (there's no way anything based on polls can be objective, since polls can be easily spun to get the results one wants) such as listing on enough state ballots to be theoretically able to win would typically give four to six candidates (in this case, five: Browne, Buchanan, Bush, Gore, and Nader).
Admittedly, there is a case for having the top two go head-to-head, also. Perhaps it should be like Survivor, with one of the debaters being voted out each round until the top two remain for the closing debate. That should also make it more interesting.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.