Slashdot Mirror
2006 Election Maps Mashups
John Fitzpatrick writes, "Search Engine Watch has an article on the launch this week of map-based search tools to follow the 2006 Congressional elections, from both Google Earth and the map-based real estate site HotPads.com. The Google Earth Blog notes the release of two election-oriented layers outlining the borders of the congressional districts and linking to Google News articles related to the different races. And HotPads is offering the 2006 Election Edition. From their blog: 'The 435 congressional districts are outlined on HotPads Maps, with red and blue designating the party affiliation of the districts' current Representatives. By clicking on the districts' "I" buttons..., users can view quick facts about the districts including the current Representatives and the candidates in November's contests. By clicking on the quick facts bubble, users can get more detailed information [from] Wikipedia articles with detailed information about the candidates and the close races.'"
This has been done before.
On that note, I'm going to go "invent" fire.
Or there is still Electoral-Vote.com from Mr Tanenbaum himself. Z.
-- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
Aww, does somebody need a hug?
Mr. Founder of hotpads.com.
5 0080
http://www.inman.com/InmanINF/mris/story.aspx?ID=
Now if they would only build a layer showing the various reality TV show locations and stars' houses.... 'cause that is about all the general population cares about anyways.
What party is that exactly?
hopefully this motivates some of the lazier ones among us to actually crawl out of their holes and vote, instead of just complaining.
Bury me in mashed potatoes.
In the interests of equal time, since Mr Fitzpatric gets free advertising, I quote from the article parent mentioned: The founders say they view their main competitors as major pay-to-list sites such as Apartments.com and ForRent.com, along with other classified listing sites such as Craigslist.org.
I just submitted a story, too.
The headline? "John Fitzpatrick, the human lump of dogshit."
Doubt it will get posted, though.
Does it matter? Is this info still of interest to you or maybe other slashdotters? Sometimes you have to promote your own products... and sometimes it's a win-win for everyone.
As for me, I never pay attention to who submitted an article, and usually not to the summary either -- it's immaterial. Either the article stands on its own merits, or it doesn't.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Does it matter?
No, it doesn't. A disclaimer would be nice though. As would phrasing it "from our/my blog".
Slashdot, with all their journalistic integrity, slaps disclaimers on stories from OSDN.
Whoa..
You had me until the "facts from Wikipedia" part.
Anyone remember the last Wikipedia Presidential election fiasco where both candidate's pages had to be frozen because of vandalism? How then would anyone be able to trust the "facts" about the candidates they would read from Wikipedia?
--
Go Where Web Thinkers Gather
Watch the Teaser Trailer for "The Lightning Thief" Her
hotpads.com has been /.ed
I lost my sig...
I urge all residents of Florida's 15th District to consider Dr. Bob Bowman for Congress this November.
This is the first time I've cared about a political candidate since Ross Perot, and I think Dr. Bob has a fighting chance. I'm in it for love, not money, so do to my karma what you will.
And whatever your politics, and wherever you live, please give careful consideration to this election. I feel it may end up being one of the most important in our lifetimes.
barack to the future?
Judging from the dubious security of the Diebold voting machines as reported on /. numerous times, I'm going to guess that it'll be the same party as President Elect Mickey Mouse, who apparantly won in a landslide write-in campaign.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
Democrats will take the 435-member House of Representatives back by a likely margin of 5-15 seats. There are almost no serious analysts who disagree on this point. Once Dems take back the House, they will have subpeona power and will begin investigating the Administration's leadup to war, etc. In the first 100 hours of Dem control in the House, future House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that she plans to hike the federal minimum wage for the first time in almost 10 years, establish (real) restrictions on lobbying, enact the 9/11 comission reccomendations that the Administration refuses to enact 5 years later, increase federal funding for stem cell research with a veto-proof majority, and lower the amount of money that seniors have to pay for prescription drugs. Obviously all this stuff has to get through the Senate and be signed by the Presidednt into law however.
In the 100-seate Senate, things are likely to tighten up considerably (Republicans currently hold a majority of 55 so Democrats need to pick up 6 seats to take it back). The only really competative races to watch in the Senate are:
Montana (whre Democratic challenger Jon Tester leads Republican incumbent Conrad burns- whose Jack Abramoff ties are weighing him down),
Tennessee (where Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is retiring, leaving an open seat for Dem Harold Ford Jr and Republican Bob Corker to fight over- this race is mostly tied),
Missouri (where Republican incumbent Jim Talent is virtually tied with Dem challenger Claire McCaskill, who has made this race about increasing the minimum wage and stem cell research- two issues that heavily favor Dems),
Rhode Island (where moderate Republican incumbent Lincoln Chafee is struggling to win re-election over strong Dem challenger Sheldon Whitehouse, who leads him in the polls in this solid "blue" state),
Pennsylvania (where Republican incumbent Rick Santorum is seen universally as the most endangered incumbent in the country, trailing behind Democratic challenger Bob Casey for months now),
Virginia (where Republican incumbent George Allen leads Democratic challenger Jim Webb, but only after Allen's dropped considerably due to racism allegations surrounding the caught-on-video use of the slur 'macaca'),
and Ohio (where Republicans statewide are in trouble due to a series of statewide scandals involving the GOP).
Republicans are looking to pick up the Washington state seat, which they won't, and the Maryland seat, which they also will not (most analysts agree on this). The only possibility for a Republican pickup is really New Jersey (Dem incumbent Bob Menendez vs Republican challenger Tom Kean Jr- corruption is an issue on both sides of this race), where polls indicate that Menendez is leading slightly.
I want to see the maps that the politicans use when they are gerrymandering the districts.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
your vote was counted.
Please do not feed the trolls.
Hey! I'm a retarded mod, you insensitive clod!
Democrats will take the 435-member House of Representatives back by a likely margin of 5-15 seats. There are almost no serious analysts who disagree on this point.
I wonder why we need to have the election, then?
So.. if it turns out differently, will you say that the analysts are wrong or the votes?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
God forbid. The last thing I want is some lazy doofus voting and cancelling out the effect of my carefully-researched, painstakingly thought-out vote.
I say make it much harder to vote. Make people crawl a hundred yards over broken glass on Sunday night at 4 AM in a driving rainstorm to vote. Then only those of us really fucking serious about the whole business will be making the decisions.
Judging by current polls, I think be believes all you Slashfags are Republican!
Dark Reflection
It's like ebonics for Web 2.0 people.
argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
Last time he had wrong predictions if i recall correctly. Hope he figured out the reasons for this misprediction and adjusted.
Anyone know?
Will the Democrats be able to combat this, this time around? Or will they continue their sorry losing streak?
Shut the fuck up, hippy.
Nothing I said was partisan to the least extend. I merely said what Democrats were planning to do once they took back the House. The "First 100 hour" plan has been reported in the press, and there are no serious analysts (either partisan or non-partisan) who believe that Republicans will hold on to control of the House of Representatives this year. If you don't think they will, then you either haven't been paying attention or are in denial. I only gave the bare facts on the Senate stuff as well.
Nothing I said about the facts of any of the races were the least bit controversial, if you've been paying attention.
Nowhere in my summary did I say "Gee whiz, I hope Democrats take back Congress this year" or anything like that.
That said, gee whiz, I am happy that Democrats are finally wrestling control of the House of Representatives from Republicans this year.
Whose site just got /.'d....
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Democrats will take the 435-member House of Representatives back by a likely margin of 5-15 seats.
Republicans are looking to pick up the Washington state seat, which they won't, and the Maryland seat, which they also will not (most analysts agree on this)
Have no fear, Diebold is here!
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
I wrote: Democrats will take the 435-member House of Representatives back by a likely margin of 5-15 seats. ...
Republicans are looking to pick up the Washington state seat, which they won't, and the Maryland seat, which they also will not (most analysts agree on this)
You wrote: Have no fear, Diebold is here!
Actually, Maryland has banned the use of Diebold voting machines in their state-wide elections. Diebold isn't there. In Washington state there is some talk of decertifying Diebold machines as well, but nothing will be done in time for this year's elections.
> So.. if it turns out differently, will you say that the analysts are wrong or the votes?
Depends on whether the votes are blatantly altered on a large scale like they were in the last 2 federal elections.
Please don't respond until you read.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
Another informative site that combines election-related blogs and maps of the various polls is pollster.com.
Enjoy
Disclaimer: I work for Polimetrix, Inc., which runs a poll called PollingPoint and sponsors pollster.com
There are two types of people in this world: those that categorize other people and those that don't.
Democrats will be democrats, and they tend to be their own worst enemy...
Unless, of course, the Democrats, being Democrats, somehow fuck it up.
There's also Election Projection, who track house, senate, and governator races. It's kind of interesting the few differences between these sites--EP is projecting two independent senate wins (if you can consider Lieberman an independent), whereas E-V appears to only count Republicans and Democrats.
Bored With ProgressQuest?
Who came up with the emo fag web 2.0 word "mashup"?
What happened to all the Google Map hacks?
arcite wrote:
You hear all sorts of things, but what I hear is that the Democrats may not have actually been losing anything but the offical tallies.
You should go into politics yourself. You seem to be able to skew the facts and turn competitive race(s) where no one really knows how people are going to vote, into "There are almost no serious analysts who disagree on this point." So, in one sentence you are saying you know all and anyone who disagrees with you is not serious.
..." "The only possibility for a Republican pickup is really New Jersey"
Some notes:
You said: "with a veto-proof majority"
- Last time I checked, a veto-proof majority was not the same as a simple majority. The Democrats will not have a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, which is required to overturn a veto.
You said: "Republicans are looking to pick up the Washington state seat, which they won't, and the Maryland seat, which they also will not
- You used words like won't, not, and only in your statement. Sounds like you know what you are talking about.
You could probably get a job at the Literary Digest. Or better yet, get on as a PR person for the Dewey campain.
They will investigate the Bush administration and probably destroy the political future of anyone in his admin which is somewhat moot as I don't think anyone within his admin is running in 2008 (with the possible exception of Rice). Dems being Dems will find out that the "anti-Bush" rhetoric won't get them very far when Bush isn't on the ticket in 2008
The Dems' current strategy seems to be "we aren't Republicans" but if they win the House, they will be forced to advance legislation and those votes will become part of the 2008 political debate. There will be votes on raising the minimum wage, there will be votes on health care, there will be votes on social security. They will effectively have to put their money where their mouth is. And again, as a conservative - I can't wait for them to do so because as someone else in this thread pointed out - they are their own worst enemy.
Bottom line, I would rather have the GOP lose now in 2006 where it will only affect the House of Reps, than for the GOP to maintain control all the way through the next election, when the Executive, House and even more Senate seats are up for grabs. I don't want the Dems to be able to continue to make political leverage without having to make hard legistlative decisions and continue to make accusations without having to back them up. I think this country needs a good dose of memory of what Democrats do when in power.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
If you want to keep an eye on the latest poll results, I recommend Andrew Tanembaum's site: Electoral Vote
And anyone who thinks the Democrats are going to become fire-breathing lefties overnight is compeltely insane. They're a bunch of pet rocks -- it's just that at this point pet rocks would be preferably to people stomping on the gas, driving the country toward a cliff.
Can I ask you, in all seriousness why you're still happy with the Republicans? I mean, I can understand why you would feel that an attack on this country merits a strong military response -- but that's not what we're involved in at the moment is it? We're stomping around in a quagmire for obscure reasons that have nothing to do with the 9/11 attack or Al Qaeda, correct?
Or to take another point, I can understand why a conservative would worry about fiscal responsibility... but we don't have fiscal responsibility, do we? How about that deficit, eh?
By the way, I've been meaning to ask some Repubican or other... do you think you guys could return some of the money Enron stole for you? Seriously, how do you feel about your party recieving stolen goods?
(And what kind of "conservative" has such contempt for the Magna Carta, not to mention the Constitution? Aren't they time-tested enough? How can you just shrug off what's being done to central fabric of our country?)
The large sucking sound you hear is the irony of your post flying right over your head.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
But you lose points for lifting a phrase from an old Ross Perot campaign. You might give people the impression you're a political flack or something.
What I really want to see is a map of where campaign money comes from overlayed on a map of where taxdollars go...
It's funny, I was thrilled when Bush won in 2004. Because it was clear to anyone paying attention that Iraq was so ineptly planned that nobody would be able to turn around by that point. Bush had to stay in power so they couldn't blame someone else for fumbling their ball. And no matter who is in control of Congress, Bush is still the Commander in Chief right through the 2008 election.
The albatross of Iraq is going to be dangling around the Republican Party's neck for as long as amputees and bodybags are coming home, and no matter how hard they try they'll never be able to rewrite history to make the failure anyone's fault but their own. The only way the Republican party will keep control of the Executive branch in 2008 (barring divine intervention in Iraq, which Bush should have gotten by now considering his close relationship with Jesus!) is by candidates running in the exact opposite direction of every policy from the past 5 years (I suspect we'll be hearing the phrase "flip-flop" quite a bit as Republican Presidential candidates try to explain their foreign policy positions).
Neoconservatism, as stupid as it was, at least had the virtue of being such a colossally bad theory on the use of power that it failed spectacularly in only the first few years of implementation. Not very good for the tens of thousands who had to die just to prove what a bad idea it was, but it took Communism decades longer and millions more to be so equally, thoroughly, discredited.
I look forward to the day when real conservatives come back into power in the GOP and these chickenhawk neoconservative cowards are put back at the children's table where they belong.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
The republicans will keep control of the house and senate.
The exit polls will be wildly divergent from the actual tallies in all states with Republican govenors.
There will vote fraud on the part of Democrats as well, but it will be unorganized and innefectual.
The Republican-dominated house and senate will pass voter protection laws designed to make sure this happens again in 2008.
Well, we certainly can't let that happen!
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Shouldn't we be suspicious of Google for getting involved so directly in politics?
You should go into politics yourself. You seem to be able to skew the facts and turn competitive race(s) where no one really knows how people are going to vote, into "There are almost no serious analysts who disagree on this point." So, in one sentence you are saying you know all and anyone who disagrees with you is not serious.
..." "The only possibility for a Republican pickup is really New Jersey"
- You used words like won't, not, and only in your statement. Sounds like you know what you are talking about.
No. These are just facts. If you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd know that this is what is predicted by all the serious non-partisan analysts (National Journal, Congressional Quarterly, Cook Report, etc).
You said: "with a veto-proof majority" - Last time I checked, a veto-proof majority was not the same as a simple majority. The Democrats will not have a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, which is required to overturn a veto.
You forget that there are many Republicans who are in favor of increasing federally funded stem cell research (the matter referenced). In both the House and the Senate a bill to allow federal funding of embryonic stem cell research passed (the President went on to cast his first veto ever on it). With more Democrats in the House and Senate, that margin may in fact be veto-proof. You seem to think that only Democrats favor federally-funded ECS resarch- when such bills have passed both the House and Senate with comfortable (though not yet veto-proof) margins.
You said: "Republicans are looking to pick up the Washington state seat, which they won't, and the Maryland seat, which they also will not
Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. Seriously, there is nobody outside of Barron's Magazine who doesn't agree on what I've said. Joe Scarborough, former Republican US House Representative-turned host of MSNBC's Scarborough country (hardly a liberal by any standards) thinks that Dems will take both the House and the Senate. There is nothing political about talking about the general consensus among serious analysts about the upcoming election. Unless of course you don't know what you're talking about, in which case you think the facts I mention are somehow partisan. Seriously: go to the National Journal, go to CQ politics, read Charlie Cook's columns, go anywhere you want. Everything I've said is echoed everywhere.
Some articles to think about in the upcoming election:
Jon Kyl Rick Renzi J.D. Hayworth John Doolittle Richard Pombo Brian Bilbray Marilyn Musgrave Doug Lamborn Rick O'Donnell Christopher Shays Vernon Buchanan Joe Negron Clay Shaw Bill Sali Peter Roskam Mark Kirk Dennis Hastert Chris Chocola John Hostettler Mike Whalen Jim Ryun Anne Northup Geoff Davis Michael Steele Gil Gutknecht Michele Bachmann Jim Talent Conrad Burns Jon Porter Charlie Bass Mike Ferguson Heather Wilson Peter King John Sweeney Tom Reynolds Randy Kuhl Robin Hayes Charles Taylor Steve Chabot Jean Schmidt Deborah Pryce
I agree with you in principle, but in practice, I'm not so sure. Politicians have a habit of taking credit where it is not due, and most people are too ignorant to know the difference.
If you follow the progress in Iraq, which most people don't, you know that Iraqi police and armed forces are on target to be mostly self-sufficient by our 2008 election. Democrats would be able to point to their taking over the House as the turning point, and it won't matter much that their policies had nothing to do with the successes.
Of course, in order to take credit for the success, they will have to show a modicum of support for the war. They don't listen to their own arguments about the mistakes made. They say Bush didn't send enough troops and that he doesn't pay enough attention to social concerns in Iraq. Most of them also say it would be devastating to pull out cold turkey.
The logical response to that argument is to send more troops and commit more resources to reconstruction so we can get out of there faster, but democrats only take that kind of bold gamble on West Wing episodes. In real life, they're not optimistic enough to believe it might work.
This space intentionally left blank.
No serious political observer, conservative or liberal, believes that the US was complicit in 9/11, so your bizarre attempt to assert that Democrats would be looking for this is at best problematic. However, nearly everyone believes that Bush did, indeed, lie about the intelligence on WMDs. Putting these two together is an attempt to tain the second idea with the lunacy of the first. This is what America is like under the far-right neo-Republicans: if we can't make a valid argument, at least we can make a divisive one.
I'm looking forward to the days when you and your kind have to crawl back under the rock where the Bush family found you, and we can have real Republicans again. I'm hoping it will be a Tuesday, a November, and a year that ends with a six.
The losing one. Duh.
It seems like all the republicans are running around voicing your same sentiment. Interestingly, it is the same sentiment that I heard from the dems when the republicans gained control of the house so many years ago.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Simple. Keebler has made some very nice sales from the republicans. So yeah, I would back them as well (do not bit the hand that feeds you and all that). IOW, do not blame him.
What I do find funny is that it was the Dems of the 50-60's that were pro-business. In fact, one of the worst regulators was Nixon. Now, the party that speaks of balanced budgets, strength for America, blah, blah has made America incapable of stopping a lowly nation from doing a nuke test and another one is about to before the end of this admin. And the deficits that we got rid of in the 90's (from the 80's RRR), are back and will screw the future. Finally, the admin that spoke out against Clinton for not getting Bin Ladin (for less than 500 lives), has literally cost this nation nearly 10K lives in 6 years and probably 650K others.
At this point, I will vote for just about any candidate that pushes a balanced budget admendment AND adopts Joel Hefley's recommendations on how to remove congressional corruption. I figure anybody who has the brains to do the above, will have the intelligence to get OBL.
Picture of Jesus growing on a tree on the whitehouse lawn (blog post complete with map to the "sacred" location) The face is here
For a moment, ignore the WMDs, Bush and Iraq. The current leaders of this nation have recklessly ignored the long-term viability of this country for immediate political gain. The deficit? Katrina? The dysfunction of congress? Others have given more examples. The people in office are bad people. They deserve to lose their offices. Although they have usurped the GOP, and although they call themselves conservatives, these bad people do not subscribe to any political philosophy except greed. True conservatives are as appaled by the government's misdeeds as we liberals are, and should vote accordingly. Conservatives and liberals alike believe in a government for the people, which this government demonstratably is not.
Just because more troops would have helped in 2003 does not mean more troops would help now. Indeed, more troops would hurt now. Of course, less troops would hurt now, too. We've been painted into a corner and are simply flushing money and lives down a toilet due to the fact that we are asking the military to solve a non-military problem, and we are asking ideologues to solve pragmatic problems. What would have been good solutions in 2003 before particular problems got out of control are no longer viable. It's a shame we bet so many men and women's lives on the Rumsfeld Doctrine, which has been a complete failure, when we already had the proper Powell Doctrine available to us from the beginning. It's a shame that we formed a civil authority comprised entirely by unqualified neoconservative sycophants rather than professional diplomats and administrators. It's a shame we ignored all advice that didn't fit into a predetermined ideological mold. But that's what happened.
So the trillion-dollar question is, knowing that these guys are bad at planning and implementing things in a professional manner, why should we allow them to continue being in charge? If we know that these guys have their egos and reputations wrapped up in their past decisions in such a way that makes it impossible to take a new course, why should we continue letting them chart the course? Every solution that is offered up is considered "unacceptable" by the current White House team, which begs the question of why they believe the current situation is acceptable when the American public, the Iraqi public, and the rest of the world all consider it unacceptable?
Go ahead and ask Bush about splitting Iraq into three states, about engaging Iraq's neighbors to try and use their influence for something other than chaos, ask about rapprochement with our European and Asian allies who we've alienated so that we can get assistance. All of these options are "unacceptable", because there's a big dick contest going on and nobody in the current White House can afford to admit to having made a mistake in policy. Nobody is allowed to admit that we aren't omnipotent and that sometimes we don't just want help from allies, we genuinely need it. I'm sorry if your masculinity is threatened by the idea that a new president will get more international cooperation, but the fact is Bush has made too much of his foreign policy into a big dick contest. The only way to change that equation is to remove his personality, and his administration, from the equation. Then both our allies and our opponents can have the flexibility to change course and claim victory while actually doing exactly what we want. The plan doesn't even have to change to become more successful, but you do need to change the players when their influence is actively harming the plan.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
It's a quagmire to be sure, but I, and many conservatives believe that it was still the right call. I believe that it was the right call, given the information that we had at the time. Of course much of what we *thought* turned out to be incorrect. Liberals somehow assume that this means we were "lied" to. I do place blame on the administration for being lazy and running with the one rationale that seemed to resonate with the press (WMDs) when we in effect already in a state of war with Iraq (at the least they were violating the terms of the truce on a daily basis). Does it have anything to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda? Of course, not. However, before 9/11 the US used to just ignore thugs like Saddam who opently threatened and provoked the US. The amount of grief that the US would put up with changed that day. Do I think there have been mistakes our post-war Iraq policy? Absolutely. Do I think it would be worse for all involved if we simply pull out our troops on some arbitrary date or worse yet signal weakness by legislating an end date? Absolutely.
Or to take another point, I can understand why a conservative would worry about fiscal responsibility... but we don't have fiscal responsibility, do we? How about that deficit, eh?
I love this point. Liberals love to throw this one around - somehow trying to show that they are more fiscally responsible than Republicans when in fact they hemorrage federal money. Name me a social program that the Democrats would not like to spend more money on. They don't like the GOP Social Security plan because it doesn't spend enough money. They don't like the GOP prescription plan because it does spend enough money. They don't like No Child Left Behind because it isn't backed up with federal funds. They don't approve of homeland defense legislation because it doesn't spend enough federal funds on infrastructure. Am I proud that we are running a deficit right now? No - of course not... but I am pretty impressed that the deficit has been cut in half over the last 5 years. Unemployment is lower than during the Clinton presidency. Inflation is low. The economy is doing pretty damn well. The irony of course is that the left yells for the Republicans compromise with them on these spending bills. This universally means spending more (not less) than the Republicans originally propose. If the Republicans were not compromising with the Dems the deficit would be even less (of course the Democrats would be making even more noise about the lack of "bi-partisanship").
By the way, I've been meaning to ask some Repubican or other... do you think you guys could return some of the money Enron stole for you? Seriously, how do you feel about your party recieving stolen goods?
Troll.
(And what kind of "conservative" has such contempt for the Magna Carta, not to mention the Constitution? Aren't they time-tested enough? How can you just shrug off what's being done to central fabric of our country?)
Easy, I don't believe that I or anyone else has lost any constitutional rights. I don't for instance believe that I have a right to make international phone calls with international terrorists overseas without being surveilled. Now, I do think the administration has certainly been pushing the envelope of presidential powers - however the SCOTUS and Congress have pushed back - that is reassuring to me. Government is working.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
I'm sure there's a link to the actual map in the story somewhere. I think...
if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll);
Part of your argument (3 state solution, etc.) is about things that are up to the Iraqi government and Iraqi people to decide. President Bush has said he will support any such solutions their democratic process agrees to, even if the solutions might seem radical to us, as long as the rights of individuals are upheld. Iraq is not part of some United States "empire," to be ordered about as we please. They are a sovereign ally who needs our help in establishing security and economic growth.
The rest of your argument seems to be directed at the executive branch, who are not up for election at the moment. May I ask what you specifically hope will be accomplished by changing members of the legislative?
This space intentionally left blank.
Hear, hear! All of these corrupt Republicans need to be voted out of office to pave the way for a real party of small government and individual liberty. Conservatives will never be represented as long as people keep voting for these scum bags that preach small government while spending billions of dollars a week "creating democracy". If we are going to throw money in a hole, at least we could waste it on our own people like a liberal would. And they don't even pretend to be a party of personal liberty unless your choice of liberty has a big lobby and doesn't conflict with the bible beaters.
Have you meta-moderated lately?
nothing
That sounds great on a a bumper sticker, unfortunately it bears no relation to the administration's actual policy. The administration has repeatedly let it be known that the three-state solution is an unacceptable alternative. Even Fox News agrees on this matter, the three-state solution is seen by the administration as opening up too much influence to Iraq's neighbors. Bush frequently gives speeches extolling general principles that sound great, while letting Cheney and others go out and deliver the real policy which tends to be extremely not so great.
I know it is shocking news, but one purpose of the Legistative branch is to perform oversight on the Executive (and vice-versa). Some of the excesses of the Executive in the past few years have been direct results of the unwise concentration of power in the hands of one ideological group. Any situation that reduces that concentration of power is beneficial to America. No specific action is necessary, indeed at the federal level in particular it was commonly taken as a conservative axiom that government inaction is preferable to unwise action. It is a shame the GOP fell in love with spending and power once they got a taste of it.
I was also responding more generally to your sentiment that Iraq is going to magically turn around in the next 2 years and that the Legislature will take "credit" for it. The policy is mostly in the hands of, and hindered by, the Executive, and nothing coming out of that branch indicates we should see a change in outcome because we're not changing our input.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
You make some good points, the Dems suck, unfortunatly so do the Reps.
Who is a rational conservative to vote for?
Cheap storage VM.
I can't stand the Republicans, but I can't stand the Democrats anymore either. I'm sick of being lied to. Why should I bother voting, when we're just going to get more of the same anyway? I know that there are some close races to be decided, but they are close because there is no difference between the two bastards who are running.
And more importantly, why should I support a Democrat, when the Democrats have already demonstrated that they are just wannabe Republicans, anyway.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
That's because democrats and the media constantly ask why he isn't imposing things like that on Iraq, because their "change course" rhetoric doesn't work without positing alternate strategies. The only way to counter that is to point out that their alternatives are worse than the present strategy, and therefore unacceptable as foreign policy. The word used most often in press briefings is "non-starter." The Iraqi government takes our recommendations very seriously, and the need for our help gives us a lot of influence, but that doesn't mean they aren't free to choose any solution for themselves.
"Publius" argued in the federalist papers that a permanent unified government is a better forum for resolving inevitable regional differences, and that a unified government can better provide for the common defense than a loose confederation of smaller states, even though the latter appears easier in the short term. The same arguments apply here.
6 of 10 Iraqi divisions (10k-14k troops each) are currently in the lead. 30 of 36 brigades (2.5k-3k troops each) are currently in the lead. 80 of 112 Iraqi battalions (~500 troops each) are currently in the lead. 14 of 18 provinces are basically in good shape security-wise. The police are making similar progress. And the 5 month old government is just getting started on the vital political and economic pillars of the plan.
It will only appear to be a "magical turn around" to those people who assume that if progress was being made then the media would be reporting it. I believe at some point in the next two years it will become too big for the media to ignore. It's the perception of a turnaround, not the reality of slow but steady progress, that I was referring to.
I can see we can only resolve this difference of opinion by waiting two years and continuing this discussion then, when I will gladly eat my words if I am wrong.
This space intentionally left blank.
Well, just to answer one point in the middle of your fine-sounding speech, no, as a matter of fact I don't believe in democracy. The majority is always right? Reality is what we vote it to be? Ten million fools make better decisions than one? Please. Ask me to believe the stars control our destiny -- that would be much easier to swallow. I think a person can only believe in democracy the same way he might believe in the second coming of Christ or the 99 virgins awaiting him in Paradise if he lives a good Islamic life. It's an act of completely blind religious faith.
However: while we know wise and just rulers exist amongst us, we have never been able to set up a system that reliably picks them out. Every attempt ends in disaster. So...democracy is that with which we're left when every other idea falls flat. As the sage said, democracy is the worst possible political system -- except for any other.
So I live with it, because all other choices are worse. But, no, I haven't drunk the Kool Aid, so I don't believe in democracy with the customary sacred fervor. I merely accept its necessity, the way I accept the necessity of death and taxes.
Yes, when all else fails, just blame everyone else for your failure. There are no options, except the ones offered for years by Iraqi expatriates, Democrats, Republicans and libertarians, but those aren't real options because they don't fit our ideology. Until after the midterm elections when James Baker suggests it again, then we might look at it.
Yes, and the uprising of the working class will result in equitable distribution of wealth. A benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient and effective form of government. An hereditary monarchy inspires great loyalty. Those arguments all apply here, too.
You sure? Because back in 2004 I heard the same promises from many people. I read these exact same kinds of statistics and glowing reports of what was "just starting to happen". Everything is always right around the corner. The opposition is just a bunch of dead-enders. They're in the last throes. We just passed a turning point. We had the first independent Iraqi division. And then two months later the military said they were not really capable of being independent. We have Iraqi police taking the lead. And then sectarian violence goes through the roof until we redeploy Marines and soldiers to that area. Violence goes down, we hand it back to the Iraqi police and violence goes right back up.
14 of 18 provinces being in good shape sounds great to anyone who doesn't bother to find out that 90% of the (non-Kurdish) population lives in the provinces where violence and security are dramatically worse than they were when there was no Iraqi government or police whatsoever. It's kind of like being told you have a fatal brain tumor, but hey your body is in great shape from all that yoga!
When Bush or Rice go to Baghdad on an announced visit and don't have to wear bulletproof vests in one of the most heavily fortified areas on Earth, people will believe we're getting somewhere. It's a bit cynical to say how great and safe the country is and then fly in at 2am firing flares and chaff and running a disco ball the whole time just to jump out for a 30-minute photo opportunity with guests who had no idea you were coming because it's too dangerous to tell the President of the country you're visiting.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.