Republican Robocall Pretexting Campaign

WCityMike writes, "In 53 Congressional campaigns across the country, including the Pennsylvania 6th, the Connecticut 4th, the North Carolina 11th, the New Hampshire 2nd, and the Illinois 6th and 8th (and possibly all races), the National Republican Congressional Committee is conducting a $2.1 million campaign to make it appear as if Democrats are spamming callers with telemarketing calls. The NRCC hired Conquest Communications Group to conduct a massive nationwide robocalling campaign with calls specifically scripted to appear as if they're coming from the Democratic candidate — in violation of FCC regulations on such 'robocalls,' which requires the identity of the caller to be stated at the beginning of the message [47 CFR 64.1200(b)(1)]. The call begins with 'Hello. I'm calling with information about,' and then says the name of the Democratic candidate. There is then a pause; if the recipient hangs up here, they will receive repeated calls back with the same message, potentially up to 18 times or more (according to one callee). If the callee doesn't hang up, they hear a smear message from the machine about the Democratic candidate. The NRCC thinks the legality of the calls is, conveniently, a 'complicated legal question that's not going to get adjudicated this weekend.'" Update 20:47 GMT by SM: Thankfully we all learned how to deal with these folks last week.

Comments

"smear message"?

[Russ Nelson]

Actually, since most people don't vote for the candidate they want, but instead vote against the one they like the least, negative advertising (including "smear messages") is the most useful information to have.

Re:"smear message"?

[thefolkmetal]

I've actually noticed the exact opposite here. People can talk trash all they like about another candidate, but if you don't sell a platform, you aren't giving the people anything to vote for. Smear tactics like that are going to be the downfall of any candidate who chooses to use them.

Re:"smear message"?

[garcia]

negative advertising (including "smear messages") is the most useful information to have.

You would not believe how difficult it is to effectively judge a candidate unless you hear them speak live. I spent quite a bit of time perusing newspapers, candidate websites, and Google trying to find information to base my determinations for voting this election.

I am getting so much negative campaigning but not enough real facts from the candidates themselves. I really wish that someone would stop the fucking smear campaigns and instead clearly list what they intend to do. If they ran before, I want someone (obviously the campaigns website won't) to list exactly what they said they were going to do and exactly what they did do so I can compare.

If this information is easily accessible in the State of Minnesota, please let me know where it is. My current vote is based on what I have gleamed from the newspapers and the campaign websites. Bleh.

I suppose my methodology is better than my co-workers who are "voting Union line" or someone who is "voting Party line."

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't know what they intend to do til they get elected and find out how much each side of the debate is willing to pay / negotiate for.

Re:"smear message"?

[Psykosys]

There's "negative advertising" and then there's dirty, grossly misleading (and possibly illegal) tricks. I agree that the line between them might be kind of fuzzy (except where law comes into it), but would argue that it's pretty clear that when a robocall begins with the name of a Democrat, and fails to state until the very end that it's from the Republicans, and harrassingly repeat-calls those who choose not to listen, a line is being crossed.

Re:"smear message"?

[PFI_Optix]

There's a balance between the two. An all-smear campaign alienates voters; I personally believe that John Kerry lost 2004 because he was perceived as having a campaign that primarily said "we're not Bush." Most voters I talked to said they wouldn't vote for Kery because they had no idea what he really stood for. He campaigns against his opponents rather than for himself; recent events support that.

That said, never going after your opponent won't do a lot for you either. In northeast Texas there's a state race that's caught my interest. Chuck Hopson, the Dem incumbent, has from the start been in a heavy smear campaign against his Republican rival. His rival (Durrett, I think) has responded largely by addressing the issues, with only a handful of attacks on Hopson (all of which that I've seen were based on Hopson's own voting record conflicting--or seeming to--with his campaign messages).

Given the recent stunts pulled by both sides in the races, Durrett's style has earned my respect.

On the subject of the article, I keep getting messages from Bill Clinton telling me how great the Dem candidate for governor is. I'm pretty sure he's not a Republican scheme, and I've deleted the same message four times so far. The Dems don't need any help on annoying voters :)

Re:"smear message"?

[Machtyn]

If they gave you any actual content, you might try to hold them to it.

Re:"smear message"?

[mjm1231]

Often, the desired result of the smear tactic is to convince people not to vote. The parties know that the party faithful will show up at the polls and vote for them, and they have a pretty good idea of what percentage they are on either side. If they can just get all the independent voters to stay home, all they need is for their faithful voters to outnumber the other sides faithful by one voter.

Re:"smear message"?

[megaditto]

Let me make it real easy for you: the majority party gets all the chairmanships and the subpoena powers, and a large I-strick. By voting either candidate (D or R), you give either party the absolute power.

If you want Congressional investigations into Iraq intelligence & strategy & war profiteering & gas prices, vote Democrat.

If you like the way things are, how your taxes are lower and how we have not lost any American lives to terror since 911, vote for Republicans.

Fair enough? Now personally, I would say that if you want terrorists to win, vote Democrats, but that's just me. ;-)

Re:"smear message"?

[metamatic]

If you like the way things are, how your taxes are lower and how we have not lost any American lives to terror since 911, vote for Republicans.

What planet are you on? The number of American civilians killed by terrorists has gone up every year since 2001.

Re:"smear message"?

[jay2003]

Your taxes are not lower. The Bush administration has failed to cut spending to pay their tax cuts and in fact has dramatically increased spending. Thus the present value of taxes you will pay over your lifetime has risen under the Bush administration since the 100s of billions of dollars of debt the Bush administration has run up will have to be paid from future taxes. You are not paying these taxes this year but you will have to pay them in the future. Ask any economist and they will tell that lowering taxes without cutting spending is an increase and not a reduction in your lifetime tax payments.

Bush has essentially given you a loan which will have to be paid back (with interest) by higher taxes in the future.

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair enough? Now personally, I would say that if you want terrorists to win, vote Democrats, but that's just me. ;-)

Fair enough. The terrorists have already won. The government just abolished habeas corpus indefinitely, which has already been applied to US citizens on US soil. Its one thing to suspend it temporarily out of need, another to abolish it on an ongoing basis. And in case nobody noticed, last month over a hundred Americans were killed by terrorists.

In an ideological conflict, the ones who give up their ideals first lose.

The only constant in politics is that power always corrupts. So don't give it unquestioningly to one group for very long.

Re:"smear message"?

[Russ Nelson]

I really wish that someone would clearly list what they intend to do.

It's not in their interest to do that, because they'll lose the votes of everyone who hates that. They want to be as ambiguous as possible so that nobody can find a reason to vote against them.

Re:"smear message"?

[poifgh]

http://www.youbanking.com/

Re:"smear message"?

[ClamIAm]

I know that MPIRG puts out a voter guide, however the link on their site is busted and I don't know how biased they are.

Re:"smear message"?

[timeOday]

I am against counting only civilians. It's so easy to slap the label of "soldier" on somebody and not worry about it (as much) because they were "supposed" to die. In my book, dead American soldiers are dead Americans, and the decision to invade Iraq has resulted in tens of thousands of US casualties including thousands dead.

Re:"smear message"?

[DorianBrytestar]

I had someone in IRC quote this to me... republicans are saying if you elect democrats, they'll tax you into the poor house and on the way to the poor house you'll see a terrorist on every street corner. While running away from the terrorist you will trip over an illegal immigrant"

Re:"smear message"?

[Mongoose Disciple]

It would help if you read the entire grandparent post instead of just the first sentence. :)

Re:"smear message"?

[operagost]

Did you notice that:

This chart has a range from 0 to 50. Fifty!

The 9/11 deaths aren't included. I suppose the death of thousands of civilians should be treated as some sort of rounding error. Obviously, because 1) it would invalidate the argument and 2) The line would be extending past the image, past my web browser, past my monitor, into the ceiling...

There have been many civilians present in terrorist-laden areas in Iraq and Afghanistan performing relief work and rebuilding the infrastructure. Some are going to be killed because-- news flash-- the terrorists don't care if you're a civilian performing peaceful work: you're still the enemy.

Re:"smear message"?

[pkulak]

It's very heartening to hear someone talk like that. Most people just vote from the gut, Colbert style. You may not have all the information you would like, but at least you're trying.

Re:"smear message"?

[Paladin144]

Bush has essentially given you a loan which will have to be paid back (with interest) by higher taxes in the future.

Ah, but those tax increases can be blamed on the Democrats who will be stuck cleaning up Bush's mess. Now you see the brilliance of the Republicans' stupidity!

In politics being responsible, rational or trustworthy simply makes you an easy target.

Re:"smear message"?

[operagost]

Oops...that range was sixty. Not a big difference.

Re:"smear message"?

[pkulak]

I'm against only counting American lives lost. It's so easy to slap the label of "Iraqi" on somebody and not worry about it (as much) because they were "supposed" to die. In my book, lives lost are fellow human beings who are now dead, and the decision to invade Iraq has resulted in tens of thousands of casualties.

Re:"smear message"?

[1310nm]

And, unless you believe in democracy wand-wielding fairies with glittery sprinkles of honesty, it really doesn't matter how you vote, because the Diebold corporation is the only constituency a person has to convince these days.

Re:"smear message"?

[kpang]

It's about proportions. Would you like the U.S. gov to cut your taxes to 0% now and then 100% in 5 years? Didn't think so. If the tax cuts were met with a proportional reduction in spending, then paying higher taxes later would be favorable because you could earn interest on the money you're saving now. But since spending has actually INCREASED while taxes are CUT, then the higher taxes you're going to be paying are going to far outweigh whatever interest you can make from the money you're saving now.

Re:"smear message"?

[drew_kime]

I'm against only counting American lives lost. It's so easy to slap the label of "Iraqi" on somebody and not worry about it (as much) because they were "supposed" to die. In my book, lives lost are fellow human beings who are now dead, and the decision to invade Iraq has resulted in tens^Whundreds of thousands of casualties.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

Wrong. As long as the economy keeps growing, current debts can be rolled into new treasury securities when they become due without our debt to GDP ratio increasing. Fortunately, deficits affect a net surplus in the private sector, helping fuel economic growth without inflation. So unless we do something stupid to stop economic growth, like raise taxes or pay off the debt early, this debt will never have to be paid off. It will be continually rolled into new debt without increasing our total debt burden.

In fact, our current debt-to-GDP ratio is 65% and falling, meaning that our economy is growing faster than our debt is. What President Bush should do is a) further cut taxes or b) further increase spending to keep this ratio constant and promote the most economic growth. Personally, I prefer option (a).

Re:"smear message"?

[Longfinger]

Less taxes now means I can invest and/or save more for later, and at a higher than the government.

The problem with your logic is that Bush is spending much more than you're saving. Even if he hadn't pushed through the tax cuts, we would be running a deficit right now. The tax cuts just add insult to injury.

Furthermore, this isn't just a issue for us, it's an issue for our children and grandchildren. THEY will be paying for the excesses of this decade, and they'll have to pay our debts at the same time they're funding Social Security for the baby boomers.

Seriously, this is bad.

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

How convenient, it excludes 9/11. And you don't take into account that perhaps the commenter's intent was American civilian lives lost to acts of terrorism within the borders of the U.S. Of course if a terrorist starts a war with a devastating attack, regardless of response I'd expect an increase in terror-related deaths.

If you add in 9/11, then there's a HUGE decrease based solely on the data in the graph you linked to (which I haven't bothered to verify myself -- I'll accept it at face value for the sake of this comment).

Re:"smear message"?

[arbitraryaardvark]

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID= /20061106/LOCAL19/611060453 IndyStar.com Metro & State Politics 4:02 PM November 6, 2006 GOP fires telephone campaign company Automated call illegal in Indiana Powered by Topix.net By Jon Murray jon.murray@indystar.com The Indiana Republican Party has fired a company that made recorded calls around the state on behalf of its candidates' campaigns. Marion County Democrats on Saturday had accused the Republicans of placing "robo-calls" after two voters provided voice mail messages asking them to vote for Brizzi in Tuesday's election. One complaint was filed Friday with Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter, a Republican. State GOP spokesman Robert Vane said this afternoon that after investigating, party officials fired Virginia-based Conquest Communications Group. They refused to pay the company because it was using recorded messages. "That is not what we contracted for," Vane said. The Republicans intended for all campaign calls to be conducted "100 percent live," he said, but instead the company used a live introduction followed by a recording. Efforts were being made to contact Conquest. Vane declined to say how much the party still owed the company, which also used recorded messages to promote other candidates. Marion County Democratic Chairman Ed Treacy said there was no live introduction in the Brizzi calls. "That is a lie," he said, noting that only one voice could be heard during each voice mail message. Permission was never requested to play the recording, he said. Under Indiana law, a recorded message can only be placed if it is first introduced by a person who seeks and gets permission to play the message. "The attorney general better do something about it, or he has absolutely zero credibility," Treacy said. Staci Schneider, Carter's spokeswoman, said she had no update about the Brizzi calls. The office investigates all complaints about recorded calls, she said. Vane said the party's legal staff did not think the law had been violated. If a voice mail box asks the caller to leave a message, Vane said, that meets the consent requirement. Democrat Melina Kennedy, a former deputy mayor of Indianapolis, is running for prosecutor against Brizzi. +1 informative

Re:"smear message"?

[Buzz_Litebeer]

911 is statistically unique, that is why it is not added.

You cannot assume that because there was 3000 + killed on 9/11 that this is part of traditional terrorist activities.

IN fact, we will not even be sure if we have been successful in limiting terror until mid 2007, which is about the date, traditionally, that we could expect the next attack if you add in the terrorist bombing in Okalahoma as the most recent,successful, mass death terrorist attack on American soil.

If you want to use foreign acts of terror on US soil, that successfully set off a bomb on our soil targeted at a major monument, then the frequency between attacks (using only the two most recent data points) is actually 8 years, because the last attack (also against WTC) was done in 1993.

So, if the president/you/Republicans don't want to count your buddy Tim McViegh as a terrorist, then we would have to wait until 2009 before we know if the President has been successful in stopping terrorism on American soil.

Re:"smear message"?

[pkulak]

I couldn't remember if the number was 300,000 or 30,000 and didn't really have time to look it up right then, so I took my lower guess just to make sure I didn't give any hawks ammo. Thanks for the correction, it's an important one.

Re:"smear message"?

[dvice_null]

> I personally believe that John Kerry lost 2004 because he was perceived as having a campaign that primarily said "we're not Bush."

I thought that Kerry lost, because of the people counting votes were corrupted. Was there not a big hassle about this?

Re:"smear message"?

[WilliamSChips]

True, but the discussion was on whether or not American lives were lost to terrorism and whether America is safer.

Re:"smear message"?

[jkroll]

GDP to Debt ratio in the US going down? I think you need to actually take a look at some statistics before making a claim like that.

A quick search finds data
here or
here readily contridicting your statement. We have gone from about 58% when Bush to office to about 64% now. Another thing to realize is that the projected government expenditures on medicare and social security are about to explode. Demographics are going to make the simple outgrow the deficit thesis very hard to support.

Re:"smear message"?

[WilliamSChips]

Even without Diebold, my vote doesn't count because I don't live in a swing state. The Electoral College is a much more devious subversion of democracy than the Diebold corporation.

Re:"smear message"?

[EMC_CJ]

No, not at all. Clearly he lost by large numbers due to the fact that he never had a very strong platform and it was not clearly articulated. The Dems have learned their lesson, and I believe that this Congressional election has been a very clear indication of that. Democratic candidates are doing their level best to show their platforms and contrast them against their GOP rivals. I believe it will pay off in the House. Not so sure about the Senate, but I think they will retake the House. Which really scares me, because regardless of your party affiliation, doesn't "President Pelosi" just give you a chill? If Dems retake the House, Nancy Pelosi will be third in line for the Presidency. Just think about THAT for a second...

Re:"smear message"?

[An Onerous Coward]

s/useful information/influential message/

Please be a sport and try to spot the difference.

Re:"smear message"?

[sheldon]

If this information is easily accessible in the State of Minnesota, please let me know where it is. My current vote is based on what I have gleamed from the newspapers and the campaign websites. Bleh.

Minnesota Public Radio has spent the last month doing interviews with various candidates. If you go out to their website at www.mpr.org, and look at the midday and morning edition shows, you'll find audio clips from the debates they've run, as well as the interviews and such.

I quite honestly don't know how anybody can make an informed decision based on dumb campaign ads. I realize I just happen to be more informed about the issues than most Americans, but generally my mind has already been made up prior to the attack ads coming along as I've followed the candidates from all parties through the nomination process and can give a fair assessment of where they stand and what kind of person they are like.

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you like the way things are, how your taxes are lower and how we have not lost any American lives to terror since 911, vote for Republicans.

So I suppose it was the Republicans who stopped the terrorists for the five years prior to 9/11 as well? The fact is, the Republicans have done nothing substantial to protect us from terrorists (who are a very minor threat anyway) and have done quite a lot to motivate future terrorists. At the same time, they have trampled the consitution and turned the "home of the brave, land of the free" into the "home of the cowards, land of no rights".

Re:"smear message"?

[jay2003]

As long as the debt is outstanding, interest is owed on it. Your taxes pay to service that debt or in the case of Bush administration, issue more bonds to pay the interest which means even more taxes later. When you talk about growth, any reasonable analyis will separate growth due to the population growth (a rise in the full employment level in the economy in economist speak) and productivity growth. The cost providing government services is presumbably proportional to the population size so that economic growth due to population increasing is not going to solve an debt problem since the imbalance between government spending and government revenues will increase. Productivity growth is typically quite a small value (1% per year) and has been know to inexplicably disappear for decades, like 1970s. It's not possible ot get out a debt binge on productivity growth.

You are also making the false assumption that federal goverment will continue to be able to borrow money a favorable interest rates. Should the interest rates rise for any reason, the government's debt burden will become progressively more expensive

Fortunately, deficits affect a net surplus in the private sector

I have no idea what you talking about since you didn't say a surplus of what. It's a certainly not a surplus of investment as government spending completes with private investment. Basic economics: Y = C + I + G + NX. where Y is output (GDP), C is consumption, I is investment and G is government spending and NX is net exports. By boosting government spending which the Bush administration has done faster than than any administration since Johnson and his Great Society, private sector investment and and consumption has suffered as result. Granted, government spending may boost output but elasticity of ouput to government spending is less the one. The rest is coming out consumption or investment.

You could make the same wrong argument about personal debt if you have rising income. However, the interest still cuts againt the present value of your lifetime resources. The government has the same problem. Interest is a real expense and lower the present value of government resources causing either lower future spending or higher future taxes. There is no free lunch.

Re:"smear message"?

[sheldon]

I see you've drank the kool-aid.

Sure, you can keep paying off one credit card with another. But the issue of whether deficit spending actually boosts economic growth is up in the air. On one hand you do have the Keyensian economic effect.(which is interesting considering Republicans supposedly reject Keynes), but on the other hand you have the drain caused by interest payments. Interest ads no value. You're not creating any economic growth by spending $400 billion on interest, and you also have the issue of the $9 trillion which is tied up in federal bonds instead of being available for economic investment into the private sector.

The interesting thing is, we're at a point today where the interest payments on the Federal Debt(about $400 billion) is larger than the amount of the annual deficit(about $250 billion). So we're at a point now where if not for the debt, we'd have a balanced budget. So our debt is actually draining on our budget and making the debt larger. Why is that an issue? Because being in a situation where your debt keeps rising in order to pay off your existing debt is a recipe for bankruptcy.

So unless we do something stupid to stop economic growth, like raise taxes or pay off the debt early, this debt will never have to be paid off. It will be continually rolled into new debt without increasing our total debt burden.

Whoa... Your beyond drinking the kool-aid. Your flat off in la la land. Paying off the debt would not drain the economy, rather quite the opposite. It would free up the $9 trillion plus interest payments for private economic development.

fact, our current debt-to-GDP ratio is 65% and falling, meaning that our economy is growing faster than our debt is. What President Bush should do is a) further cut taxes or b) further increase spending to keep this ratio constant and promote the most economic growth. Personally, I prefer option (a).

debt-to-GDP is increasing, and has been for several years. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

It would only be decreasing if the deficit was held to zero, allowing for inflation to decrease the present and future value of the debt. That hasn't happened since the Clinton era.

Your understanding of economics and deficit spending is disturbing. I've encountered it before, and it appears to be a result of a propaganda campaign by some Republicans to prop up their existing power structure. That is, ignore the problems and look at the furry rabbit slight of hand.

I don't know if it's worth responding to you, because I don't think you care about actually educating yourself and understanding the issues.

Re:"smear message"?

[_KiTA_]

Bush has essentially given you a loan which will have to be paid back (with interest) by higher taxes in the future.

Conveniently, that will come about right about when the Liberals take over again. Dad'gumed Tax and Spend Liberals!

Re:"smear message"?

[symbolic]

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say, "Clearly he lost by large numbers..." I was watching the returns, and while he initially appeared to be losing by a significant margin, that changed. It was hilarious watching all the news anchors watch in astonishment as Kerry pulled ahead of Bush in some key states, making the race, for all intents and purposes, quite close. There were definitely some problems - the Florida recount, among others. There were other strange voting anomalies that were never resolved- like having several thousand more votes in a district than there were registered voters.

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, this isn't just a issue for us, it's an issue for our children and grandchildren.

Who is "us"? In ten years at the most we're all going to be paying for this mess one way or another. Even if you're retired and not paying income tax any more, there are other kinds of taxes. E.g., inflation of fiat currency is effectively a tax. And when our hopelessly screwed up economy finally collapses it's going to make everybody suffer.

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops, I misread "isn't just a issue for us" as "isn't an issue for us". Never mind!

Re:"smear message"?

[cheezedawg]

Fortunately, deficits affect a net surplus in the private sector

I have no idea what you talking about since you didn't say a surplus of what. It's a certainly not a surplus of investment as government spending completes with private investment.

The parent is correct- deficit spending by the government increases the net wealth of the private sector. Lets say the government is going to spend $x dollars on some project. To do this, it has 3 options:

• Option #1- raise taxes. The government takes $x from the public, and spends $x on the project. The net result is that the government redistributes some money (takes from the taxpayers and gives to the people working on the project) and the public breaks even (although the public has less money in the short term for investing in growth).
  
• Option #2- borrow money from the fed. This is rarely done because of the inflationary effects it has on the currency.
  
• Option #3- borrow the money from the public by selling securities. The government sells $x in T-Bonds to the public. Now the government has $x, which it then returns to the public by spending it on the project, and the public has $x worth of interest bearing assets, which it can use to increase investment in economic growth.

Option #3 is clearly the best option for economic growth. The interest on the debt is inconsequential as long as the private sector invests this surplus in ways that grow the economy (which it has for the past 200 years).

Re:"smear message"?

[symbolic]

If you like the way things are, how your taxes are lower and how we have not lost any American lives to terror since 911, vote for Republicans.

Are you serious? Do you think the cost for the war in Iraq is going to be FREE? We haven't even BEGUN to see the fallout from this. As for the terror bit - how many times to you think a government can perpetrate an act of terror against its own people and get away with it? The Bush administration is having a difficult enough time with 9/11- and this will only get worse as more of the truth continues to be exposed.

While you're at it, why not chime in about how much lower gas prices are now? Just be sure and mention that this is only part of the election campaign. After the election, all bets are off, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the price of gas will rocket it right back to the $3/gal level.

Re:"smear message"?

[Jim_Callahan]

"Most voters I talked to said they wouldn't vote for Kery[sic] because they had no idea what he really stood for. He campaigns against his opponents rather than for himself; recent events support that."

Yeah, I was amazed that the Dems managed to dig up someone worse than the incumbent: I mean, Bush had been purposefully marketing himself as practically illiterate, and made no real effort to conceal the fact that he was far right of the average american on social issues and rather uncomfortably left of him on issues of government control. And yet he came out ahead in half the debates anyway by virtue of being the only one to actually say anything...
 
On a side note, wherever you live, I'm moving there. Your neighbors seem about a billion times more detached and sensible regarding politics than my own (Why, oh, why did I move to the Bay Area? I swear I can't remember any more.) Though the fact that you still have not dodged the annoying DCCC negative campaign e-mail nonsense kills some of the joy of my existence... I was kinda hoping that was a local thing.

Re:"smear message"?

[Bryansix]

Thanks for that post. Now if only people would understand the Truth behind it. If I had mod points I would mod it informative but really it needs a +5 Truth. Cutting taxes in an of itself does not raise the debt of a nation and actually in this case probably lessened the debt.

Re:"smear message"?

[KKlaus]

Here's an easy way to make the problem obvious even intuitively. When tax cuts create a deficit, the extra money you "save" isn't being given to you by the government anymore. It's being given to you by say, a chinese banker. IF you think that your investment benefits outweigh the detriments of paying interest to that chinese banker, then guess what, that option has already been available to you for years.

There's a good reason everyone doesn't take out huge loans to invest whenever they can. Because it's not safe, and its generally not profitable. You _may_ get 10% return on stock investments funded by a 7% apr loan, but its not a reliable policy. If it was, the banks would be investing that money themselves, not giving it to you.

Re:"smear message"?

[Jim_Callahan]

I'm actually a bit comforted that at least it's foreign factions killing us nowadays. Or at least it bothers me slightly less than the domestic terrorists we used to have so many more of. Though there's been a rise in anti-muslim violence nonsense that destroys the bit of faith in human nature I had initially gained from this.

Re:"smear message"?

[cheezedawg]

Deficit spending helps the economy in several important ways that have nothing to do with a Keyensian stimulus. I can honestly say that I hope that we NEVER run a surplus on the federal budget for several reasons:

1. In order for the economy to grow, the money supply must grow. Deficit spending allows us to increase the money supply without the inflationary pressures of printing more currency or borrowing from the Fed.
2. A government deficit is a surplus to the private sector (read: you and me). When we (the public) buy treasury securities, it increases our net worth.
3. The private sector is much more effective at investing this surplus into generating economic growth than the government is, provided the right infrastructure is in place.
4. The government can use the money generated by selling the securities to build up our infrastructure and defend us from external threats- these are the core responsibilities of the government.

Ideally, I think we need to keep our debt-to-GDP ratio constant. Right now we are around 65%. That is a lot less aggressive than many other industrialized nations, including much of Europe and Japan.

Whoa... Your beyond drinking the kool-aid. Your flat off in la la land. Paying off the debt would not drain the economy, rather quite the opposite. It would free up the $9 trillion plus interest payments for private economic development.

The government paying off our debt only accomplishes one thing: it transfers money from taxpayers to bond holders, and it dissolves the bond holders' interest bearing asset in the process. This is a huge drain on the economy.

debt-to-GDP is increasing, and has been for several years. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Actually, starting in mid-2003 up until last week (when the Commerce Dept released the latest GDP growth statistics), the economy was in fact growing faster than the national debt, so the debt-to-GDP ratio was shrinking. (Source).

Re:"smear message"?

[eldepeche]

Give me one goddamn fucking good reason why Nacy Pelosi would make a frightful president. I'm so goddamn sick of hearing this bullshit.

Re:"smear message"?

[JonathanThurn]

See also the League of Women Voters. They try to present a non-partisan, regulated forum for the messages of candidates and constitutional measures.

Of course, not all candidates submit statements, but a wide majority do, even in Minnesota.

Re:"smear message"?

[jay2003]

Government spending does not increase the net wealth of the private sector. It may lead to a temporary increase in output (GDP). The increase in output is NOT an increase in wealth. If taxpayers use their loan for government in the form of lower taxes or any of their share of the possible increase in output (through higher real wages), to buy stuff like plasma TVs or cars instead of saving it, there is no increase in wealth.

If you invested the loan and received the exact same return as the government's interest expense, the present value of your lifetime resources is unchanged. Your returns would have to beat the government's interest rate to get ahead. For their to be wealth generation, tax payers on average would have to invest their loans and beat the government's interest rate. If you want to borrow money to invest, feel free to get a margin loan. The governmet should be forcing loans on us.

Re:"smear message"?

[Jim_Callahan]

If you ever work on costing for a business, rule #2 is 'a dollar gained now is worth more than a dollar gained next year'. At the minimum, you contrast present value to an inflation rate; in general you contrast it using a reasonable return on an assured investment. In this context the value of money is considered to drop on the order of 9% per year from an investor or business standpoint. So while I agree that numerically you are correct, the dollar cost of such loans and the corresponding taxes required to keep them will increase and need to be paid (which is not great for your federal government there), on an individual level the grandparent just trounced you soundly at knowledge-of-economics-101. This principle, by the way, is what allows the reserve to set a discount rate in the first place (their concern, though, is not with financial success, but with the regulation of inflation)


(Come, on, guys; I know most of you are engineers, not economists, but I am too! Broaden your field a little.)

Re:"smear message"?

[ChrisMaple]

You are correct that the increase in spending causes an eventual increase in total taxes paid. Although lowering tax rates now will increase taxes that have to be paid later, the lower tax rates increase the total economy, and before long more taxes are paid at the lower rate than would have been paid at the higher rate. This is the effect of the Laffer Curve, which any honest and competent economist can tell you about. The real benefit of the lower tax rate is that the populace is richer in the short term and much richer in the long term.

Re:"smear message"?

[cheezedawg]

Government spending does not increase the net wealth of the private sector.

Of course not. All goverment spending just redistributes money, no matter where the money came from. When the government gets the money from selling treasury securities, it redistributes the money and the public gains interest bearing assets that increase it's net wealth (in the form of T-bonds and the like). So the increase in wealth comes from the public buying these interest bearing securities, not from the government spending the money.

Re:"smear message"?

[lahvak]

and then everybody is surprised that there is a low voter turnout.

Re:"smear message"?

[glesga_kiss]

What planet are you on? The number of American civilians killed by terrorists has gone up every year since 2001.

The makers of that chart need to get themselves a dictionary. A person attacking invading foreign nationals is not a terrorist. They are not attacking civilians, they are attacking war profiteers. It doesn't make what they do any more morally valid, but they are not terrorists. What is happening there has happened in every other war. Do you think the French Resistance surrendered when the Nazi's came through and started to own their industry? No, they commited insurgent acts aimed at preventing or restricting the rape of their countries resources that war is generally about.

Every time the US or the UK government use "the T word" in relation to Iraq, the are deliberately (and maliciously) making a connection between the events of 9/11 and their invasion of Iraq. That is absolutely discraceful and anyone who lost anyone they knew in 9/11 should be livid about it.

Re:"smear message"?

[ChrisMaple]

The problem is that it's likely to backfire. I've been receiving these calls here in NH daily, and if it weren't for the fact I consider the Democrats horrid, the calls would cause my to vote against the Republicans making them. I hate robocalls and I hate them more when they're repeated.

Re:"smear message"?

[bergeron76]

You would not believe how difficult it is to effectively judge a candidate unless you hear them speak live.

Isn't a candidate's content more important than how they present it?

I'm sure Adolf Hitler was probably a great public speaker, but that doesn't mean his content was great.

Are you happy with how things are going in this country? If so, great. If not, vote the dominant party OUT (the Republicans in this case; rarely in history have they controlled of ALL THREE branches of government as they currently do).

You may not like one particular stance of a party (ie. prayer in schools), but when things are as bad as they are these days, your civic duty as an American should come FIRST.

More than 500,000 DEAD (predominantly innocent people). That means more than ONE MILLION FAMILY MEMBERS that are DEEPLY HURT right now, both in the USA, IRAQ, the UK, Australlia, Italy, France and throughout the world! That number doesn't even include the injured/permanently disfigured, which is probably more than 2,500,000 (2.5 million)!

The thing that made America great, was that we were the great peacekeeper of the world. We had EMPATHY and DIPLOMACY. Under this Congress and Senate, we have become the most hated country in the world.

Personally, I think things need to change. American Troops are dying more today than they were 4 years after our President declared "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!" aboard the Aircraft Carrier USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN using US TROOPS AS A BACKDROP/STAGE!

WAKE THE FUCK UP PEOPLE!!! Bush LOST us THIS WAR! AMERICA wouldn't have started this WAR.

We as American's have life pretty damn good. We only have ONE responsibility - to VOTE.

If we as American's would rather be lazy than civic, we deserve to lose our country. Mark my words: We will reap what we have sowed.

Vote or
+++ATH
Carrier Lost

Re:"smear message"?

[Hrodvitnir]

I'm sure it's quite a big difference to 10 families.

Re:"smear message"?

[sheldon]

Wait a minute. You gave me a link which has a debt calculator that shows exactly the opposite of what you claim.

More troubling, the guy seems to be a Hugh Hewitt like person, i.e. someone who establishs a position and then desperately tries to come up with evidence to support it.

A government deficit is a surplus to the private sector (read: you and me). When we (the public) buy treasury securities, it increases our net worth.
The private sector is much more effective at investing this surplus into generating economic growth than the government is, provided the right infrastructure is in place.

Exactly how is it a surplus for the government to spend it on stuff, and then borrow the money from us in the form of bonds? This isn't extra money in our pockets in any way shape or form.

Your reasoning scares me. It's hard to believe anybody in this country is this fucking stupid.

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> The government just abolished habeas corpus indefinitely,
>> which has already been applied to US citizens on US soil.

Someone apparently has not read the actual document and just went from the publicity, in reality that bill only suspends habeaus corpus for *foreigners* not US citizens. It was a reform on the way military tribunals operate.

Re:"smear message"?

[dasunt]

Your taxes are not lower. The Bush administration has failed to cut spending to pay their tax cuts and in fact has dramatically increased spending. Thus the present value of taxes you will pay over your lifetime has risen under the Bush administration since the 100s of billions of dollars of debt the Bush administration has run up will have to be paid from future taxes. You are not paying these taxes this year but you will have to pay them in the future. Ask any economist and they will tell that lowering taxes without cutting spending is an increase and not a reduction in your lifetime tax payments.

Bush has essentially given you a loan which will have to be paid back (with interest) by higher taxes in the future.

You are making several assumptions:

• Overall taxable income remains constant, and the percentage of taxable income remains constant.
• Current spending will not result in savings in the future.

While I'm not a fan of Bush, I'm also not a fan of simplistic views of the federal budget.

Federal spending can be good for the population or bad for the population. Perhaps the US shouldn't have been so obsessed about a balanced budget in the 90s -- a little bit more spent on capturing a certain dingbat in the 90s could have saved us the cost of an expensive war today!

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, she's gotta be at least somewhat cool, I mean, hell, she posts on Slashdot! heheheheh

Re:"smear message"?

[joshsnow]

Less taxes now means I can invest and/or save more for later, and at a higher than the government

OK, I'll bite. Government raises money by selling bonds and other treasury instruments. They promise to redeem those bonds within a given time frame in years. They pay interest to the bond holders using tax payers money. They redeem the bond by raising tax to pay the cost of redemption. If a government cuts taxes while increasing spending, they *must* be increasing their indebtedness in order to pay for the rise in spending. That means than further down the road, taxes will have to be raised to pay off that debt. A tax cut now is the equivalent of you reducing payments on the outstanding balance on your credit card, while increasing the your level of indebtedness by spending wildly on that same card. Yes, you're paying less now, but really, that's at the expense of what you'll be repaying in the future. In other words, your reduced payments now are an illusion - just as a tax cut while increasing public spending is an illusion - and a red herring.

Have a look at this page on wikipedia.

Re:"smear message"?

[toddestan]

Cutting taxes in an of itself does not raise the debt of a nation and actually in this case probably lessened the debt.

Alternatively, you could just look at the facts. Oops. You may be right about cutting taxes to help the economy, in order to increase tax revenue. The only problem is that Bush forgot the other half of the equation: cutting spending.

Re:"smear message"?

[MBraynard]

Several. Of course these are MY reasons and may not be your reasons, but I don't have to justify my reasons - but am sharing them since you asked.

She advocates surrendering to the Islamic terrorists (though I think she would look great in a Burka). She opposes fighting them in Iraq, she opposes fighting them here in the US by intercepting their phone calls. She wants to make it illegal (again) for the CIA to warn a local sheriff about a terrorist cell operating in her neighborhood.

She thinks partial-birth abortions (head in, body out, totally viable child - that's why they keep the head in - never medically necessary - just pop the head out!) should be funded by the taxpayers.

She supports judges and policies that support the Kelo decision that allows a corporation to bribe a government into siezing your house.

She marches in parades side by side with NAMBLA members (you know - the 'eight is too late' crowd - at least Foley was messing with guys over the age of consent).

She thinks I exist to provide tax revenue that she can confiscate and hand out to the unproductive and underserving.

She opposes letting poor people have the same choice in education that rich people do for their young children.

She thinks someone should get to cut ahead of others more or equally able because they happen to have a certain sex or skin color - regardless of whether they or their ancestors ever experienced any repression in the US.

She thinks the people who murdered a bunch of unarmed women and children in Waco, TX should be able to have guns but that I, who have committed no crime, should not have a gun to defend myself.

Shall I continue?

Re:"smear message"?

[Copid]

You are correct that the increase in spending causes an eventual increase in total taxes paid. Although lowering tax rates now will increase taxes that have to be paid later, the lower tax rates increase the total economy, and before long more taxes are paid at the lower rate than would have been paid at the higher rate. This is the effect of the Laffer Curve, which any honest and competent economist can tell you about. The real benefit of the lower tax rate is that the populace is richer in the short term and much richer in the long term.

Actually, any honest and competent economist will tell you that the Laffer Curve indicates that what you say is true in some cases, but not in others. The number of people who worship the Laffer Curve and assume that it says that future tax revenues necessarily increase for every marginal decrease in tax rate surprises me, and your description of the effect isn't doing a whole lot to fix the problem.

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Your taxes are not lower.
That, and your kid's taxes are going to be awful. The republicans aren't going to be happy until we're all working for food. Compasionate conservative is just a way to get your 'evangelical vote.' That's it, Jesus boy - you're just a fucking tool.

Re:"smear message"?

[glarbl_blarbl]

She represents San Fransisco fer chrissakes! How much more liberal can you get?!

Which is why I might consider putting down my bong and not voting Green if she ran for pres.. This year I'm voting for an incumbent Dem in my house district and Aaron Dixon of the Green Party for senator.. Fuck Maria Cantwell, I'm sick of Republican-Lite. I don't regret voting for her in 2000, cause Slade Gorton is the devil- but had I known that she'd vote to give GWB a blank check for war I might have voted (gasp!) Libertarian.

Reading this post you might get the idea that I'm an independant... But trust me, if I could vote for Green Party candidates every time I would. I sure as hell regret voting for Kerry in '04.

Re:"smear message"?

[rvqbl]

Perhaps you could add citations. I have noticed that a lot of right-wingers just regurgitate Rush or something. So please, cite her saying that she wants to "surrender to Islamic Terrorists." As long as you just repeat talking points, you only sicken democracy.

Re:"smear message"?

[cheezedawg]

Wait a minute. You gave me a link which has a debt calculator that shows exactly the opposite of what you claim.

As I said, up until last week the debt calculator was counting backwards, indicating that the economy was growing faster than the debt. That changed when the commerce department released the 3rd quarter GDP statistics that showed that the economy is slowing. So for the past week or so, the debt calculator has been increasing. This isn't the opposite of what I claimed- it is exactly what I claimed...

Exactly how is it a surplus for the government to spend it on stuff, and then borrow the money from us in the form of bonds? This isn't extra money in our pockets in any way shape or form.

The government does not maintain a significant cash balance- it spends all of the money that it receives no matter where the money comes from (it must do this to keep the currency from becoming devalued). If that money comes from tax revenue, then the net result is that the money is redistributed from the tax payers to the workers (often the same group), and net public wealth is unchanged. If the money comes from deficit spending, then the net results are that the money is redistributed from the T-bond holders to the workers, and the T-bond holders now have an interest bearing asset. This is a net increase in public wealth.

Monetary policy and macroeconomics have fascinated me for a while now because many of the results like this go against conventional wisdom and are so counter-intuitive.

Your reasoning scares me. It's hard to believe anybody in this country is this fucking stupid.

Well, its good to see that people can still have a rational debate in this country...

Re:"smear message"?

[cheezedawg]

GDP to Debt ratio in the US going down? I think you need to actually take a look at some statistics before making a claim like that.

The parent's claim was actually pretty close. The debt-to-GDP ratio increased pretty quickly from 2001-2003, largely because the economy was not growing very fast. But in late 2003 until about last week, economy growth took off and the economy was growing faster than the national debt, so the debt-to-GDP ratio was decreasing. That did change with the Q3 GDP numbers from the commerce department (released October 27) that showed that economic growth is slowing a bit. Now the debt-to-GDP ratio is slowing increasing again.

Re:"smear message"?

[1u3hr]

Shall I continue?

Well, since you ask, NO.

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

WELL that was an utterly useless pile of warped and slanderous crap.
Drinking the kool-aid a bit much, are we?

Re:"smear message"?

[SETIGuy]

Although lowering tax rates now will increase taxes that have to be paid later, the lower tax rates increase the total economy, and before long more taxes are paid at the lower rate than would have been paid at the higher rate

Yes, and zero tax rates will lead to infinite revenue.

You should stop smoking what you are selling...

Re:"smear message"?

[joshsisk]

She marches in parades side by side with NAMBLA members (you know - the 'eight is too late' crowd - at least Foley was messing with guys over the age of consent).

Wasn't this completely debunked? I remember reading that this was debunked and that she had no way of knowing who was marching in that parade anyway, since the NAMBLA members weren't carrying signs talking about NAMBLA, they were just there in civilian garb. I know that Pat Buchanan's similar comments about Hilary Clinton were debunked, so I assume his ones about Nancy Pelosi were as well - he had said Hilary Clinton marched in a Gay Pride Parade where NAMBLA had a float, and that was proven to be untrue.

She thinks I exist to provide tax revenue that she can confiscate and hand out to the unproductive and underserving.

This is a problem with all politicians - Bush hasn't exactly done much to hinder government handouts under his tenure. His is not very fiscally conservative.

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we need taxes at all then? Just borrow all the money needed to run the government. Right?

Re:"smear message"?

[drjzzz]

Kerry whipped Bush in the first 2 debates. Bush looked pitiful in the first. Honestly, he was so bad that you had to feel a little sorry for him. The second was also a clear Kerry win. The third was close - a toss up or even a narrow Bush win. But by any measure, Kerry gave anyone who was paying attention plenty of good reasons to vote for him.

Re:"smear message"?

[shawb]

The United States ALSO pays interest on it's debts. Which means in the future the taxpayers will be paying for Bush's war, as well as any interest accrued.

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the love of God, don't feed the trolls!

Re:"smear message"?

[snuf23]

Almost all of those deaths are in Iraq - meaning they wouldn't have occurred if we hadn't invaded Iraq and put civilians on the ground for reconstruction. Thus any increase is directly tied to the current administration's foreign policy.

Whee!

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

True, and the exception is where the government makes concurrent budget cuts.

Re:"smear message"?

[Wavicle]

# A government deficit is a surplus to the private sector (read: you and me). When we (the public) buy treasury securities, it increases our net worth.
# The private sector is much more effective at investing this surplus into generating economic growth than the government is, provided the right infrastructure is in place.

Okay, but what if the majority of the treasury bonds is not being purchased by U.S. nationals, but rather by foreign governments/corporations/individuals? All of the interest then paid on the bond is a drain on our economy, right?

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

I should have checked before I posted. For the previous 18 months, up until last week, GDP growth was in fact outpacing debt growth. But the Q3 growth figure released a week ago reversed that. This should be a temporary event as GDP growth is projected to rebound in 2007.

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh... you mean the Dingbat that Clinton wanted to catch, but was barricaded from doing so by the CIA and Republican interests?

Re:"smear message"?

[philwx]

On the subject of the article, I keep getting messages from Bill Clinton telling me how great the Dem candidate for governor is. I'm pretty sure he's not a Republican scheme, and I've deleted the same message four times so far. The Dems don't need any help on annoying voters :)

Clearly your one, local counter example disproves the information that this is happening all over the country.

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

lets not mention the loss of jobs, the moving of international business from the USA to London.
Lets not talk about all the USA government studies that show that Iraq has been the single biggest recruiting bonus for the terrorists in history. Lets not talk about the rising health costs due to more lead and other pollutants in the air. Lets not talk about how the climate of money first produced Enron etc.
Lets not a about the spiraling insurance costs that are crippling the insurance industry because of global warming.
Lets not talk about the declining health care systems and increases in cost.
Lets not talk about the obesity epedemic.
Lets not talk about the fantastic disaster relief job the government did in New orleans ( or the fact that cronies who say the right thing rather than people with knowledge and skills were in charge)
Lets not talk about the fact that a NON scientist was put in charge of NASA and gagged the scientists who believed truth was more important than politics
Lets not talk about the succession of scandals. funding, inappropriate behaviour and so much more (from the party that CLAIM to be the moral guardians I might add)

Lets not talk about the state of education.. someone who believes that everything is fine shows that quite clearly.

    Your are right everything is fine

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

As long as the debt is outstanding, interest is owed on it. Your taxes pay to service that debt or in the case of Bush administration, issue more bonds to pay the interest which means even more taxes later.

Right, and this is money that goes directly back into the private sector to fuel economic growth.

When you talk about growth, any reasonable analyis will separate growth due to the population growth (a rise in the full employment level in the economy in economist speak) and productivity growth. The cost providing government services is presumbably proportional to the population size so that economic growth due to population increasing is not going to solve an debt problem since the imbalance between government spending and government revenues will increase. Productivity growth is typically quite a small value (1% per year) and has been know to inexplicably disappear for decades, like 1970s. It's not possible ot get out a debt binge on productivity growth.

Sure it is. The debt levels we are carrying now are nowhere near the extreme levels we have historically seen, and are quite conservative compared to other industrialized countries in Europe and Asia. Coming out of WWII, we had a debt burden twice as high as we have today, and it was mitigated by productivity growth in the economy. As long as the economy grows at least as fast as the debt burden, we will never have a problem with debt.

You are also making the false assumption that federal goverment will continue to be able to borrow money a favorable interest rates. Should the interest rates rise for any reason, the government's debt burden will become progressively more expensive.

There is never a shortage of people willing to lend money that has the "full faith and credit" of the Government for repayment. Again, look at the years following WWII. With a debt twice as big as we have today, there still was no shortage of people willing to buy the debt from the Government, and that helped keep interest rates low.

I have no idea what you talking about since you didn't say a surplus of what. It's a certainly not a surplus of investment as government spending completes with private investment. Basic economics: Y = C + I + G + NX. where Y is output (GDP), C is consumption, I is investment and G is government spending and NX is net exports. By boosting government spending which the Bush administration has done faster than than any administration since Johnson and his Great Society, private sector investment and and consumption has suffered as result. Granted, government spending may boost output but elasticity of ouput to government spending is less the one. The rest is coming out consumption or investment.

Government deficits equal an asset in the private sector. Not only that, it is an asset that earns interest and increases the money supply without inflationary pressures. Compare this to a government surplus, where the amount of surplus is a liability in the private sector. The main difference, of course, is that the government has no plans to repay surplus funds back to the private sector, so a government surplus is a "loan" to the government that never gets paid back and cannot be invested or spent on economic growth.

You could make the same wrong argument about personal debt if you have rising income. However, the interest still cuts againt the present value of your lifetime resources. The government has the same problem. Interest is a real expense and lower the present value of government resources causing either lower future spending or higher future taxes. There is no free lunch.

Borrowing money for an income producing asset is always a good thing. Ask any investment planner about the term leverage to find out why.

Re:"smear message"?

[Eccles]

Learn what the Laffer Curve actually is before spouting off nonsense about it.

At 0% taxes, you get 0 revenue. At 100% taxes, you get zero revenue (because nobody works, or at least nobody reports earnings.) At percentages in between, you get revenue greater than zero. Thus at some tax rates, reducing the rate increases the revenue.

But what you say ignores that all-important qualifier. Laffer does not say that reducing the rate at any level increases tax revenue. Since it's a curve, there are plenty of points where reducing the rate reduces revenue. Since the tax rates before weren't causing high unemployment, if anything the evidence is that we were at a point where reducing the rate would reduce revenue.

Re:"smear message"?

[readin]

The reason you have so much trouble finding out what candidates stand for is that they know you are more likely to vote against them than for them once you find out. You talk about how valuable it is to hear them speak. All you get from that is their ability to appear reasonable. And if they appear reasonable, aren't they likely to do reasonable things? Like the kinds of things you think are reasonable? But if they actually say what they want to do, they might shatter your illusion by saying they'll do something you don't think is reasonable, and then they will seem insane and not electable compared to their opponents who, by keeping quiet, still appear reasonable to you.

If you weren't nearly certain who you were going to vote for many months ago, you probably haven't been paying enough attention to make an informed decision. The parties in the US are quite different in rhetoric and philosophy. The only thing they seem to agree on is that a lot of money should be spent by the government and that lobbyists should be kept happy.

The differences between the parties change pretty slowly. If you want to make an informed decision in the 2008 election, don't wait until summer 2008 to start getting informed - there won't be enough time. Start paying attention now. Read opinions in newspapers. Watch the argument shows on TV. Get to know the names and views of congressional leaders and Supreme Court judges. Find out what the elected officials are doing and how it tracks with what they promised.

Even if you go read their position papers now, should you believe them? Which parts should you believe? What things do they stand for that actually have a chance of passing, and what do they stand for that is only for show because it will never pass? If you just tuned in now you'll have no clue.

There's a reason campaign commercials are so lame. They're aimed at people who haven't made up their minds yet and those people generally aren't the best informed voters.

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

a little bit more spent on capturing a certain dingbat in the 90s could have saved us the cost of an expensive war today!

That's funny. With all the money that has been spent in the last six years a certain dingbat has yet to be caught. And this time the world community has said it is okay for us to go into Afghanistan and do whatever it takes to find him. But somehow, even with all this spending, we have not found him. Somehow, we go sidetracked in Iraq. Somehow.

But you just keep on voting Republican.

Re:"smear message"?

[nacturation]

In my book, dead American soldiers are dead Americans, and the decision to invade Iraq has resulted in tens of thousands of US casualties including thousands dead.

And dead North Korean soldiers are dead North Koreans. So if North Korea decides to invade America and they send tens of thousands of people, they then get to claim that the United States has killed thousands of North Koreans, further justifying a continued invasion?

Re:"smear message"?

[dsanfte]

That's a wonderful sentiment, but not all human life is equal. If it were, we'd all be born equal too, no?

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Hastert would be MUCH better

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

Sure, you can keep paying off one credit card with another. But the issue of whether deficit spending actually boosts economic growth is up in the air. On one hand you do have the Keyensian economic effect.(which is interesting considering Republicans supposedly reject Keynes), but on the other hand you have the drain caused by interest payments. Interest ads no value. You're not creating any economic growth by spending $400 billion on interest, and you also have the issue of the $9 trillion which is tied up in federal bonds instead of being available for economic investment into the private sector.

Amazing how you could get this so mind-numbingly backwards. The $9 trillion "tied up in federal bonds" is an investment in the private sector. Those bonds show up as an asset on the balance sheet of debt holders, and interest payments go directly back into the private sector through them. This does add value, otherwise nobody would be interested in buying treasury bonds from the government.

The interesting thing is, we're at a point today where the interest payments on the Federal Debt(about $400 billion) is larger than the amount of the annual deficit(about $250 billion). So we're at a point now where if not for the debt, we'd have a balanced budget. So our debt is actually draining on our budget and making the debt larger. Why is that an issue? Because being in a situation where your debt keeps rising in order to pay off your existing debt is a recipe for bankruptcy.

It is impossible for the government to go bankrupt - they control the money supply. The only risk is hyperinflation, where the money that the government uses to pay of the debt is worthless, but as long as the economy keeps growing this isn't a risk either. An increasing debt is not an issue as long as the economy grows at least as fast.

Whoa... Your beyond drinking the kool-aid. Your flat off in la la land. Paying off the debt would not drain the economy, rather quite the opposite. It would free up the $9 trillion plus interest payments for private economic development.

Wrong. Paying off the debt would only manage to transfer the debt burden from the debt holders, who hold the debt as an income-producing asset, to tax payers, who receive no financial benefit from paying the extra taxes. You are then stuck with the problem of finding ways to increase the money supply to facilitate growth without adding too much inflation with the extra funds.

debt-to-GDP is increasing, and has been for several years

Wrong again. Although my information is now about 1 week out of date, for the past 18 months the size of the economy has been growing faster than the size of the debt, I.E. the Debt-to-GDP ratio has been falling. This changed on 10/27 with the slower than expected growth numbers, but isn't predicted to last long.

It would only be decreasing if the deficit was held to zero, allowing for inflation to decrease the present and future value of the debt. That hasn't happened since the Clinton era.

No. The debt-to-GDP decreases if GDP growth outpaces debt accumulation. That is pretty basic math, you know. Inflation always decreases the future value of debt because the vehicles that hold this debt are long term.

Your understanding of economics and deficit spending is disturbing. I've encountered it before, and it appears to be a result of a propaganda campaign by some Republicans to prop up their existing power structure. That is, ignore the problems and look at the furry rabbit slight of hand.

I would say the same about you, but I am not arrogant enough to assume that anybody who disagrees with me has been brainwashed by a propaganda machine.

I don't know if it's worth responding to you, because I don't think you care about actually e

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

Okay, but what if the majority of the treasury bonds is not being purchased by U.S. nationals, but rather by foreign governments/corporations/individuals? All of the interest then paid on the bond is a drain on our economy, right?

Not exactly. We don't live in an economic bubble - this is a global economy. Growth and prosperity abroad always results in growth and prosperity at home. On top of that, we would have the added bonus of having other people finance our growth for us.

Note that your question still is a "what if" question. The majority of US debt is by far still being purchased by US citizens and by the US government.

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

Alternatively, you could just look at the facts. Oops. You may be right about cutting taxes to help the economy, in order to increase tax revenue. The only problem is that Bush forgot the other half of the equation: cutting spending.

Cutting spending isn't part of the equation at all. Government spending will always have to increase with the size of the economy. The key is to promote enough growth to maintain a constant debt in relation to the size of the economy.

Cutting spending actually accomplishes the opposite. For example, budgetary pressures in the Army Corp of Engineers resulted in a the widely known problem of the New Orleans levy system to go unfixed for decades, and this came back to bite us hard when the hurricane struck and flooded the city. The same can be said about the gutting of defense and intelligence spending in the 1990's that made it easier for people like Osama bin Laden to attack us. The economic results of these types of spending cuts are far more devastating than the amount of debt that would have been accumulated to pay for them when needed.

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a "US citizen" as long as the President says you are. The moment he calls you Muhammad Jihad of Quatar, you have no rights.

Not even a right to let someone know you are in fact an American, and a completely wrong guy.

This is what Habeas Corpus essentially is. The right to say: "Hey, you got the wrong guy"

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it is. The debt levels we are carrying now are nowhere near the extreme levels we have historically seen, and are quite conservative compared to other industrialized countries in Europe and Asia. Coming out of WWII, we had a debt burden twice as high as we have today, and it was mitigated by productivity growth in the economy. As long as the economy grows at least as fast as the debt burden, we will never have a problem with debt.

are you fucking insane? So you think it's a good idea that we are now even approaching debt the debt levels after WWII. I'll repeat that again; after WORLD WAR II because of the fucking idiocy of our shithead president who has sold us fear and nothing but fear since day 1 of his rule oops, I mean, administration. Get a fucking grip. Yeah, there is no shortage of Chinese investors willing to buy up our debt. Just wait until they decide to unload it. Better hope your savings are in RMB.

Re:"smear message"?

[LurkerXXX]

It is impossible for the government to go bankrupt - they control the money supply.

Bzzt. That might be true if they controlled the money supply used by all the people they own money to. One of the (many) huge holes to your argument is that foreign countries and interests make up 23% of the debt owners. It's actually more than that if you break up some of the other categories and see that there are foreign investors in many of those.

Those folks won't accept 'funny money' that the government prints up if they think the dollar is unstable/worthless. They'll want it in real currency.

Wrong. Paying off the debt would only manage to transfer the debt burden from the debt holders, who hold the debt as an income-producing asset, to tax payers, who receive no financial benefit from paying the extra taxes.

You mean it would transfer the money that is currently being pumped outside the country (interest to foreign debt holders) back into the pockets of Americans who could then earn the interest themselves.

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

What planet are you on? The number of American civilians killed by terrorists has gone up every year since 2001.

At that rate, it'll take 50-100 years to equal the number of US deaths from terrorism in 2001.

Re:"smear message"?

[Rinkhals]

Bush has essentially given you a loan which will have to be paid back (with interest) by higher taxes in the future.

Fiendishly Clever!

Bush and his successors can continue to spend safe in the knowledge that any other party who takes over from them will have to foot the bill for their profligacy!

Hence the Republicans will continue their reputation as tax-cuttin' big spenders while the 'Dems will have to raise taxes and cut spending and thus incur the unpopularity that will ensure that the Republicans regain office if ever deposed.

At some time, however, the Republicans will be unable to spend their way back into the hearts of the American Public.

Will Bush care? He probably figures that he won't be around to care.

But at that point the good ole US of A will be fsked.

Wonder where Al Quaeda will be then?

Re:"smear message"?

[Copid]

Hmmmm... no that's not necessarily the case. There's no reason to think that budget cuts or the lack thereof are necessary or sufficient to change the change in revenue with respect to tax rate. In fact, I would argue (and I think that the statistics bear me out) that there isn't much of a simple rule of thumb for deciding whether you're on an upward or downward sloping portion of the curve. At the very least, it's pretty certain that the curve is not stationary and certainly not smooth the way it's represented on a chalk board.

Most importantly, it is not necessarily the case that we're always on a downward sloping region of the LC. I can't figure out why conservatives always insist that we are, aside from the obvious fact that if we were, tax cuts would always be the correct course of action.

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, whatever happened to "all men are created equal" ?

Re:"smear message"?

[tnk1]

Give up. This election the race is between "we're going to do what we've been doing already" and "whatever they are doing, we're NOT going to do, whatever that is".

I'm pretty sure that the Republicans really need to have a better plan, but as far as I know, the Democrats don't have one either. The sick thing is that while I know the Republicans screwed up, I can't prove that the Democrats won't make it worse.

On the bright side, we might get gridlock back, which is actually the safest mode for the government to work in. Then centrists votes start mattering again. We saw that in action when the filibuster thing was going on. In that case the Dems had enough votes to prevent the filibuster from being stopped, so a bunch of centrists could step in and make a deal. If we get back to the point where ALL actions, not just Senate debating rules, need to elicit some votes from across the aisle, we'll be better off.

Re:"smear message"?

[felix rayman]

public class Economics101
{

        public static void main( String args[] )
        {
                double debt = 10;
                double GDP = 1000;
                double gdpGrowthRate = .03;
                double treasuryYield = .05;
                double debtOverGdp = debt / GDP;

                System.out.println( "Debt=" + debt + " GDP=" + GDP + " debt/GDP=" + ( debt/GDP ) );
                System.out.println( "tick....tick....tick...." );

                boolean idiot = false;
                while( idiot == false )
                {
                        debt = debt + ( debt * treasuryYield );
                        GDP = GDP + ( GDP * gdpGrowthRate );
                        if ( debt > GDP )
                        {
                                idiot = true;
                                System.out.println( "Debt=" + debt + " GDP=" + GDP + " debt/GDP=" + ( debt/GDP ) );
                                System.out.println( "Stop voting Republican you god damn retard!" );
                                System.out.println( "And stop talking about things you don't understand!" );
                                /* And don't start with some bullshit about how GDP is
                                going to grow at a rate higher than the treasury yield.
                                Hasn't happened since 1966, isn't going to start
                                happening now. Except maybe in China. */
                        }
                }
        }

}

Re:"smear message"?

[cold fjord]

Every time the US or the UK government use "the T word" in relation to Iraq, the are deliberately (and maliciously) making a connection between the events of 9/11 and their invasion of Iraq. That is absolutely discraceful and anyone who lost anyone they knew in 9/11 should be livid about it.

Iraq was a long time state sponsor of terrorism, giving aid and support to terrorists that killed Americans. No connection to 9/11 was needed to use the "T word" with them.

Re:"smear message"?

[cold fjord]

What planet are you on? The number of American civilians killed by terrorists has gone up every year since 2001.

I would invite anyone curious about this to go to the source of the data used in the charts you link to. When you look at the data, you find, surprise, surprise, that Iraq was where most Americans who died from terrorism in 2005 actually died. Hopefully that isn't a shock. I also seem to recall that the reporting standards changed in some aspect.

We wouldn't want to see anyone mislead, would we?

Re:"smear message"?

[cold fjord]

. In my book, lives lost are fellow human beings who are now dead, and the decision to invade Iraq has resulted in tens of thousands of casualties.

That should be: In my book, lives lost are fellow human beings who are now dead, and the decision to invade Iraq has resulted in tens of thousands fewer dead than if Saddam was still in power.

Re:"smear message"?

[Anonymous Coward]

in reality that bill only suspends habeaus corpus for *foreigners* not US citizens.

Flashback to 1930s Germany: "in reality that bill only suspends habeus corpus for *Jews* not Aryan citizens".

At least we haven't started gassing them yet. Vote Republican: Still Not As Bad As The Nazis!(tm)

Re:"smear message"?

[Steve2]

Hi sheldon, I am the guy you're talking about here. FYI, I don't know who Hugh Hewitt is; in any case, you need to know that personal attacks don't phase me a bit. What phases me greatly are facts and logic. Do you have either of those? If so, send me a private email, and we'll have what might be an interesting conversation -- with the understanding, of course, that either of us will be free to subsequently publish anything that transpires. It might lead to some good material for my blog, and you might think some of it would be worth posting here. Whatever. Send me an email if you have a substantive question, perhaps about my latest post about paying off the debt (posted 11/7/06 at optimist123.com); my email address is freely available there, and it is undiguised. Why a private email instead of just posting here? Because I've found through experience that removing the public grandstanding factor fosters objectivity -- and I have a strong preference for facts and logic instead of emotion and bluster.

Re:"smear message"?

[squiggleslash]

While there are always questions about electoral corruption, Kerry didn't carry the popular vote and the vote was nowhere near as close as it was with Bush vs Gore. As such, for the most part, the allegations of vote rigging in Ohio and elsewhere, aside from being largely overblown, are probably irrelevent in terms of determining why Kerry lost.

Re:"smear message"?

[Fhqwhgadss]

may George W. Bush drink the blood of every man, woman and child in Iraq

Re:"smear message"?

[rico23]

Several. Of course these are MY reasons and may not be your reasons, but I don't have to justify my reasons - but am sharing them since you asked.

> She advocates surrendering to the Islamic terrorists (though I think she would look great in a Burka).

When did she say that? One real quote.

> She opposes fighting them in Iraq,

One problem, terrorists weren't there before we invaded.

> she opposes fighting them here in the US by intercepting their phone calls.

If you're so ***damn sure they're terrorists being listened to, why not GET THE WARRANTS?

> She wants to make it illegal (again) for the CIA to warn a local sheriff about a terrorist cell operating in her neighborhood.

Again, a quote would be nice. Democrats wanted the CIA & FBI included in homeland security - that was Republicans that excluded them.

> She thinks partial-birth abortions (head in, body out, totally viable child - that's why they keep the head in - never medically necessary - just pop the head out!) should be funded by the taxpayers.

Scare tactics - can you say with absolute assurance that there is NEVER a medical reason for the procedure?

> She supports judges and policies that support the Kelo decision that allows a corporation to bribe a government into siezing your house.

And Dennis Hastert doesn't?

She marches in parades side by side with NAMBLA members (you know - the 'eight is too late' crowd - at least Foley was messing with guys over the age of consent).

> Is there a picture? She was actively supporting them? Or was it a parade where she was marching in support of another group and NAMBLA could not legally be excluded (you know, that damn Bill of Rights the Republicans are trying to get rid of)?

She thinks I exist to provide tax revenue that she can confiscate and hand out to the unproductive and underserving.

> Whereas Republicans think you exist to borrow money from the Chinese to confiscate and hand over to the unproductive and undeserving.

She opposes letting poor people have the same choice in education that rich people do for their young children.

> So felons can teach them like in Texas where Bush came from?

She thinks someone should get to cut ahead of others more or equally able because they happen to have a certain sex or skin color - regardless of whether they or their ancestors ever experienced any repression in the US.

> Whereas Republicans elect people like Bush, who has never accomplished anything in his life except getting elected (and having a rich grandfather & father).

She thinks the people who murdered a bunch of unarmed women and children in Waco, TX should be able to have guns but that I, who have committed no crime, should not have a gun to defend myself.

> Waco? You're claiming they were unarmed? Really?

Shall I continue?

Re:"smear message"?

[MBraynard]

I could explain all of them with references but I have a ton to do to day and can't get through all of them. If you were sitting here physically in front of me I would be more willing and able (are you in DC?). But I will take a look at just one.

>> She thinks partial-birth abortions (head in, body out, totally viable child - >>that's why they keep the head in - never medically necessary - just pop the head >>out!) should be funded by the taxpayers.

>Scare tactics - can you say with absolute assurance that there is NEVER a medical >reason for the procedure? Yes, I can. The only reason the child's head is kept inside the woman is because if it slipped out it would be illegal to kill it. This procedure is only performed after viability, too, so the child could be removed and would be viable.

Your initial response might be that I am not a doctor, but the American Medical Association also claims it is not medically necessary, either.

Intentional abortion is actually never medically necessary, though it may be a highly likely side-effect of an effort to save the life of the mother (cancerous uterous) or may be necessary in cases where the child is absolutely doomed and the mother is at grave risk (tubular ligation). In these rare cases neither myself or even the Catholic Church oppose it. I can cite Dr. Everett Koop on that though I don't have the link handy and I'm not sure you wouldn't be interested in hearing from him.

Of course Nancy doesn't think you can dunk a terrorist in some water to get him to talk - if only the terrorists were still in utero she would allow the CIA to do whatever they thought necessary.

Re:"smear message"?

[hey!]

As long as the economy keeps growing, current debts can be rolled into new treasury securities when they become due without our debt to GDP ratio increasing.

Still doesn't matter. Unless the money was invested in something that creates returns on GDP (e.g. infrastructure, education), the fact that GDP growth might outpace deficit spending is irrelevant. That future tax money is going to be taken out of our (admittedly richer) pockets. Money deficit spent on education, infrastructure and research is a different story. Yes, it comes out of our pockets, but the amount of money in our pockets because of the investment may be greater than the amount being taken out to pay for the loan.

This is a bit of elementary finance that somehow has never made it into political consciousness: the difference between operating and captial expenses. Anybody who has ever financed a house knows the difference between mortgage payments and rent.

Fortunately, deficits affect a net surplus in the private sector, helping fuel economic growth without inflation.

There is of course a multiplier effect of course for every dollar spent. But your argument doesn't hold water; unless the money being spent is taken out of the economy some other place, you are in effect raising the money supply, which leads to inflation. It's taken out of the private capital market, either by competing with private investment on the bond market, or by incrasing interest rates, or both. In short, the government can't spend without taking it out of the economy one way or another. So when it does spend, it needs to spend on worthwhile things.

Re:"smear message"?

[yoder]

"If Dems retake the House, Nancy Pelosi will be third in line for the Presidency. Just think about THAT for a second..."

Ok, I did, now let's take a look at what we have now.
President AWOL, a spoiled, malicious, psuedo Christian, dry drunk.
Vice President Iblis, who is widely rumored to be Elmer Fudd's evil twin. BLAM! Stop or I'll shoot!
House Speaker Dennis "Never met a suspected child molester I didn't like" Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate Ted "My TUBES are full! Stephens

Hmm let me think about this for a moment. Hmmm, ok yup, I'd rather have Pelosi in line for the Presidency

Re:"smear message"?

[LurkerXXX]

the public gains interest bearing assets that increase it's net wealth (in the form of T-bonds and the like)

23% of the national debt is directly owned by foreign nations and corporations. Another large chunk is indirectly owned by foreign interests who have bought a chunk of it through an American primary holder.

Those foreign interests are the ones gaining a lot of the interest. Not the American public. Claiming the American public is getting the interest is being at best only partly truthful, if not outright lying about the situation.

Re:"smear message"?

[99bottles]

I've never understood how anyone could be swayed by a debate at this level. These career politicians have years worth of voting records, proposed bills, backed initiatives, protests, arrests, etc., etc...

How would listening to them talk for an hour suddenly make you say, "Hey, that guy gets my vote, ...even if he has done the opposite for his entire political career!"

Re:"smear message"?

[teeker]

http://minnesotapublicradio.org/ is a great local resource...lots of info including lots of interviews and debates available online. It's the best voter resource I've found for local issues. A lot of people say that public media (including MPR) has a liberal bias, but I think they've done a great job of also covering the conservative and independent perspectives. If you haven't voted yet today, I'd have a look.

Re:"smear message"?

[Bob-taro]

Your taxes are not lower. The Bush administration has failed to cut spending to pay their tax cuts ...

I'd argue with you, but I think you're too busy arguing with yourself.

Seriously though, I understand that we'll eventually have to "pay the piper", but the situation may not be as dire as you believe. Table 2 of this document shows that the debt as a percentage of gdp is not exceptionally high right now.

And I think an economist would also tell you that a growing economy will increase tax revenue without a tax rate increase and that at least in theory a tax rate cut could spark economic growth and actually increase tax revenue. (I don't have enough evidence to say that happened with this tax cut, but according to the cob data we took in more in 2005 than 2004).

Re:"smear message"?

[Steve2]

A minor correction: Turns out that Hugh Hewitt wrote the book "Blog" which I read two years ago. I understand he has a radio show, but I've never heard it. (FWIW, the main thing I remember from his book: You'd better tell the truth in your blog, or you'll get swamped by a blog swarm and lose your credibility. I would assume the same principle applies in forums, wouldn't you?)

Re:"smear message"?

[Bob-taro]

Here's an easy way to make the problem obvious even intuitively. When tax cuts create a deficit, the extra money you "save" isn't being given to you by the government anymore. It's being given to you by say, a chinese banker.

You have got to be kidding me! Is this what they're teaching in economics courses now? When you have more money due to a tax cut, you're not being given the money by anyone. You're just keeping more of your own money! How do you figure a Chinese bank is giving me money?

I'm not saying gov't spending isn't a problem, but neither the deficit nor the total debt is exceptionally high right now as a percentage of gdp

Re:"smear message"?

[drjzzz]

I've never understood how anyone could be swayed by a debate at this level.

No? Even when one candidate is practically incoherent? Sure, expectations are low with Bush, but those performances had to shake the confidence of even the most inveterate Republican voter. In normal circumstances, a debate between candidates with more comparable levels of ability, I would be more inclined to agree with you. In this case, the doubts about Bush's ability to think were met with a spectacular and scary confirmation.

Re:"smear message"?

[metamatic]

Yes, and whose policies mean that more Americans are in Iraq, and that Iraq is more dangerous?

Re:"smear message"?

[metamatic]

The makers of that chart need to get themselves a dictionary.

The word "terrorism" is the precise word used in the government reports that were the source of the data.

Perhaps it's true that the US government needs to get a dictionary, however.

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

Those folks won't accept 'funny money' that the government prints up if they think the dollar is unstable/worthless. They'll want it in real currency.

You are failing to make the distinction that needs to be made between bankruptcy and hyperinflation. The government can always print money to pay off debts owed to both domestic and foreign entities, but this creates hyperinflation, not bankruptcy. Our debts would be paid for, but our currency will be worthless. The obvious solution, which I didn't see you address in your response, is to promote growth so that when we do have to pay off matured debts, we don't have to print money and risk hyperinflation. Once again, as long as the economy grows at least as fast as our debt grows, paying the debt off will never be a problem.

You mean it would transfer the money that is currently being pumped outside the country (interest to foreign debt holders) back into the pockets of Americans who could then earn the interest themselves.

WRONG! The money would not go back in the pockets of Americans - it would come out of the pockets of Americans whose tax payments would be used to pay off the debt. Not only that, this money that is transferred out of the private sector essentially vanishes into $5 Trillion worth of Bonds, T-Bills, and Notes that are worthless unless the government wants to sell them and go back in debt. We would essentially erase $5 Trillion worth of income producing assets from the private sector at the expense of the American taxpayers and get nothing in return. We would even lose out on the $400+ Billion in growth producing interest payments that are deposited back into the private sector every year. Paying the debt off would be an economic catastrophe of epic proportions.

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

I think your post does quite a good job of highlighting exactly how intelligent and rational you are on this subject, so I will only respond with one point. Our debt levels are nowhere near WWII debt levels. The 100-year average Debt-to-GDP ratio is right around 60%, and our current Debt-to-GDP ratio is ... (you guessed it) ... right around 60%. So despite periods of massive debt accumulation (much higher than we have today), and periods of economic contraction (such as the Great Depression), our total debt burden is no higher now than it historically has been, thanks to economic growth.

Re:"smear message"?

[LurkerXXX]

My god are you screwed up. You want us to continue to pay interest on a national debt forever - to foreign countries. The money won't vanish, our debts will vanish and then we can start *earning* interest each year on investments, rather than *paying* interest each year to foreign nationals, NOT to Americans as you would have everyone believe. Stop with the Voodoo economics.

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

Still doesn't matter. Unless the money was invested in something that creates returns on GDP (e.g. infrastructure, education), the fact that GDP growth might outpace deficit spending is irrelevant. That future tax money is going to be taken out of our (admittedly richer) pockets. Money deficit spent on education, infrastructure and research is a different story. Yes, it comes out of our pockets, but the amount of money in our pockets because of the investment may be greater than the amount being taken out to pay for the loan.

It is not irrelevant. Our ability to service our increasing debt does not change as long as the economy grows at least as fast as the debt. Borrowed government money ends up in the private sector as an income producing asset, which also creates returns on GDP. Other than that, I don't disagree with your points. I believe the government should only invest in something that promotes economic growth, and that definitely includes infrastructure, education, and defense.

This is a bit of elementary finance that somehow has never made it into political consciousness: the difference between operating and captial expenses. Anybody who has ever financed a house knows the difference between mortgage payments and rent.

Right, and anybody who has read an investment book knows the benefits of leveraging a growing, income-producing asset.

There is of course a multiplier effect of course for every dollar spent. But your argument doesn't hold water; unless the money being spent is taken out of the economy some other place, you are in effect raising the money supply, which leads to inflation. It's taken out of the private capital market, either by competing with private investment on the bond market, or by incrasing interest rates, or both. In short, the government can't spend without taking it out of the economy one way or another. So when it does spend, it needs to spend on worthwhile things.

If you want the economy to grow, you have to increase the money supply. Otherwise, people are just redistributing the same finite amount of currency without any net growth. Fortunately, deficit spending is one of the few ways to increase the money supply without inflationary pressures because every dollar borrowed by the government equates to a dollar asset in the private sector that increases in value over time. And the government's ability to pay for this increasing value gets better and better as the economy grows.

Contrast this to the other ways to increase money supply. Printing a bunch of extra bills certainly increases money supply, but there is no private sector asset to leverage this new currency against, so it also devalues the currency. As inflation rises, the costs of future obligations also rise (such as baby boomer retirement, etc), so you are forced to either print more money, or return to deficit spending to cover the costs.

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

Cute, but wrong. I don't know where you somehow got the idea that the GDP needs to grow faster than the treasury yield, but it only shows that you don't really understand what is going on. The GDP needs to grow at least as fast as our total debt burden grows, which, with few exceptions, it has been for the last 100+ years. Otherwise we would have a total debt burden that is well in line with our historical average, and well under the historical extremes seen in the past century.

By the way, there are plenty of countries that hold an amount of debt that is greater than their GDP. Japan, Italy, Lebanon, and Singapore all maintain debt-to-GDP ratios of over 100%. In case you have to look it up, there are not very many "retards" voting for Republicans in those countries.

Re:"smear message"?

[reed]

Forget the news.

Incumbants are easy, go to thomas.loc.gov and your state legislature's website, and look up the voting records.

Challengers are harder. vote-smart.org includes a questionaire on issues they might have filled out, and endorsements by certain groups. At vote-smart or your state's website (it varies) find out where their campaign contributions came from. Then go to the candidat's website and read their promises with a very critical eye. Then compare to incumbant. In the end of course, all you have to go on with a challenger is their promises, so consider them always in comparison to the incumbant.

Good luck

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

My god are you screwed up. You want us to continue to pay interest on a national debt forever - to foreign countries.

No, I want us to continue to pay interest on national debt forever to all debt holders, of which foreign countries are minority.

The money won't vanish, our debts will vanish and then we can start *earning* interest each year on investments, rather than *paying* interest each year to foreign nationals, NOT to Americans as you would have everyone believe.

How will our debts vanish? That $5 Trillion has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is obviously the pockets of the US tax payer. $5 Trillion in private-sector interest earning assets would be paid for by the taxpayers and the only thing they would get in return is the satisfaction of knowing that there is $5 Trillion less in interest earning assets in the private sector. The government would be stuck with $5 Trillion worth of worthless T-Bills and bonds that they can't do anything with unless they want to sell them again and go back into debt. And investors would lose their $5 Trillion worth of interest producing assets in exchange for cash that was taken out of the US taxpayers pocket. And you are trying to argue that this would be a good thing?

Your foreign national phobia doesn't hold any water, either. Both the largest holder and fastest accumulator of our debt is the US Government and US citizens, and the minority of debt that is serviced outside the country isn't wasted either. In a global economy, prosperity abroad will always result in prosperity at home. If you don't like it, you could always pick up some T-Bills and earn some interest yourself while at the same time helping to contribute to the overall growth of our economy.

Re:"smear message"?

[hey!]

Right, and anybody who has read an investment book knows the benefits of leveraging a growing, income-producing asset.

Yes. But spending doesn'g guarantee you have an asset.


If you want the economy to grow, you have to increase the money supply.

Again, the problem with your reasoning is not so much that it is wrong, but that it misses the point. A growing economy needs a growing money supply. But growing the money supply by itself is not a sustainable way to grow the economy.

Re:"smear message"?

[felix rayman]

Here is what the parent post said, as you apparently either didn't read or didn't comprehend it:

As long as the economy keeps growing, current debts can be rolled into new treasury securities when they become due without our debt to GDP ratio increasing

Notice that in my example, the economy keeps growing.
Notice that in my example, current debts can not be rolled into new treasury securities without the debt to GDP ratio increasing.
Notice that one of us doesn't understand what is going on here.
Notice that I understand what is going here.

Draw appropriate conclusions.

Re:"smear message"?

[PFI_Optix]

Clearly that's exactly what I was trying to do.

Ooooor maybe I was demonstrating that pointing the finger just at the Republicans is partisan hackery.

Re:"smear message"?

[LurkerXXX]

No, I want us to continue to pay interest on national debt forever to all debt holders, of which foreign countries are minority.

23% is Directly owned by foreign countries/corporations. They are the direct loaners. A good percentage of other 1st tier debt is resold, and among the buyers of those are foreign countries/corporations/citizens as well. That's 23++ percent of interest we are throwing away. If we pay off the debt we could then invest that money instead of throwing it away, and earn interest on it ourselves.

Your foreign national phobia doesn't hold any water, either.

It's not a phobia. I'm not scared of other countries. I just think it's quite stupid to pay them interest forever instead of earning the interest ourselves.

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

Notice that in my example, the economy keeps growing.

Right. And the economy will keep growing as long as we don't do something stupid, like raise taxes or pay off the debt.

Notice that in my example, current debts can not be rolled into new treasury securities without the debt to GDP ratio increasing.

Wrong. Both the debt and GDP can increase, and as long as the GDP increases at least as much as the debt burden, the ratio of debt-to-GDP will always remain the same or decrease. If you don't believe me, I strongly suggest you pick up a 3rd grade math book and study the concept of ratios.

Notice that one of us doesn't understand what is going on here.
Notice that I understand what is going here.

Unfortunately, you are in a little worse shape than that. You seem to think that you know what is going on but really don't, and that is far worse than just pleading ignorance and educating yourself about the subject.

Don't worry. You can change.

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

Yes. But spending doesn'g guarantee you have an asset.

I'm not sure if I agree with that. First of all, the opposite is true - not spending guarantees that you won't have an asset. But if the government generates a deficit, it does generate an asset in the private sector. Not only that, interest paid on this debt goes directly into the private sector, which fuels more investment and growth. I would argue that the simple act of the government borrowing money contributes to economic growth, regardless of where that borrowed money is spent. If the government spends that borrowed money on the right things that further promote growth, you will see the kind of economic growth that allows you to keep your debt burden constant in relation to the size of the economy.

Again, the problem with your reasoning is not so much that it is wrong, but that it misses the point. A growing economy needs a growing money supply. But growing the money supply by itself is not a sustainable way to grow the economy.

I never said that growing the money supply is the only ingredient needed for economic growth -- I said that you cannot have economic growth without an increasing money supply (note the difference). Economic growth comes from productivity and investment in the private sector, both of which are aided when the government borrows money.

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

23% is Directly owned by foreign countries/corporations. They are the direct loaners. A good percentage of other 1st tier debt is resold, and among the buyers of those are foreign countries/corporations/citizens as well. That's 23++ percent of interest we are throwing away. If we pay off the debt we could then invest that money instead of throwing it away, and earn interest on it ourselves.

First, you will note that I am right - 23% is a minority. And second, the interest paid to this minority isn't thrown away. Like I said before, in a global economy growth abroad equates to growth at home, plus we have the added bonus of having other people finance our growth promoting infrastructure.

It's not a phobia. I'm not scared of other countries. I just think it's quite stupid to pay them interest forever instead of earning the interest ourselves.

Again, there is nothing stopping us from earning interest ourselves. You can go right to the Treasury Website and buy all the interest earning savings bonds that you want. The fact that there are lots of people in other countries that are willing to invest in our growth is a good thing.

Re:"smear message"?

[felix rayman]

You understand neither math nor English. Must be a Republican. I will go over this one more time, for the short bus crowd. Here is the claim being made:

As long as the economy keeps growing, current debts can be rolled into new treasury securities when they become due without our debt to GDP ratio increasing.

This claim is not true. There are situations where the economy keeps growing, and current debts can not be rolled into new treasury securities when they become due without our debt to GDP ratio increasing. I have demonstrated one of these situations.

Now, either put up or shut up, dumbfuck. Come up with a model where

1) The government has debt.
2) The government neither raises taxes nor pays off the debt early - because the OP says those things would be "stupid".
3) GDP grows more slowly than Treasury yields.
4) Debt/GDP does not increase.

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

Your inability to comprehend this concept is quite comical. I am talking about debt accumulation, not the servicing of interest payments on debt. Treasury yields are irrelevant to this discussion. Interest payments are, by law, paid when they are due, just as debt is, by law, paid off when it is due. Interest payments may or may not contribute to new debt accumulation. In fact, the cost of these interest payments is about half of what it was a decade ago compared to the size of the economy. But as long as the economy grows at least as fast as debt accumulation, the ratio of debt-to-GDP will remain the same, and our ability to service this debt will remain the same. Thus, with a growing economy, retiring debt can most definitely be rolled into new debt without increasing the debt-to-GDP ratio, regardless of what the current treasury yields are.

This is such a simple concept that your complete misunderstanding of it is, among other things, quite spectacular.

Re:"smear message"?

[felix rayman]

Here is what the OP said, and which I quoted twice already before:
current debts can be rolled into new treasury securities

Notice how that invalidates just about everything in your post?

Notice how if current debts are rolled into new treasury securities, Treasury yields are relevant to this discussion?

Notice how the costs of servicing that interest will contribute to future debt?

Notice how you haven't paid a god damn bit of attention to the assumptions being made by the OP?

Notice how you haven't been able to come up with a model where current debts are rolled into new treasury securities, taxes aren't raised and debt isn't paid off early, where GDP grows more slowly than the yield on Treasuries, and debt/GDP doesn't grow?

Do you know why you haven't provided that model? Because you can't.

How about this. After repeatedly wasting the entire planet's time, why don't you go back and read the fucking post that was being responded to?

You can apologize for being a moron later.

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

Man, this is like talking to a 3rd grader.

First of all, I know you aren't the sharpest of tacks, but I assumed you would at least realize that I am the OP who wrote the post that you responded to. Not only did I read the post that you responded to, I wrote it, and I understand it far better than you. You haven't come close to invalidating anything in that post. You have done a marvellous job of making an ass of yourself, however.

Notice how if current debts are rolled into new treasury securities, Treasury yields are relevant to this discussion?

Wrong, wrong, wrong, ,wrong, wrong. Treasury yields are only relevant to a discussion about the future ability to service debt, not to a discussion about the size of the current debt. As I wrote before, and I don't mind repeating again, as long as the economy grows at least as fast as the accumulation of new debt, the debt-to-GDP ratio will remain the same, and your ability to service that debt in the future remains unchanged. This is a very simple concept, so put on your thinking cap and try to think it through so you can understand it better.

Notice how the costs of servicing that interest will contribute to future debt?

It contributes to debt accumulation just as much as every other outlay compared to inlay does on the budget. This brings us back to the central idea that you are still trying to understand. As long as the economy grows at least as fast as the accumulation of new debt, the debt-to-GDP ratio will remain the same, and your ability to service that debt in the future remains unchanged.

Notice how you haven't been able to come up with a model where current debts are rolled into new treasury securities, taxes aren't raised and debt isn't paid off early, where GDP grows more slowly than the yield on Treasuries, and debt/GDP doesn't grow?

Once again, my model is the last 150+ years where we have used deficit financing, as well as the deficit financing used by just about every other industrialized nation on the planet. We are continually rolling current debt into future securities as the debt expires and have been for over a hundred years. Our current debt-to-GDP ratio right now is right where the historical average is over the last century. Why has this worked? Because our economy has grown at least as fast as the accumulation of new debt, so our debt-to-GDP ratio has remained the same, and our ability to service the debt has remained unchanged. This economic growth has even helped average out the rare times when debt skyrocketed or economic growth has slowed enough to temporarily skew the ratio.

So, once again, repeat after me. Don't worry if there are people around you, they probably already think you are weird:

As long as the economy grows at least as fast as the accumulation of new debt, the debt-to-GDP ratio will remain the same, and your ability to service that debt in the future remains unchanged.

Have you seen the light yet, or are you still confused?

Re:"smear message"?

[felix rayman]

Once again, my model is the last 150+ years

Your model does not fit the criteria you gave, then. We were paying so much debt off during the Clinton years that they stopped issuing 30 year Treasuries. We were assuredly not continually rolling current debts into new treasuries - we were being "stupid", as you call it, and paying off debt. We also raised taxes during the Clinton years, which you again claim was "stupid".

You are a fucking moron. Definitely a Republican. Can't do math, can't even comprehend your own writing, can't come up with any reality-based model whatsoever where your claims can even possibly be true.

So, I'll ask again. Show me the math.

1) Country A starts out with $10 in debt. Its GDP is $1000.
2) It ALWAYS rolls over debt into new debt.
3) It NEVER uses increased taxes or spending cuts to pay down that debt.
4) The growth rate of GDP always remains below the interest rate on the debt.
5) The debt/GDP ratio does not rise over time.

Show me how these facts can be consistent. If it is so clear, it should be quite simple to come up with a mathematical model that fits your criteria, instead of your increasingly incoherent posts.

Re:"smear message"?

[KKlaus]

When we run a deficit... where do you think the money comes from then? We just print the money in the basement?

Is this really that complicated?

The government doesn't stop paying for projects because they don't have enough money. So that say $3,000 you used to fork over isn't there, it comes from foreign loans. Therefore, the money you save in tax cuts, when we run a deficit, is being payed for by foreign banks. Sheesh.

Re:"smear message"?

[glesga_kiss]

Hmm, have you read that link beyond the first sentence? It says Iraq provided safe haven for pro-Palestinian groups. So does my country, the UK. Just being "pro-something" doesn't mean anything. And the support of anti-Iranian groups? They have been at war for many years in the past and are now in the process of something similar to a cold-war with each other. We have the same deeds in our past, the US has for four decades and still to this day supports almost any group that happens to share a common interest. You trained most of the South American war criminals at your "Camp of the Americas" with lessons in torture and espionage.

From the article:

The regime has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 in Kuwait.

Note that at this point the US had made several attempts on Saddam's life. Your hypocrisy is unbelievable. For every accusation of "terrorism" in that article against Iraq, the US has done pretty much the same thing elsewhere.

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

Your model does not fit the criteria you gave, then.

No, you just don't understand the model.

We were paying so much debt off during the Clinton years that they stopped issuing 30 year Treasuries. We were assuredly not continually rolling current debts into new treasuries - we were being "stupid", as you call it, and paying off debt. We also raised taxes during the Clinton years, which you again claim was "stupid".

Yes, it was stupid. All it did was transfer money from the pockets of tax payers to the pockets of debt holders, which resulted in less money in the tax payers hands, the elimination of a interest earning asset in the debt holders hands, and money government had available to spend on things that would help contribute to future economic growth vanishing in the incinerator. Are you going to argue that that was a smart move?

So, I'll ask again. Show me the math.

1) Country A starts out with $10 in debt. Its GDP is $1000.
2) It ALWAYS rolls over debt into new debt.
3) It NEVER uses increased taxes or spending cuts to pay down that debt.
4) The growth rate of GDP always remains below the interest rate on the debt.
5) The debt/GDP ratio does not rise over time.

Ok, I'll show you the math, but I'll have to admit, I'm a little embarrassed for you that this needs to be explained like this.

Assumptions: GDP growth is 3% (which is ridiculously low, considering the nominal annualized GDP growth over the past 100 years is 6.5%, and that includes the Great Depression). All debt matures 5 years (also not true, but makes examples like this much easier).
Starting off, GDP is $1000, debt is $10, debt-to-GDP is 10%.

Year 1. GDP grows 3% to $1030. Debt grows 3% to $10.30. New debt is $.30. Debt-to-GDP is still 10%
Year 2. GDP grows 3% to $1060.9. Debt grows 3% to $10.61. New debt is $.31. Debt-to-GDP is still 10%
Year 3. GDP grows 3% to $1092.73. Debt grows 3% to $10.93. New debt is $.32. Debt-to-GDP is still 10%
Year 4. GDP grows 3% to $1125.51. Debt grows 3% to $11.26. New debt is $.33. Debt-to-GDP is still 10%
Year 5. GDP grows 3% to $1159.27. Debt grows 3% to $11.59. New debt is $.33. Debt-to-GDP is still 10%
Year 6. GDP grows 3% to $1194.05. Debt grows 3% to $11.94. New debt is $.35, of which $.30 is expired debt from year 1 being rolled into new debt. Debt-to-GDP is still 10%.
Year 7. GDP grows 3% to $1229.87. Debt grows 3% to $12.30. New debt is $.36, of which $.31 is expired debt from year 1 being rolled into new debt. Debt-to-GDP is still 10%.

There you have it. A free lesson on the mathematical principle of ratios, which you were apparently robbed of in the 2nd grade. Of course, new debt in years 1-5 also has a portion of expired debt being rolled into new debt from previous years, but that wasn't calculated here.

See, that really wasn't too hard, now was it? Why don't you repeat this one more time just to help you remember:

As long as the economy grows at least as fast as the accumulation of new debt, the debt-to-GDP ratio will remain the same, and your ability to service that debt in the future remains unchanged.

Re:"smear message"?

[felix rayman]

What part of "4) The growth rate of GDP always remains below the interest rate on the debt" do you fail to comprehend?

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

Now you have got to be kidding. Are you seriously admitting in public that you don't know the difference between real and nominal?

I am quite finished with spoonfeeding you on this, so I will leave it up to you to wipe the drool off your face and do some research. But I will say that a comparison between the 3.2% annualized growth rate in real GDP with the future debt service of a nominal treasury yield of 5% is a very, very meaningless comparison. (Hint: apples to apples=good, apples to oranges=bad)

Man, this whole time I thought you were just trying to be a pain. It turns out that you really are clueless.

Re:"smear message"?

[felix rayman]

I understand the difference between real and nominal. I'm pretty sure you don't, because in the case where interest rates are higher than real GDP growth, but less than nominal GDP growth, your model violates assumption 3. Cuts in spending in real terms are spending cuts.

Keep trying though, maybe if you bash your head against a brick wall long enough, you'll figure out that unless GDP growth - yes nominal GDP growth - is higher than Treasury yields, you can not grow your way out of debt.

Re:"smear message"?

[Bob-taro]

Okay, bottom line: Yes, the U.S. has debts, yes it will have to pay them some time. But that will not necessarily require a tax rate increase at any point in the future. There are other factors to consider:

We may get a congress that will actually cut spending, or at least slow spending growth to where the economy can catch up (though I'm not too hopeful as long as the dems are the majority). A growing economy can increase the total tax revenue without a tax rate hike. There is even a theory that a tax cut can contribute to economic growth to the extent that tax revenue increases in spite of the cut. Even though that didn't happen this time around, I think it's possible that the tax cuts "softened the blow" of the recession that we seem to be currently climbing out of.

IMO, raising taxes to pay off the debt is a bad idea. When someone is a compulsive spender, do you give them more money? No! They'll just spend all that much more.

Re:"smear message"?

[workindev]

I understand the difference between real and nominal. I'm pretty sure you don't, because in the case where interest rates are higher than real GDP growth, but less than nominal GDP growth, your model violates assumption 3. Cuts in spending in real terms are spending cuts.

You are wrong. Like I have been saying all along, treasury yields only relate the future ability to service debt, not to the current size of the debt. You obviously just let google teach you the difference between real and nominal GDP growth, so why don't you give it a try again to learn the difference between real and nominal interest rates. The value of the interest payments to service debt decrease year to year because the value of the principle debt decreases year to year. Economic growth is the only thing that is needed -- no spending cuts are required as long as the economy grows at least as fast as the debt.

Keep trying though, maybe if you bash your head against a brick wall long enough, you'll figure out that unless GDP growth - yes nominal GDP growth - is higher than Treasury yields, you can not grow your way out of debt.

First, this contradicts what you just said in your previous paragraph where you claimed that spending cuts are needed even if nominal GDP growth is higher than interest rates. And second, nominal GDP grwoth is higher than interest rates. Annualized nominal GDP growth over the past century is 6.25%, current treasury yields are less than 5%. Annualized real GDP growth over the past century is 3.23%, current real treasury yields are 2.2%. Average Debt-to-GDP ratio over the past century is around 60%, current debt to GDP ratio is around 60%. It looks like we have been doing a damn fine job of growing our way out of our debt burden for quite some time now.

Should do things the DNC way ...

[SengirV]

... And simply slash the tires of GOP voters so they can't get to the polls - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12498215/from/RSS/

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[jctull]

This is not a useful comment in the light of the real issue being reported in the original post. You have picked a one-up, unique situation where a rogue individual serves as a bad example of how to conduct oneself during an election. The RNCC actions, on the other hand, are a disgraceful, and illegal action attempting to disenfranchise voters, or get them to think ill of the Democrat candidate at a grand scale (much more effect than a few slashed tires). This is so much more duplicitous and underhanded than one guy's son getting caught slashing tires of potential voters, not that the dumbass who did the tire-slashing deserves any less jail time than those that are behind the the robocalls.

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[WilliamSChips]

That was one person. This is the RNC itself.

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[Pink Tinkletini]

That's not a bad idea. Kerry lost in 2004 in part because people perceived him as being unable to fight back as hard, or as dirty, as the Republicans. If the only way to fight dirty tactics is to fight back with dirty tactics of your own, then so be it.

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[dmeiz]

Can we sentence the RNCC to 3-6 months in jail?

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the b-b-but defense. When one person's party does something astonishingly stupid and vile, all the blind and stupid faithful, rather than stand up and say to their leadership that they disapprove of the activity and don't want to see it happen again in the name of their party ideals, they trot out any inane example they can of where the "other guys" did something wrong.

North Korea got nukes on Bush's watch?

B-b-but Clinton gave them a (useless for processing) nuclear reactor!

Mark Foley is engaging in predatory activity and the leadership is covering it up?

B-b-but Gary Studds did something similar twenty years ago!

Your party got the country stuck in a quagmire in an unjustified war?

B-b-but Lyndon Johnson was in charge for part of Vietnam!

Your president sees the only net loss of jobs in the history of the country?

B-b-but Jimmy Carter!

In the event that the Democrats manage to (re-)corrupt themselves as badly as this pathetic, thuggish excuse for a legislature has, expect to see the "b-b-but Bush!" defense over and over for a bit as well.

Almost nobody in this country who engages in politics in any sort of high profile manner, and this is especially true of the internet, generally seems to have any shred of decency in their body. Don't be too surprised at the dishonest, illogical, and idiotic things that spout forth from them, such the GP poster's inane comment about the isolated tire-slashing incident (b-b-but Katherine Harris!)

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[diersing]

My fellow citizens, it is an honor and a pleasure to be here today. My opponent has openly admitted he feels an affinity toward your city, but I happen to like this area. It might be a salubrious place to him, but to me it is one of the nation's most delightful garden spots.

When I embarked upon this political campaign, I hoped that it could be conducted on a high level and that my opponent would be willing to stick to the issues. Unfortunately, he has decided to be tractable instead--to indulge in unequivocal language, to eschew the use of outright lies in his speeches, and even to make repeated veracious statements about me.

At first I tried to ignore these scrupulous, unvarnished fidelities. Now I will do so no longer. If my opponent wants a fight, he's going to get one!

It might be instructive to start with his background. My friends, have you ever accidentally dislodged a rock on the ground and seen what was underneath? Well, exploring my opponent's background is dissimilar. All the slime and filth and corruption you can possibly imagine, even in your wildest dreams, are glaringly nonexistent in this man's life. And even in his childhood!

Let us take a very quick look at that childhood: It is a known fact that, on a number of occasions, he emulated older boys at a certain playground. It is also known that his parents not only permitted him to masticate in their presence, but even urged him to do so. Most explicable of all, this man who poses as a paragon of virtue exacerbated his own sister when they were both teenagers!

I ask you, my fellow Americans: is this the kind of person we want in public office to set an example for our youth?

Of course, it's not surprising that he should have such a typically pristine background--no, not when you consider the other members of his family:

His female relatives put on a constant pose of purity and innocence, and claim they are inscrutable, yet every one of them has taken part in hortatory activities.

The men in the family are likewise completely amenable to moral suasion.

My opponent's uncle was a flagrant heterosexual.

His sister, who has always been obsessed by sects, once worked as a proselyte outside a church.

His father was secretly chagrined at least a dozen times by matters of a pecuniary nature.

His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a homo sapien.

His great-aunt expired from a degenerative disease.

His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine.

His wife was a thespian before their marriage and even performed the act in front of paying customers.

And his own mother had to resign from a women's organization in her later years because she was an admitted sexagenarian.

Now what shall we say about the man himself?

I can tell you in solemn truth that he is the very antithesis of political radicalism, economic irresponsibility and personal depravity. His own record proves that he has frequently discountenanced treasonable, un-American philosophies and has perpetrated many overt acts as well.

He perambulated his infant on the street.

He practiced nepotism with his uncle and first cousin.

He attempted to interest a 13-year-old girl in philately.

He participated in a seance at a private residence where, among other odd goings-on, there was incense.

He has declared himself in favor of more homogeneity on college campuses.

He has advocated social intercourse in mixed company - and has taken part in such gatherings himself.

He has been deliberately averse to crime in our city streets.

He has urged our Protestant and Jewish citizens to develop more catholic tastes.

Last summer he committed a piscatorial act on a boat that was flying the U.S. flag.

Finally, at a time when we must be on our guard against all foreign isms, he has cooly announced his belief in altruism - and his fervent hope that some day this entire nation will be altruistic!

I beg you,

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA. It wasn't "just one person," it was SEVERAL Democratic campaign workers.

Also note that this story isn't about "the RNC itself" it's about a group called the NRCC.

And calling people is in no way similar to slashing people's tires. The Democrats destroyed property, some Republicans are being accused of being annoying. It's hardly the same.

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, comparing a coordinated campaign with millions of dollars behind versus some lawmaker's punk kid seems pretty fair.

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[Intron]

"Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes in the 2004 election ended up going to Democrat John Kerry."

So it looks like it worked. Seriously, there are dirty tricks in every election. Donald Segretti is still active in politics. People who don't understand that will get the voting machines that they deserve.

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The NRCC isn't just a "group", it's a group specifically comprised of and sanctioned by republican members of the House of Representatives. It's not like MoveOn.org or Swiftboat Veterans for Smearing Decorated War Veterans and Their Entire Chains of Command. It's not the RNC, but it's not nearly as disconnected from the party as a lobbying group.

Furthermore, in many of these cases state laws exist which place strict limits on campaign calling by extending the regulations surrounding the do not call rules. Some estimates place the potential fines at up to $1 billion. Precedent already exists to prosecute these cases.

Are you a shill, or are you just a typical slashbot who felt the need to chest thump on a subject you don't understand?

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't working with Ted Kennedy enough of a punishment?

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[wass]

Normally this would be just dirty politics as usual. But what makes it especially atrocious is the fact that the Republicans are constantly trying to spin the War in Iraq in a positive light, and they say things like "we've given the Iraqis free elections", and "people just want to live free". And they go and do these things that would have made Saddam Hussein proud.

Seriously, I know there are many people here on Slashdot that vote Republican. Do you SERIOUSLY believe this tripe your party is spewing out, or are you just voting for other reasons? I mean, I can at least see someone wanting to vote Republican for one of those reasons, but dammit, I can't imagine anyone actually believing this nonsense.

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[LindseyJ]

Normally this would be just dirty politics as usual. But what makes it especially atrocious is the fact that the Democrats are constantly trying to spin the War in Iraq in a negative light, and they say things like "the war is hopeless", and "GWB lied about everything". And they go and do these things that would have made Saddam Hussein proud.

Seriously, I know there are many people here on Slashdot that vote Democrat. Do you SERIOUSLY believe this tripe your party is spewing out, or are you just voting for other reasons? I mean, I can at least see someone wanting to vote Democrat for one of those reasons, but dammit, I can't imagine anyone actually believing this nonsense.

I mean really, do you honestly not comprehend how much of a shill you sound?

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're comparing:

* an isolated incident where a stupid kid and a couple of volunteer friends did a pointless stunt that did not effect the outcome of the election
to
* a nationwide campaign of intimidation and harassment (that cost more than 400x as much as the damage done by the kid)- A campaign orchestrated by an 140 year old organization with a multi-hundred-million dollar balance sheet that is run by some of the most prominent members of Congress?

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[Pink Tinkletini]

You think the news from Iraq needs "spin" to sound negative? You honestly believe the (dwindling number of) Republican politicians when they tell you Rumsfeld's prosecution of this war has been competent?

I have to admit, I just don't understand how anyone can still believe this stuff. Could you do me a favor and explain?

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[wass]

Ah, a Republican calling me a shill and then trying to take the moral high ground, fun. Regarding your first quote, do you actually believe the Iraq war is worth fighting? If yes, then why are you here on Slashdot and not serving in active duty in Iraq (like most pro-war Republican leaders today who dodged military duty during Viet Nam) ? If no, then why are you voting for the party that rushed recklessly to launch this war on shoddy advice in the first place?

Regarding your 2nd quote, show me any major Democrat up for re-election that said such a quote. Now if you toned down your knee-jerk reaction into a rational critique of Bush misleading the American public, akin to actual real quotes which many Democratic, Green, and Libertarian candidates have said, yes, I have reason to believe such 'comments'.

Since you throw accusations of being a shill, that leads to the question - Do you NOT believe GWB has misled the American public on several issues? If you actually don't believe he did, may I sell you a few bridges over the Hudson tributary waters?

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical thing for a negro to do.

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[DavidTC]

No, you don't understand.

Anyone, doing anything, is the fault of the Democratic party. Someone make comments about how they don't think bin Laden's that bad? That's what Democrats think. Someone make a video mocking Bush and post it on YouTube? That's what Democrats think. Someone publish personal information about a congressman mother and urge poeple to harrass her? That's what Democrats think. A random blogger make a comment about how thinks only idiots would join the military at this moment? That's what Democrats think.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, people like Limbaugh and Malkin can say and do whatever they want, because they're not representive of the Republican party at all and the Republican party has nothing to do with them. Hell, actual Republican elected officials, if they get caught doing something evil, can just blame it on alcohol or cry some and it obviously doesn't reflect on the Real Republicans.

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[johnjaydk]

Best comment ... Ever

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Source: Mad Magazine, Number 139, December 1970

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[SengirV]

This more to your liking then? http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2006/bre aking_philly_fraud

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[Procrastin8er]

This is the DNC way http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2006/bre aking_philly_fraud

Re:Should do things the DNC way ...

[rico23]

I took a look at the Philly newspaper web sites, KDKA website and some Philly bloggers. No report of such a thing. Therefore, I put this in the urban legend category.

Research. It's a wonderful thing.

i for one...

[buckadude]

I for one welcome our new republabot overlords... *wince*

Re:i for one...

[sdaemon]

new?

Re:i for one...

[__aaclcg7560]

Not in California where we have the Govinator.

Re:i for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer "Gubenator". As a bonus, it's the actual Latin word for "governer".

I was wondering when this would happen...

[StressGuy]

Oddly enough, I've been getting a bunch of calls supporting our incumbant Republican senator....so many were coming in that I was wondering if it was actually a ploy from the Democrates to get me annoyed and blame the Republicans. However, the only smearing was against the Democrats. Still, what possible marketing model says that the way to get votes is to repeatedly harass potential voters by phone?.

The phrase "out of touch" comes to mind....BTW - I'm a registered independant, and thinking of going Libertarian.

Re:I was wondering when this would happen...

[Otter]

...so many were coming in that I was wondering if it was actually a ploy from the Democrates to get me annoyed and blame the Republicans. However, the only smearing was against the Democrats.

That's why this conspiracy theory makes no sense -- you get (supposedly, according to some guy) 17 calls that you think are from the candidate so you want to vote against him and then the 18th has a "smear" about him -- and then you still vote against him, despite the fact that you were going to vote against him because of something you now know was his opponent's action? That must be quite a "smear"!

The phrase "out of touch" comes to mind....

You, on the other hand, hit it on the nose. By the way, can we please file "pretexting" in the Did We Ever Really Say That? drawer, next to "metrosexual"?

Re:I was wondering when this would happen...

[Dr. Spork]

I don't think you get it. Republicans don't use the name of their own candidate. They act like the "message" is from the Democrat's campaign. Sure, by the end, you'll figure out it's a smear, but the vast majority of people don't wait until the end. They just hang up when they hear "I'm calling with information about Dan Maffei" and blame their annoyance on the innocent Dan Maffei - for example, but this seems to be going on in all the competitive districts. I know Dan's webmaster and she's received many messages from people who claim they won't vote for Dan after he interrupted their dinner with the robo-call. They really have no idea that it's actually Dan's opponent, Jim Walsh, who is interrupting their dinner with a dirty and illegal smear message.

Dan's campaign answers all the complaints with detailed explanations, and the people often write back furious as the actual perpetrators. But for everyone who blames Dan and tells us, I'm sure there are 100 people who will go on thinking, up until they enter the voting booth, that Dan was responsible for those harassing robo-calls.

Re:I was wondering when this would happen...

[dodongo]

Still, what possible marketing model says that the way to get votes is to repeatedly harass potential voters by phone?.

Bzzzt! The tactic isn't being used to *get* votes, it's being used to harass / annoy voters for the other party's candidate so much that those voters stay home. Mathematically, it's generally just as good to have your voters turn out as it is to have the other party stay home. Republicans aren't motivating anyone to go to the polls tomorrow, so they're going to plan B: Try and get as many Democrat voters as possible to stay home in districts with close races.

This is useful for a number of reasons. Especially if it's done in a close race, which has been shown to be a major turnout motivator, that may keep throw-the-bums-out voters at home, and prevent votes for the other party / viewpoint in other races and ballot initiatives.

Re:I was wondering when this would happen...

[Angostura]

Having listened to a recording (as a British, Leftie, Bush-disliker) I really don't think that there is any clear pretence at the message being from the democrats, really. I'd like to believe, I really would, and I suppose there might be some people who hang up before getting the message, but I don't think the message was deliberately engineered to be that way.

Re:I was wondering when this would happen...

[jaydonnell]

it deliberately calls people back who hang up. Seems like deliberate engineering to me.

Re:I was wondering when this would happen...

[coaxial]

I worked on a campaign. Apparently studies show that it's almost impossible to annoy someone enough to change their vote out of spite. Instead all it does is give you diminishing returns (i.e. less and less people switch to your side.)

Re:I was wondering when this would happen...

[SdnSeraphim]

While telephone calls are far more intrusive and annoying, my local sheriff constantly bombarded/spammed my e-mail with re-election pleas. I responded that I was an undecided voter and that spamming was a way to make me and others like me hate him. No response. More spam. Responded that I would now never vote for him in any election for any reason because of the spam. Either he got the hint or got so many other negative complaints about the spam, that they have stopped and I did not receive any for the run-off election tomorrow. I am also sticking to my pledge not to vote for him.

Re:I was wondering when this would happen...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a registered independant, and thinking of going Libertarian.

Don't waste your vote by thinking! Choose Kotos or Kang.

Conquest Communication Group Link

[Kiralan]

Looks like Conquest saw Slashdot coming. They have already removed all of the 'Contact Us' links on their home page, as well as the page referred to in the article :->

Re:Conquest Communication Group Link

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you just give them a call at 804-358-0560?

Re: Conquest Communication Group Link

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't exactly do a bang up job; they forgot to ask google to remove the google cache. Type this into google's search bar:

site:www.conquestgroup.com Conquest Communication Group

and use the cached link to view the pages.

Re:Conquest Communication Group Link

[mike77]

thanks google cache!

2812 Emerywood Parkway, Suite 103
Richmond, Virginia 23294
Ph. - 804-358-0560
Fax - 804-213-0797

Re:Conquest Communication Group Link

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it be wrong to let their clients know about their tactics? >:) Conguest Group Clients

Re:Conquest Communication Group Link

[Sargeant Slaughter]

Phreakin awesome.

I love it when you can get inside company phone systems like this. I left messages for like 10 people, just in the hope that they will waste some time tomorrow listening to my dumb ass.

Re:Conquest Communication Group Link

[Anonymous Coward]

Voice: 804-358-0560
Fax: 804-213-0797

Address:
2812 Emerywood Parkway, Suite 103
Richmond, Virginia 23294
Ph. - 804-358-0560
Fax - 804-213-0797

Management:

Victor A. Gresham - An apparently long standing republican who has records of donating $1000 to Bush.
8604 OAK CROFT DRIVE
RICHMOND, VA 23229

David S. Johnson - Another long standing republican who gave a more modest $300 donation to Bush.
dave@conquestgroup.com
1800 Fortress Court
Richmond, VA 23231

don't call list?

[krell]

If you tell a telemarketing firm not to call you, are they required to honor your request?

Re:don't call list?

[SaturnTim]

You would think... but the politicians who wrote the law remembered to put in a clause allowing politicians to continue to call you. Nice of them, wasn't it?

Re:don't call list?

[WilliamSChips]

Yes. The "Do-not-call" list doesn't apply to political calls, but if you tell them not to call, they better not call.

Re:don't call list?

[krell]

No, I wasn't talking about the politician. I meant the actual telemarketing firm.

Re:don't call list?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or what? They don't care.

Nice!

[novus ordo]

Then when they get elected they will halt all investigations into the matter since they will be in control. Genious! Pure Genious!

Re:Nice!

[ben there...]

Yeah, the only way to effectively deal with the situation is to act before the elections. The penalties for broken laws will end up costing the NRCC a great deal of money, but they won't care once they've won and still have the power to prevent too harsh of penalties. To combat what they are doing, the only way to be successful is to get the word out that it is happening now, like today and tomorrow, through the national and local media.

Also, I submitted a similar blog entry as this was being posted. Of particular interest may be the technical details of how the PBX engineer says the calls disrupt emergency calling, constitute harassment, and misrepresent the caller.

Suuuuuure it's complicated

[smooth wombat]

a 'complicated legal question that's not going to get adjudicated this weekend.'

They're right. It won't get adjudicated this weekend.

However, just like their phone-jamming shenanigans in New Hampshire, it will get adjudicated against their corrupt asses.

So let them have their fun. This kind of crap is exactly why this Republican will be voting against every Republican on tomorrow's ballot.

Funn how my party continues to call the Democratic party one of traitors when it's my party which is undermining democratic principles.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[davido42]

We have a name for Republicans like you. We call them... Democrats. Come on in! The water's fine! Sure, we might not have the best scandals or beer at our parties, but hell, somebody's got to govern this place.

I never thought I would look back at the Reagan era with nostalgia.

http://www.bitworksmusic.com/

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[twiddlingbits]

Deeper investigation ( you trust the drive-by media?) is this reports isnt really correct. In fact several people today said they were getting calls this weekend at 10PM to 3AM in MA and PA asking them to vote Republican. No smart campaign is going to annoy people that way!!!

If you vote Democrat you are NOT going to like it unless of course you want us to cut and run in Iraq (and let another Saddam come to power..or worse), ignore the NK threat, pay higher taxes (1st thing Dems will do is repeal the Bush tax cuts, especially the child tax credit), see Wall Street go DOWN, increase the chance for another 9/11, see all progress on illegal immigration stop (they want illegals..another class to keep down with handouts from the Democrats..the second chance at the Great Society ideal that has not worked for 40 yrs). Bite your tounge on such a minor disagreement and go vote for the RIGHT candidate.

Libs..flame away..I got Karma to burn.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't trust American justice to change these folks. Most of people involved in that scandal are right back out working for the Republican machine. Tobin hasn't gone to jail yet from what I can tell. He appears to still be employed by the DCI Group, the same nice folks who brought you the YouTube astroturfing against Al Gore.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[electroniceric]

I have a strange request, coming from a lifelong Democrat. I have no idea if you're ideologically committed to the right, but if you are, consider runing for office sometime in the future - as a Republican. I really believe our system works best when there are two parties with honest differences of opinion, that practice their differences more or less honestly (yes, politics is a dirty business, but things have really gotten out of hand). So if you can play your part in deliver our nation back to good old open debate about what the government should or shouldn't do here or abroad, we'll all be better off for it.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh... it looks like the republicans have you terrified to allow anybody else to run the country. Does that make them terrorists?

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[why-is-it]

If you vote Democrat you are NOT going to like it unless of course you want us to cut and run in Iraq (and let another Saddam come to power..or worse), ignore the NK threat, pay higher taxes (1st thing Dems will do is repeal the Bush tax cuts, especially the child tax credit), see Wall Street go DOWN, increase the chance for another 9/11, see all progress on illegal immigration stop (they want illegals..another class to keep down with handouts from the Democrats..the second chance at the Great Society ideal that has not worked for 40 yrs). Bite your tounge on such a minor disagreement and go vote for the RIGHT candidate.

You forgot to mention that every time someone votes against a Republican, God kills a kitten AND a puppy.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[hamburger lady]

and they'll use the blood of christian children in their pastry-making.

don't forget that.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[john82]

You seem like a decent fellow, but frankly I've lost patience with current crop of polarized nitwits from the two major parties. Thoughtful, responsible, moderate candidates from either party (or a party to be named later) are encouraged to campaign for my vote.

The current crop are too much like Tweedledum and Tweedledee arguing amongst themselves. One is indistinguishable from the other. I'm getting a lot of finger pointing and name calling but no ideas, solutions, etc.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[stinerman]

Usually when people assert things, they cite some facts that back up their position.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[SupraTT GOP]

Wow... this is absurd. To think that one could abandon one's own worldview by voting for candidates holding diametrically opposite worldviews and philosophies... mind boggling, indeed! I think this is why "moderates", RINOs, and other forms of the linguine spined are so fun [and easy] to make fun of.

"Well, sure the Democrats have more faith in the governing than the governed, sure they support a legislative judiciary (for intrusive, backwards, liberal legislation, too!), don't take the threat of terrorism seriously, and are even willing to abandon what convictions they may have concerning homeland security and national defense for political gain, but hey! Those darned phone calls change everything!"

This phenomenon can be seen all over the net! Does anyone ever buy it? Highly unlikely.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[thewiz]

You are right about this not being complicated. The dirty tactics politicians (I'm including ALL politicians)use to bash the other parties is simply reprehensible. Anytime any party plays dirty and tries to undermine the democratic principles we are supposed to have, it's time for a change of leadership.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[mmeister]

Perhaps I'm too jaded.. but the system has failed.

The two party system is so corrupt that the only options available are to vote for the lesser of two evils. I think my vote is worth more than that.

Not that I expect anything to change, no matter which party takes control. Before the Republicans took over in 1994, we were promised term limits if they gained power. That was fine until they were in power, then they weren't so keen on giving up power. When there are Representatives and Senators that have been in office longer than I've been alive, it disgusts me.

Congressmen are nothing more than leeches on society, drunk on power. There is no sense of duty to the Constitution, nor to their real constituents. The only people they cater to are the "contributors" whose interests are often in direct opposition to that of the folks that elected the Congressmen.

Add to the mix electronic ballets which have been shown to be easily hacked with absolutely no voter verifiable paper trail, and your vote means nothing anymore. Vote for who you want, because we've already decided how we're going to count "your vote", regardless of your wishes.

Both the Democrats and Republicans propagate this broken system. While they minority party may scream and shout about reform, once they gain power, their view quickly changes.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[Eli Gottlieb]

and they'll use the blood of christian children in their pastry-making.

don't forget that.
Actually, it's the un-circumsized penises we want.

Mmm... shkotzim...

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how people think they can bind their political views to one party, or even one candidate. What's the matter, can't you think for yourself? Welcome to reality -- all politicans are driven by self-interest, just like the rest of us.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[x_man]

Get this story out of the tech sites and into the major media outlets:

Media contacts:
* Contact CNN: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/
MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339/ (viewerservices@msnbc.com letters@msnbc.com)
ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/Reference/story?id=54216
CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_for m.shtml
* Contact the DNC: 202-863-8000 http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact
* Complain to the FCC: 202-418-1440, phone; 202-418-0232, fax.
* Yell at the NRCC 202-479-7000
* 1-866-OUR VOTE and get in the database if you get this kind of harassment

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[AK Marc]

Libs..flame away..

Calling you a liar isn't so much a flame as a description of the truth. If you want lower taxes, vote Democrat. The Democrats spend less than the Republicans. Regardless of whether you pay taxes to cover that now, or 10x the taxes later to cover the expense and interest, you will pay for it. The Democrats are the fiscally conservative party. They are also more socially conservative. The Democratic Party is not trying to tell you how you may express yourself (stupif flab burning amendments), who you may associate with (gay marriage), what medical proeedures you may elect to have (abortion). It is the Republicans that want to take all your money and restrict your freedom. Vote Liberal, vote Republican.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[LurkerXXX]

If you vote Democrat you are NOT going to like it unless of course you want us to cut and run in Iraq.

It's called learning from the past. Vietnam ring any bells? You can't force people to take on a form of government they don't want. In a recent poll 60% of Iraqi's supported attacks on American troops. Not just wanted American troops to leave, actually supported them being attacked. Sorry, we haven't won any hearts or minds. We are just making more enemies. Staying gains us nothing, they aren't 'coming around to our way of thinking'.

(and let another Saddam come to power..or worse)

Only a dictatorship of some sort can force those three peoples who hate each other (Kurd's, Sunni, Shia) to keep one government rather than split up, as they are eventually going to, into 3 separate countries. We are babysitting a civil war and it's going to stay that way until we leave and they break up. Either way, all we are doing is creating a new generation who hate us even more, producing more future terrorists. This ain't winning the war on terror. It's shooting yourself (ourselves) in the foot.

ignore the NK threat

You mean get so entrapped in unnecessary foreign wars that you have no excess military muscle to show, and have NK know it? Sorry, the Neo-cons have made sure our threats mean nothing to NK.

pay higher taxes (1st thing Dems will do is repeal the Bush tax cuts, especially the child tax credit)

HAHHAHA, god Neo-cons are idiots. I'm an old-time fiscal conservative, which means I absolutely hate the Republican party since the neo-cons took it over. Here's a clue. If you like low taxes, don't deficit spend out the wazoo. Republicans have created a vastly bigger 'big government' than the Democrats ever did. Think the tooth fairy is going to pay for that? No, sorry neo-cons, Jesus isn't whipping out his wallet either. You and I have to pay for this huge monstrosity of a government the Repubs have built. That takes tax money.

Hopefully the Democrats won't be as stupid as the Republicans and leave the debt for the future. Paying off your credit cards each month is the only sane way to build a future. Having such a huge national debt building up is forfeiting our future.

see Wall Street go DOWN

Hahahaha, god you neo-cons are funny. Yeah, that Clinton era did just terrible things for Wall Street. What a moron.

increase the chance for another 9/11

Funny, all the liberals I know supported going into Afghanistan. You know, that place the terrorists were actually based out of. Democrats were all for defending ourselves and getting retribution. They, however, limit it to the folks who actually attacked us. Not someone with make-believe WMDs.

see all progress on illegal immigration stop

Once again you prove to be a total idiot. Democrats aren't the ones hiring illegals to work for them cheaply, displacing jobs for legal Americans. Republican businessmen are.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[BryanL]

The problem with this is that in some states, like my own (Utah), the odds of a moderate Republican getting the party nomination are slim. The most active Republicans in the state are very conservative. And with a closed primary, most Republicans selected to run in November lean toward the right of center (e.g. Orrin Hatch, Bob Bennet, Chris Cannon, Rob Bishop.) Also, I find your premise to be faulty. If moderates in both parties ran against each other the parties would be more similar rather than more diverse. Having said all that, I wish more moderates ran for office. I am tired of radicalized politics.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[Jim_Callahan]

Vote democrat, give your local animal-control another 30 seconds of coffee break?

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[WilliamSChips]

Add to the mix electronic ballets which have been shown to be easily hacked with absolutely no voter verifiable paper trail, and your vote means nothing anymore. Vote for who you want, because we've already decided how we're going to count "your vote", regardless of your wishes.

Electronic ballots are like a fly compared to the elephant of the Electoral College that makes sure that people who don't live in one of a few "swing" states are pretty much guaranteed that their vote has no effect.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[Profane MuthaFucka]

That's like deciding that you're sick of either the truth, or sick of lies, and you'd rather live in the muddy area in the middle.

I'd suggest that what you're really sick of is the poorly thought out picture that politics is a linear area, or a triangular area if you include the Libertarians, and that a middle even exists. There is no middle. It's a myth. You can't be a little bit for the war, you can't be a little bit for torture. Your campaign platform can't be for overspending the budget, but only by a little bit.

You can't be a little bit pregnant.

When you've got two guys talking about an issue, and this goes especially for what passes for news on tV, your choice is between one guy who is telling the truth and one guy who is lying his ass off. There is no middle ground, and there never has been.

I reject the moderate middle. It doesn't exist, and never has. You're just people who are in a very poorly organized political party, and you don't know it yet.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[Kuciwalker]

Not on slashdot, they don't. You must be new here.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[mmeister]

The Electoral College only affects a race every 4 years. The ballots affect elections every single year. That said, the Electoral process is broken as well. Having spent many years in states where I didn't agree with the predominant party, I have been disenfranchised for a long time. :-)

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to exist in other countries.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[misanthrope101]

and let another Saddam come to power..

Saddam wasn't "let" into power--he was put into power by the British. And if the Repubs disliked Saddam so much, why did Rumsfeld fly to Iraq to shake his hand and open diplomatic relations a year after he gassed the Kurds? Why would I want to vote for a party that welcomes such a madman? We sold him weapons, for god's sake. YOUR PARTY sold him weapons. Where do you get off pretending that your party is the bulwark against people like Saddam, when you sent us to war alongside him? Do you remember when a US Navy ship shot down an Iranian airliner--that was when the Repubs were having us help Saddam fight Iran.

pay higher taxes

Well, the moral choices are to pay higher taxes or have a smaller government. Which choice have the Republicans picked? Oh, that's right--neither. They want big government, but they don't want to pay for it, so we get to pass the cost on to our kids and grandkids. That's not the choice a moral party would make.

Libs..flame away..

I'm not a "Lib," you moron. I'm a conservative, and you're the problem, not the solution. I'll vote for the party that last gave me a balanced budged, thanks. They aren't perfect, but they aren't saddled with this messianic vision crap that the neoconservatives bring to the table. If you let the conservatives run your party again, call me. I ain't voting for anyone the Christian Dominionists put in office.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[twiddlingbits]

Yea, and if you don't vote Democrat you Mom will get Alzheimers, your kid paralyzed in a car wreck, and you'll lose yout job. These premises are in a Democratic TV ad in Missouri...I'm NOT making this up,m they say exactly that.

If Democrats would CLEARLY state where they stand on the key issues no one would vote for them so they resort to these emotional attempts which are despicable.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[twiddlingbits]

NO. Go back and look at the current DEFICIT. It's been cut in half even with increased spending. Democrats have NEVER been fiscally conservative. Who spent us into the huge National Debt? The Republicans have only held Congress and the White House the last 6 yrs, before that we had 8 yrs of Clinton. Even Reagan didn't have both houses of Congress all eight years. Until 1992 Democrats controlled one or both houses of Congress for 30+ years.

Socially conservative? You must be drunk or high. No one in thier right mind thinks Welfare is socially conservative, nor is denying support for our troops even if you oppose the war, nor is gay marriage, nor is support for terrorists to use OUR court systems.

Gay marriage and Abortion are MORAL issues. If the Republican party stands for traditional morals I'm 100% with them.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[Xyrus]

"You forgot to mention that every time someone votes against a Republican, God kills a kitten AND a puppy."

And evertime you vote FOR a republican, an Iraqi shits a barrel of oil!

~X~

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[ocbwilg]

More from the Republican lie machine:

If you vote Democrat you are NOT going to like it unless of course you want us to cut and run in Iraq (and let another Saddam come to power..or worse)

Nobody is talking about "cut and run" except the Republicans. They keep saying that is what the Democrats want. The funny thing is, the Democrats haven't been calling for a "cut and run" or immediate pullout, or anything remotely like it. They're saying that we need to replace Rumsfeld (and many of the current generals are saying the same thing), that Iraq needs to make a better effort at standing up so that we can begin bringing troops home, and that we need to change our strategy in Iraq because the current tactics aren't working. Oddly enough, many of the Republican representatives and senators who are running for re-election tomorrow are saying similar things (with the exception of firing Rumsfeld).

, ignore the NK threat,

The Democrats won't ignore the NK threat. In fact, the Clinton administration (and how it must pain you to hear it) was dealing with NK and making progress. Then Bush shows up and basically cuts them off and ignores them until they start testing nukes.

pay higher taxes (1st thing Dems will do is repeal the Bush tax cuts, especially the child tax credit),

Seeing as I'm not a millionaire or a large corporation, I didn't get any tax cuts. So I won't be too upset to see them repealed, especially if it means that the people making the most money actually have to pay the most taxes. Maybe that will lessen the burden on my family.

see Wall Street go DOWN,

Wall Street was doing just fine until Bush came to office.

increase the chance for another 9/11,

Based on what? How many times did we have a 9/11 style attack while Democrats were in control? Hell, if Bush had actually listened to what the Clinton administration was telling them when they left office (hint: it was "Osama bin Laden is enemy number 1, you need to do everything that you can to get him") then we may have been able to avoid 9/11 altogether. But the Bush administration was too busy trying to figure out how to get at all of that oil in Iraq and build a ballistic missile defense system to be bothered with actual threat.

see all progress on illegal immigration stop (they want illegals..another class to keep down with handouts from the Democrats..the second chance at the Great Society ideal that has not worked for 40 yrs).

Actually, immigration is the one issue that is all over the map, politically speaking. Some Democrats want to keep them out, others want amnesty for them. Bush wants amnesty for them and a guest worker program for them as well, presumably because his cronies in business circles can keep a pool of cheap labor. Immigration is one issue that is very, very clearly not split on party lines. But that doesn't stop the extreme right-wingers from painting it that way so that it makes the Democrats look bad to their xenophobic friends.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

If you vote Democrat you are NOT going to like it unless of course you want us to cut and run in Iraq (and let another Saddam come to power..or worse), ignore the NK threat,

Iraq repeatedly denied that they have nukes. North Korea openly demonstrated that they do have it, and also threatened USA with war. So, why US soldiers did invade Iraq, but are not in NK right now? Why they are ignoring the NK threat?! Oh, right, NK has no oil...

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[LurkerXXX]

Keeping up with the idiot neo-con BS I see... Lots of BS.

Who spent us into the huge National Debt?

Reagan, Bush, and Bush II.
You can keep claiming Democrats are the big spenders, but the facts disagree entirely with you.

Look at the debt over the years. Pay attention to the years when it goes on an upward curve.

Reagan era: 1980-1988
Bush I era: 1988-1992
Clinton era: 1992-2000
Bush II era: 2000-->

Looking at the graph you see a huge upturn when Regan comes into office, and it keeps on going up at that steep angle until Clinton comes in, when it starts leveling off (and actually going down corrected for inflation). Then under Bush II it takes off for the sky at a higher rate than ever before. And this is with Bush II having both houses fully Republican. The neo-cons are spend crazy. They've had a lot of years to decrease big government, but all they have been doing is increasing it.

If you claim Democrats spent us into the huge debt, you are lying or stupid. Since you are a neo-con, I'll assume both.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[AK Marc]

NO. Go back and look at the current DEFICIT. It's been cut in half even with increased spending.

Compare the deficit now with the last year Clinton was in office.

Democrats have NEVER been fiscally conservative.

Correct, however the Republicans are *less* conservative. I'll even call them Liberal with the spending.

Who spent us into the huge National Debt?

Reagan and the two Bushes. Who do you think spent us unto the huge national debt?

The Republicans have only held Congress and the White House the last 6 yrs, before that we had 8 yrs of Clinton.

Yes, and Clinton, fighting a Republican Congress, reduced the deficit. Bush Jr., with a Republican Congress increased the deficit. Clinton had to shut down the government twice to be able to get Congress to give him a budget that was conservative enough. The Liberal Republican Congress fought his deficit reductions.

Socially conservative? You must be drunk or high.

You must be confused as to what "conservative" means. Who wants social change? Right now, it's the Republicans. They want to pass laws and amendments banning gay marriage, banning stem cell research, banning abortion, repealing our civil rights, etc. Change is Liberal. The Democrats are much happier with the current stance of rights. That makes them socially Conservative. That you define some sets of priorities as conservative or liberal does not mean that they are. Those that love change, like the Republicans calling for flag burning amendments and discussing amendments to restrict gay rights are liberals. Those opposing change, like the Democratic party opposing these amendments, are conservative.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention that every time someone votes against a Republican, God kills a kitten AND a puppy.

By wrapping them in a tax cut and giving them to a Democrat?

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[smooth wombat]

I appreciate your comments and yes, on a few occasions the thought of running has crossed my mind.

Unfortunately, there are several things which would doom me. First and foremost, I'm an honest person. You ask me a question and I'll give you a straight answer.

Why would this doom me? Because people don't want honesty. The vast majority of people are perfectly happy to live with the idea that all politicians lie and are corrupt so for someone like me to come along and give them straight answers would be too much for their brains to process. They would be like the proverbial deer-in-the-headlights.

Second, my area is not conducive to outsiders like me rocking the boat. You're either with one of the two parties or you're not. Granted, I am a registered Republican but the County and State organizations don't look kindly on people like me trying to muscle in on their hand-picked candidates. There was a situation a few years ago where our state treasurer, a life-long Republican who, to me at least, seemed like a decent person, was not backed by the party and had to run on her own money.

Third, and probably most importantly, I'm a state employee and as such am prevented from running for elected office other than school board.

This isn't to say that I haven't mentioned to people to write my name in during elections but getting five votes doesn't quite get me into the stadium to play with the big boys.

So alas, unless I suddenly come into money or there is a groundswell of support for me by the people I work with, the only role I can play is to browbeat my party into getting their heads out of their asses and tell the folks who call and do a survey on where I stand, that I do not approve of the direction my party is going and that I'm going to continue to vote against their candidates until they run someone who has at least two brain cells.

But thank you for your comments. I realize that I am preaching to choir on here about effective government and honest debate but one has to start somewhere.

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually when people assert things, they cite some facts that back up their position

Can you prove that? I demand references!

Re:Suuuuuure it's complicated

[hey!]

If you vote Democrat you are NOT going to like it unless of course you want us to cut and run in Iraq

Ever hear of the Hundred Years War?

How could a war possibly last a hundred years?

Well, to start with, the French were too proud to retreat; in fact their best fighters took an oath never to retreat more than a few dozen yards. The result of this and similar forms of vainglory is that while the French superpower ought to have crushed the English at the outset, they squandered their power advantage by making strategy subservient to pride. Of course it didn't hurt that there was a powerful monetary advantage to keeping the war going....

On the other hand, consider George Washington. He was also a proud man, and circumstances forced retreat upon him time and time again. But in the dark days of the New Jersey campaign, he discovered what was arguably his greatest strength as a general: the skillful use of retreat. Retreat isn't cowardice when it involves moving your forces from a position of disadvantage to one of advantage. It's failing to do so because of pride that is cowardice of the highest order. It's all too easy to accept the defeat of the greater good to preserve your petty ego.

The problem is not just that "pride goeth before the fall." It is that blind, unreasoning fear of wounded pride is a certain path to self-destruction.

Iraq is a very bad situation for us, but the worse a situation gets, the more it calls for cold, hard headed calculation in the face of humiliation.

To quote Matt Groening:

[Ossifer]

"If you vote Republican, are you guilty of their crimes?"

Re:To quote Matt Groening:

[__aaclcg7560]

If you vote Democratic, are you guilty of their sins?

If you vote "Other", are you guiltless and sinless?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Re:To quote Matt Groening:

[scheming daemons]

If you vote Democratic, are you guilty of their sins?

No... but if you vote Democratic on a Diebold voting machine, your vote has a pretty good chance of being recorded as a Republican vote.

Re:To quote Matt Groening:

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you vote Democrat, are you actually voting for anything in particular or just voting "Not Republican"? That seems to have been their platform for a while. No actual plans or anything.

Re:To quote Matt Groening:

[scheming daemons]

And if you vote Democrat, are you actually voting for anything in particular or just voting "Not Republican"? That seems to have been their platform for a while. No actual plans or anything.

That is a very valid reason to vote Democrat.

This election is more of an intervention than an election. In order to begin repairing the damage, you have to first stop the abuse. Saying "NO!" to the current administration... or more accurately, "NO MORE!", is a VERY GOOD reason to vote for the opposition.

As Tom Friedman wrote recently.... If America elects to keep the GOP in control of every branch of government tommorow, then we are no more than a banana republic.

Karl Rove and George Bush are betting that we Americans, in general, are stupid. Tomorrow will tell if they are right or not.

Re:To quote Matt Groening:

[coaxial]

Yes. You're an accessory.

Re:To quote Matt Groening:

[rhizome]

And if you vote Democrat, are you actually voting for anything in particular or just voting "Not Republican"? That seems to have been their platform for a while. No actual plans or anything.

good one beavis

Re:To quote Matt Groening:

[DavidTC]

I know! It's crazy!

The same thing happened to me. There were two burger places in town, let's call them Repuburger, and Demoburgers.

Well, I used to eat at Repuburgers, but they started poisoning customers who ordered their fries, although I was smart enough not to do that. (I like onion rings.) And sometimes they physically assaulted me with forks, but never seriously enough to make me get medical attention, so it was okay. I guess the thing that finally made me dislike them was the fact they blinded me by holding my face in the grease cooker thing.

I called up the Demoburgers, but they refused to say they wouldn't physically harm me. In fact, they seemed completely outraged I would ask the question, and hung up on me.

So, I guess I'll attempt to find my way back to Repuburger. It's closer to my house anyway.

Re:To quote Matt Groening:

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you vote Democrat, are you actually voting for anything in particular or just voting "Not Republican"? That seems to have been their platform for a while. No actual plans or anything.

Do the Republicans actually have any plans themselves? All I've really seen from them is accusations that the left are nothing but a bunch of queers and terrorist sympathizers. That's hardly a plan.

Re:To quote Matt Groening:

[Anonymous Coward]

Karl Rove and George Bush are betting that we Americans, in general, are stupid. Tomorrow will tell if they are right or not.

Two years too late.

Re:To quote Matt Groening:

[misanthrope101]

Actually, if you think the Republicans have driven us into an open-ended, pointless war based on bullshit reasons, run up the highest deficits in history, endorsed torture, put Americans under surveillance without a warrant, locked people in secret jails without a warrant or trial, and pretty much all the things that they have, in fact, done, then "for the love of God can we have someone else, ANYONE ELSE, in power?" might just work. It worked for me. This is not a normal election, and this is not a normal administration. All decades have political controversies, but what is going on now is one of the darker periods of American history, at least as bad as Manzanar, and I would like to put it behind us as quickly as possible. I'll take good-old-fashioned petty corruption over messianic, visionary incompetence combined with corruption any day of the week.

Re:To quote Matt Groening:

[cold fjord]

This election is more of an intervention than an election. In order to begin repairing the damage, you have to first stop the abuse. Saying "NO!" to the current administration... or more accurately, "NO MORE!", is a VERY GOOD reason to vote for the opposition.

That's kind of funny,.... that is how the Republicans gained the majority in Congress and the White House from the Democrats.

As Tom Friedman wrote recently.... If America elects to keep the GOP in control of every branch of government tommorow, then we are no more than a banana republic.

Karl Rove and George Bush are betting that we Americans, in general, are stupid. Tomorrow will tell if they are right or not.

The bet you attribute to Rove and Bush is wrong, it should read:

Karl Rove and George Bush are betting that we Americans, in general, are are too smart to fall for Friedman's stupid troll. Tomorrow will tell if they are right or not.

Re:To quote Matt Groening:

[Anonymous Coward]

Good keep calling us all idiots. That will make us want to vote for Democrat. Jackass.

Re:To quote Matt Groening:

[Scudsucker]

That's kind of funny,.... that is how the Republicans gained the majority in Congress and the White House from the Democrats.

I suppose you could see it that way, if you have no sense of perspective. Name me one Democratic screw up or shenanigan that comes close to Iraq, NSA wiretapping, waterboarding, secret prisons, Katrina, putting blueprints for nuclear weapons on the web, trillions in new national debt, and so on and so on.

New icon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh, we have a "Republican" icon now? Is that really a good idea? Will we have one for every party?

Re:New icon?

[eln]

No, all of the other parties will just have news posted under the "Enlightenment" icon.

What'd you expect?

[rjung2k]

It's the Republicans. Is anyone actually surprised?

Re:What'd you expect?

[cheezedawg]

Despite the loud headline, the article actually goes on to detail several candidates- both Republican and Democrat- that have been victims of these calls. I am wondering why the article is trying so hard to make this out to be an exclusively Republican tactic when it is clearly a universal problem.

Re:What'd you expect?

[rjung2k]

"Despite the loud headline, the article actually goes on to detail several candidates- both Republican and Democrat- that have been victims of these calls."

Really? The only article that talks about Republican candidates being smeared by these robo-calls is the boston.com article, and even that one only offers the American Family Voices' robo-call campaign against Mark Foley for a "Dems are bad" example. All of the other articles listed in the headline refer to examples of Republicans using robo-calls to pose as Democratic candidates in an effort to piss off Dem supporters.

Once again: What'd you expect? They're Republicans.

Re:What'd you expect?

[Nimey]

It's very sad that I'm agreeing with you. The GOP is currently the party of dirty tricks[1] and I expect little else of them.

The county GOP committee (in Missouri) had an ad in the local rag's voter guide that said, among other things, that if a voter doesn't make a mark for each and every race on the ballot tomorrow, the entire ballot will be thrown out. I'm fairly certain this isn't true and I've asked MO's secretary of state to have a look.

[1] During the '04 campaign, the GOP National Committee distributed fliers in Arkansas that said if Democrats were voted in, they'd try to ban the Bible as hate speech. Jamming some state Democrat get-out-the-vote committee's phones during the same campaign.

Re:What'd you expect?

[killjoe]

The sleazy bastards know the only way they are going to win is by cheating and breaking the law. SO they will cheat and break the law in order to win.

Re:What'd you expect?

[cheezedawg]

The boston.com article also highlighted Rep. Christopher Shays' experience, where these tactics were used to misrepresent his stance on embryonic stem cell research.

Once again: What'd you expect? They're Republicans

This group that you show so much distain for represents about half of this country, and believe it or not, they want fair and honest elections just as much as you do.

Deceptive Measures by the GOP?

[crwlspace]

All this time I thought they were the good guys!

Joe Job by phone

[Kelson]

Anyone who has been following spam efforts will have encountered the phrase "Joe Job." It refers to a spam campaign engineered to look like someone else is sending it, for the express purpose of damaging the victim's reputation.

As an example, someone might send out a spam campaign claiming to be Slashdot and encouraging pirates, hackers (banking on the public perception of "hacker"), and pornographers to drop by. Result: People see the spam, think that Slashdot is a haven for pirates, hackers and pornographers, *and* they think Slashdot is spamming.

Since telemarketing and spamming are more or less the same job, it makes sense that dirty tricks from one field would cross over into the other.

Re:Joe Job by phone

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a spammer who hacked his way to the fortune, and now I've been spending it to f*** the hottest porn stars around. And it all started with an article on /.

Re:Joe Job by phone

[proxy318]

Wait, you're saying this ISN'T a haven for pirates, hackers, and pornographers? I've been hanging out in the wrong place!

Continuing Lawbreaking?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the Republican Party was already fined heavily and some members arrested and imprisoned for performing denial of service attacks against Democratic phone pools trying to contact voters on election day during the 2004 election? If I had not read the multiple testimonials about this robo-calling illegality already, I would have a hard time believing the Republicans would break the law again in this way. Politics in America has become shameless under this administration. It is time to throw the lying bums out.

Re:Continuing Lawbreaking?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct, however only low level people were ever charged. Whoever was on the other end of the line at the Whitehouse was never publically identified and is probably still around and up to the same old tricks. If not them then they have thousands of others who are willing to piss on democracy if it means clinging onto power for a few more years. Is there anything Republicans won't do to win an election? No wonder conspiracy theory people freak out about electronic voting machines when you can't even trust the GOP with a fucking telephone line.

The system is broken

[Anonymous Coward]

The election system in the USA is broken. Small electoral districts and first-past-the-post results in a two-party hegemony. This could be fixed by enlarging electoral districts to whole states and then allocating all
the congressional seats of a state using the proportional Jefferson Method (equivalent to the D'Hondt Method).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Hondt_method

This would result in viable third parties and real choice. Voting for small parties at the federal level before the system is fixed is futile.

This current system ensures that only two parties exist at federal level. Imagine if there were for example five parties and they got votes in a state like this: 40%, 30%, 15%, 10%, 5%. Wouldn't it then be a good idea to allocate the seats to parties according to their proportional support among voters? Let's suppose that there would be six House seats in that state. Using the D'Hondt method we would get the following allocation
  of seats: Party 1: 3 seats, Party 2: 2 seats, Party 3: 1 seat, Parties 4 and 5: no seats. And the hegemony of the two big parties was broken. This system actually works and is fair, unlike the one used in the USA. In Finland we have eight parties in the parliament. A rich variety of opinions and ideologies is always present and no single party can easily gain a dominant status.

Re:The system is broken

[gurps_npc]

Your method is one of several ways to do the election. It gives greater power and control to minority beliefs. That can be an advantage and a disadvantage. In effect, it gives power to he who shouts the loudest, as opposed to he who focuses on the moderate.

The US system is basically designed to PREVENT the government from doing things. That is the whole idea of checks and balances.

Your system, encourages small groups to band together, giving them more power, and thus making the government more likely to do things. In has the danger of creating a congress with radically prejudiced people of opposing views fighting it out. They could push through special interest rules that most people object to, simply by grouping themselves together. p>It is at heart something opposed to the US mindset, of doing as little as possible, and only if most people want it done.

There are other systems, such as a ranking system. In that system, if there are 5 candidates, you rank each one, 1 through 5. Then the man with the lowest score wins. This stops radicals that people hate, yet allows people to vote 'for' someone besides the 'top two' candidates and still have their voice count. It is much closer to something the US might accept, as unlike yours, it does not give power to minority groups that most people in the country disagree with.

Re:The system is broken

[Anonymous Coward]

You are saying that the U.S. system encourages checks and balances. This is true only when different parties control different parts of the co-equal branches. Now when Republicans control them all, there are no checks nor balances.

When there are many parties, they have to negotiate common government program to form a coalition government. This prevents excesses of any party.

In the USA there is no prime minister, which is a shame. It is much, much easier for the parliament to get rid of a prime minister who turns out to be incompetent. Impeaching a president is a much more tedious process than a simple vote of non-confidence and a big deal in the USA.

Re:The system is broken

[Aadain2001]

At both a political and philosophical level, I completely agree with you. However, when I take the reality of the situation here in the US into account, I see that your method can only be implemented in one way: lots and lots of blood shed (hi FBI!). You see, the current political powers in this country (Republicans and Democrats) will never implement the type of system you describe because it would effectively end their reigns of power. They would never again be able to "control" the government to the level that we current see. Since the system will not correct itself, we would have to fall back on the fail-safe the founding fathers built into the Constitution: the second amendment.

In the end, the framers of our government knew that if the system ever became so corrupt, so distorted, so far-gone that it could not be corrected through new laws and/or government representatives, the people would have to rise up and re-take the government (hi again FBI!). I would NEVER do this (so relax FBI), I'm just saying that in the end it would take a new revolution to change the government from what is currently is. Jefferson himself warned us against political parties and said it would be the downfall of our government. Personally, I believe he was right.

Re:The system is broken

[Kobyov]

We have a similar system to what you propose here in New Zealand. We always end up having two powerful parties and a whole spectrum of minor parties. This leads to the major parties constantly pandering to special interest groups, hoping to buy the vote of a minor party. You also end up with situations where a major party requires the support of a minor to stay in goverment, so the minor party can pretty much dictate legislation. As both major parties are pretty moderate, the net effect is you get what is apparently a moderate government, which will then occasionally blindside you with far-left or far-right policies. At least in the US you know what you're getting (for the record i do perfer our system).

Re:The system is broken

[DragonWriter]

This current system ensures that only two parties exist at federal level. Imagine if there were for example five parties and they got votes in a state like this: 40%, 30%, 15%, 10%, 5%. Wouldn't it then be a good idea to allocate the seats to parties according to their proportional support among voters?

Sure, but party-list proportional systems (whether D'Hondt or otherwise) isolate individual candidates from accountability to the general electorate and increase the power of party insiders compared to the present US system, which already provides too much power to those insiders and too little to the general electorate.

Which is why I personally favor achieving more proportional results by using multimember districts, but not statewide at-large districts except in relatively small states, and using candidate-centered preference voting systems (like, for example, Single Transferable Vote) for the general election. You don't get as close to perfect proportionality, but you avoid the lack of direct accountability that party lists create.

You will end up with more viable legislative parties, eliminate the problem of "wasted votes" that disincentivizes voting for any but the strongest two parties, but you retain (enhance, really) the kind of personal direct accountability to the voters that is the (only, really) strength of the present US electoral system, and something the Americans are unlikely to be willing to sacrifice. You also decrease the relative power of insiders to control who gets elected, since parties have an incentive to present more candidates to the electorate than they are likely to win even in districts where they are dominant, so that general election voters will always have an influence over which candidates even from dominant parties get elected.

Re:The system is broken

[Brandybuck]

It isn't the size of the district that's the problem, We have districts at a fairly good size. Instead, the problem is the *shape* of the districts. They're designed to create majorities for one party or the other.

Districts boundaries should follow county, municipality and township boundaries as closely as possible. There are existing algorithms to sensibly calculate districts. The real hurdle is getting the reform past the state politicians.

Re:The system is broken

[Anonymous Coward]

The US system is basically designed to PREVENT the government from doing things. That is the whole idea of checks and balances.

Which was fine when the USA was a strip of industrialized colonies expanding into an endless western frontier whose inhabitants could be annihilated with relative ease.

Nowadays we've got some serious problems with the status quo and government action is essentially the only way to fix them:

1. The medical industry is broken. The guild doesn't train enough doctors, the doctors make too little up front and too much down the road, a huge chunk of the population can't afford anything beyond Tylenol, the auto industry is going broke due to healthcare costs, and turns out 40% of all medicine is STILL paid by the government. That's a mess that needs fixing in a rather simple but drastic way: single-payer health care.

2. The environment is dying. We need immediate action just to survive. But the EPA has nowhere near enough engineers and scientists to come up with optimal policies and instead sues random businesses that may or may not be degrading the environment.

3. Our energy supply is at the mercy of the most rotten governments in the world. We need to move immediately off oil and use alternative energy for both electrical and chemical.

This is just 3. I could list a dozen more in half an hour. The status quo is going to kill our civilization and possibly destroy the entire world. What we see on television, the American lifestyle we are striving for, is a lie.

Re:The system is broken

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately coalition governments as you're describing take a notoriously long time to reach a decision on anything.

Re:The system is broken

[tietokone-olmi]

As another Finn, I find your suggestion rather ridiculous. It's not as if you hadn't noticed that in Finland, this method has merely resulted in a three-party hegemony with a couple of tiny parties (the swedes and the christians) siding with whoever gives them a seat in the government. And the left alliance, who seem to have been castrated by their last chairm... chairperson's kissing up to the soc-dems.

Then there's state sponsorship of parties which received more than a certain percentage of votes in the last parliament elections, the centre party using tax money to fund citizens' initiatives which, no surprise, turn into centre party election marketing machines a few months before E-day, you get my point. This system has been used for so long that if the yanks are going to switch election methods, they ought to at least use something that is pointed at addressing the problems associated with the D'Hondt method (i.e. party voting, also known as tactical voting -- "would you rather that the right-wing boneheads were in power? your vote is wasted on the radicals, they'll never get anyone in.").

There are better election methods. It's too bad that none of them can be realistically installed without a revolution, being as the ones in power right now would never ever accept a new method that would reduce their power. A revolution in the US is something that while a part of me would like to see (this part is also the one that likes to watch F1 races for the accidents), another is terrified of the country with enough ICBMs to wipe out the population of the earth ten times over becoming unglued.

We've had these in NY-25 for about a week! Grr!

[Dr. Spork]

I'm good friends with Dan Maffei's webmaster, and she's been receiving complaints about these for about a week. Dan is the sort of candidate that wants to focus on the issues, but maybe if we had screamed louder about this, we could have prevented more of this outrage. The calls begin with "I'm calling with information about Dan Maffei." Then there is a long pause. If you hang up at that point, you will be called back, and the whole time you'll think it's Dan himself who's pestering you with the calls. We've had several people who tell us they meant to vote for Dan, but won't after the harassing robo-calls, which they blame on him.

Does anyone have an idea what we can do about this, one day before the election?

Re:We've had these in NY-25 for about a week! Grr!

[Billly Gates]

Go on the media and local news channels. This will piss enough voters off that they may vote for your candidate instead. Its worth a shot and mention you may sue them. Doing so will make the media frenzy around your candidate to get more airtime.

Re:We've had these in NY-25 for about a week! Grr!

[dodongo]

As far as widespread impact... Eh. If you have a blog, post on it. If you have some friends you think might be influenced by this, send them relevant snippets of the article(s) you find, *with a personal summary at the top* so they know it's not just BS you're forwarding.

And don't forget to vote, and encourage your friends to vote, against the motherfuckers who're doing this.

(Posted w/o karma bonus because even I think this is kinda trollish, but seriously, people... If *any* party pulls shit like this and gets rewarded with (re)election, that just encourages the thinking that this is an appropriate / acceptable / beneficial thing to be doing.)

Re:We've had these in NY-25 for about a week! Grr!

[Keebler71]

While I agree that the calls are annoying - I disagree with the the summary's and your conclusion that the wording of the call is specificly designed to make the listener think that the Democratic candidate is harrassing them. The calls begin with : "I'm calling with information about [democratic candidate]." Peronally, I would also hang up here - but I certainly wouldn't make any assumption at this point as to whether or not the call supports or attack that Democratic candidate. The Republicans deserve lots of grief - but isn't this stretching it a bit?

Re:We've had these in NY-25 for about a week! Grr!

[Anonymous Coward]

You misjudge the ignorance in this country. Not only that, but how can you logically disagree with his comments that complaints are coming in specifically stating 0the voter is no longer going to vote for that cantidate because of the calls. You either didn't read the post completely, have the insight of a chimp or are yet another ignorant sheep - which is it?

Re:We've had these in NY-25 for about a week! Grr!

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

The calls begin with : "I'm calling with information about [democratic candidate]." Peronally, I would also hang up here - but I certainly wouldn't make any assumption at this point as to whether or not the call supports or attack that Democratic candidate.

After getting enough calls like "I'm calling about alluminum siding...", "I'm calling about xxx insurance ...", you tend to assume whoever is named right away is who its from. I've never gotten a call like, "I'm calling about aluminum siding... " and its actually those pesky wood siding people. Plus isn't it actually federal law that any exempted do-not-call list calls must list the person/company its from at the beginning of the call? It sure seems like its designed to do what the summary says, but thats just based on my experience and how I know I'd take it.

Re:We've had these in NY-25 for about a week! Grr!

[spitzak]

That's just stupid. The only excluse for that is to claim that the callee's may only know the Democrat's name, but then a fair thing to do would be to say "I'm calling with informaion about why you may prefer to vote for [republican] instead of [democrat]".

Re:We've had these in NY-25 for about a week! Grr!

[DragonWriter]

Plus isn't it actually federal law that any exempted do-not-call list calls must list the person/company its from at the beginning of the call?

No, its any artificial voice or prerecorded message call that must do that, but that applies to most of the "robocalls" at issue here, anyway.

Re:We've had these in NY-25 for about a week! Grr!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've actually received these calls. First, I knew immediately that the call was originating from the opponent's camp. My wife did as well. I'm surprised anyone is fooled, but apparently they are. Second, I did hang up immediately and I haven't received a barrage of calls. (This all happened before the story broke.)

Re:We've had these in NY-25 for about a week! Grr!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, keep in mind that, after you hanged up, it will call you back 17th time...

Maybe, it is slighly irritating, isn't it ?

I don't think that's quite the motivation....

[StressGuy]

I believe that Republicans vote Republican and Democrats vote Democrat....the campaign managers know this and they have a pretty good idea of how many of each demographic they have to work with. So, their job isn't to try and convince you who to vote for, you've already decided that. Their job is to get you into the polls so you can actually cast that vote.

Somewhere along the line, they decided that the best motivator was to get you pissed off enough at the other guy that you would make the time to get into the polls.

Unfortunately, this has caused campaigns to go from "vote for me because" to "don't vote for the other guy because".

It just seems to get worse with time.

Re:I don't think that's quite the motivation....

[squiggleslash]

Quite the opposite.

The purpose of negative campaigning is to discourage supporters of the opposing candidate from voting. Paint the person you have to vote for as so completely unlikable that it'd turn your stomach to walk into the voting booth to do your duty.

Horrible, isn't it?

Re:I don't think that's quite the motivation....

[toadlife]

I think attack ads simply cater to that "49%" - that being the people that are of below average intelligence. I don't know about others, but I don't pay much attention to smear ads. I realize that if a candidate votes against a bill that would have funded health care for poor kids, it doesn't necessarily mean that candidate wants poor kids to die; It most likely means that the bill had a bunch of other non-related bullshit attached to it that would have wasted my money, or simply didn't belong in the bill in the first place.

A lot of people lack to intelligence or knowledge to see through these smear ads, and I'm pretty sure that's why they work.

Re:I don't think that's quite the motivation....

[Russ Nelson]

I believe that Republicans vote Republican and Democrats vote Democrat

Right. Those voters are not up for grabs. It's everyone else.

the best motivator was to get you pissed off enough at the other guy that you would make the time to get into the polls.

Exactly. "Vote for the R (or D) because otherwise that slimy bastard will get elected." That's the problem with two-party elections.

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[SeattleGameboy]

When the Republicans stop being evile, then Slashdot won't post more evil news.

EVERY news outlet (national and local, well, maybe except FoxNews) is reporting about how slimy Republicans are this election season (fear mongering, race baiting, mother of all negative campaign).

I mean seriously, have Republicans no shame?

Perhaps because I'm a registered Libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm getting garbage autodialer bullshit from ALL the parties. Perhaps if I actually listened long enough to count, I could tell who was sending more shit, the evil dems or the evil reps. I stopped picking up for "unknown caller" or unknown numbers weeks ago. Can't wait for this two-party equal-opportunity shitfest to end so we can't back to the task of ruining this republic.

Google it

[Beuno]

Google cache always comes in handy:

Conquest Communications Group stands ready to help with any project you may have. To find out more, please provide us with the following information or call us at 804-358-0560.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:chTn88IH384J:w ww.conquestgroup.com/ContactUs/Contact.cfm+site:ht tp://www.conquestgroup.com/&hl=en&gl=ar&ct=clnk&cd =20&client=firefox-a

Re:Google it

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... this place is just around the corner from me according to Google. Gee, I sure hope nothing happens to their electricity.... ;-)

Re:Google it

[Anonymous Coward]

Go, coward, go!

Shouldn't be surprised

[DnemoniX]

Ok before I get flamed for my subject, I'm a Republican, not a NeoCon, I am very moderate by anyones standards.

Here is a little story about a local Republican race here in Minnesota. It is just before the primary, there is a heated race between two individuals for the Rep. Senate nomination. A flier is sent out smearing one candidate, he previously was accused of physically assaulting his daughter, a charge he was later found not guilty of by jury. The flier contained so many false statements it was crazy, to top it off the people who wrote the flier included a graphical logo to make it look like it was sent by our Sheriff's Dept. Unfortunately I was the person who designed that logo for our website. I am the system administrator for that County. Long story short, through my web logs it was discovered that the authors of the flier were members of his own party on the State level. Apparently they felt that the previous accusations against him would be a problem down the line. So they pulled their dirty tricks on one of their own. The best part is that he won the primary. But once again his party stepped in and told him to step aside. He refused and they withheld all party support for his campaign. Just another case of a party that is struggling with scandal doing anything to hold on and keep from falling out of power.

We've been getting this in Wisconsin

[Mr. Neutron]

Our phone is ringing off the hook with calls from the Democratic Party. We're not in the 8th Congressional district (big race there), but we do have a big gubernatorial race all over the state.

Re:We've been getting this in Wisconsin

[Mr. Neutron]

I should add, we're only 8 miles south of WI-08, so it's possible they're doing this by phone exchanges, and our exchange is partially in the 8th.

Haven't listened to any of the messages, but I will the next time they call.

Re:We've been getting this in Wisconsin

[Anonymous Coward]

These aren't from democrats but they're doing the same thing. They're just trying to make you *think* they're from democrats so you get mad at the democratic candidate. Apparently the democrats have only put about 500$ into robo-calls because they have found they don't work.

The RNC is paying for these calls (but they do not identify themselves until the end of the call which is illegal -- for robocalls the party must identify themselves at the start).

This is why it's illegal, and this is the issue they don't want resolved this electoral season.

Re:We've been getting this in Wisconsin

[Control Group]

Same here.

I've been attributing it to living in the leftist echo chamber of Madison, though.

Let's get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are comparing a single small scale criminal act of a couple of individuals that happened two years ago to a multi-million dollar nationally co-ordinated campaign planned, paid for and executed by the Republican party itself to perpetrate election fraud?

Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[trevdak]

I really don't want to be part of a flame war (I like my karma where it is right now), but it really seems to me that republicans pull this crap off a lot more than democrats. Thinks like the "democrats vote on wednesdays" campaigns, or "[legal] immigrants will be arrested if they come to the polls", or men dressed as leather lingerie-clad homosexuals with signs saying "Vote Democrat so I can adopt" seem to be everywhere. Does anyone have any examples of this happening against republicans? I'll gladly retract my statement if I can see a couple Democrat-sanctioned examples somewhere. I'm aware that I'm a democrat and therefore have selective exposure, but I'm trying to keep an open mind.

It's so morally corrupt that I find it hard to believe that half the country is in the same party as these people. I know that half the country isn't morally corrupt, yet they allow (and often support) this sort of thing.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[Cutie Pi]

"[legal] immigrants will be arrested if they come to the polls"

Ummm... unless those immigrants are U.S. citizens they aren't allowed to vote. They probably won't be arrested, but they shouldn't be there anyway, legal or illegal.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[rjung2k]

The letter in question was (falsely) claiming that only US-born citizens were allowed to vote, and that naturalized citizens who voted would be committing a felony.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[brouski]

Help me out here. Try as I might, I cannot find links to any articles reporting the above accusations, other than blogs and editorials reporting similar stuff in the same vague, uninformative fashion.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[Onan]

He's referring to the fraudulent letters distributed by Republican congressional candidate Tan Nguyen.

The letters were sent to 14,000 registered voters, and claimed (completely falsely) that naturalized citizens are not only ineligible to vote, but would be jailed or deported if they showed up at the polls. They were printed in letterhead that looked deceptively like that of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, and were signed by the completely fictional "Sergio Ramirez".

So I'm afraid that you're mistaken; these were naturalized citizens, registered voters, and the tactic was specifically designed to deceive them into forgoing their right to vote.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[tigeba]

I live in a suburb of Kansas City, and my phone has been ringing off the hook with campaign ads for about a month. About two weeks ago, for a period of a couple days, I was receiving 8-10 hangup calls a day from the same wierd number. Some of the calls would come every 10-15 minutes at dinner time. Eventually I got fed up with them and answered, and the information was about a Republican state representative. I was pretty annoyed at this point, so I looked up his number and called him. He called me back a couple hours later, and I talked to him about it at length. He said at the time that he had received numerous complaints about this, and that he personally believed his competitor was doing this to annoy voters. He asked me if I had any details, so I offered him photographs of all my caller ID information. This was also suspicious as the caller id info was coming up as 816-000-0000 (816 is a local area code). This was what initially made me think that something shifty was going on. He gave me his cell phone number and his personal email, and I sent him this info a few hours later.

I have no way of knowing if this was a campaign launched by his competition, or just a very tenacious and super-annoying get out the vote campaign gone amok. I have no real reason to believe this guy was lying to me, but no proof that his story was true.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[ocbwilg]

I really don't want to be part of a flame war (I like my karma where it is right now), but it really seems to me that republicans pull this crap off a lot more than democrats. Thinks like the "democrats vote on wednesdays" campaigns, or "[legal] immigrants will be arrested if they come to the polls", or men dressed as leather lingerie-clad homosexuals with signs saying "Vote Democrat so I can adopt" seem to be everywhere. Does anyone have any examples of this happening against republicans? I'll gladly retract my statement if I can see a couple Democrat-sanctioned examples somewhere. I'm aware that I'm a democrat and therefore have selective exposure, but I'm trying to keep an open mind.

You are correct, this typically is something done by the Republicans and not the Democrats. Sure, if you dig deep enough, you can find the story about a couple of Democratic supporters slashing the tires on the Republican parties "get out the vote" mobiles the night before the election, but such incidents are extremely few and far between, and I have yet to see one that was orchestrated on the party rather than individual level.

On the other hand, the Republican party thinks systematically, and when they find something that works they try to milk it in all of their campaigns. Hence the multiple sightings of lether-clad men in lingerie, the robo-calls, the fliers, the push polls, the recent NAMBLA-related smears showing up in close races all across the country (always raised, of course, by the Republicans). In the 2004 election is was church ministers talking about how Kerry (a Catholic) wanted to ban the bible, or mysterious robo-calls claiming to be from the Kerry campaign reminding people that "A vote for John Kerry is a vote for gay marriage," (even though Kerry had never taken a pro-gay marriage stance in his career).

I think, what it comes down to (I'm about to open myself for being flamed senseless), is that the party leadership in the Republican and Democratic parties have very different philosophies of what it means to run an election. Now, I'm speaking in generalities here, as there are some Republicans who I am rather fond of, and some Democrats that I intensely dislike. But in general, it seems that the Democrats have a philosophy more true to what has been enshrined in the constitution, and an overall sense of fairness. They seem to believe that all citizens have the right to vote, and have their vote counted, and have their voice heard no matter what their opinion is. They seem to want (generally) to allow the truth to speak for itself, and to get elected on the issues.

No doubt that there are many Republicans who feel the same way, but the party leadership (the Ken Mehlman and the Karl Rove types) either don't see or don't care about the importance of voting. They don't see it as a sacred right or responsibility. They see it as a means to an end, and that end is the Republicans getting and holding onto power. They (and again I'm referring to the party leadership and those that enable them, not necessarily the rank and file) believe that they are at war with the Democrats, and that any action that they can take that will result in their accruing more power is justified. They don't care how immoral or unethical it is, or even how illegal it is. They simply do whatever they can to win and then (if they get caught) pay the fines/do the time, though the punishment hardly matters if they had already achieved their goal. What's $5 million dollars in fines to the richest political party in the country, if it means that they can keep control of Congress or the White House? They can make that money back in a heartbeat by awarding no-bid contracts to the companies that are their staunchest supporters. The Republican leadership has come to terms with the notion of "acceptable losses" and "collateral damage" during the campaign, and unfortunately those losses include ethics and morals.

Now, I live in Ohio, and I'm sure that you've heard a lot about what sort of t

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[Onan]

Happy to help:

• A study by the NAACP shows a consistent pattern of voter intimidation efforts by GOP campaigns. Dozens of instances of misinformation and intimidation in several states, and every one of them by Republican organizations.
• Republican Congressional candidate Tan Nguyen sent fraudulent letters to registered voters with latino last names claiming that naturalized citizens who attempted to vote would be jailed or deported.
• Kathleen Harris, the Republican Secretary of State of Florida instituted a "voter-cleansing" program which falsely listed at least eight thousand voters as felons, and thus ineligible. The disenfranchised resided almost exlusively in Democrat-leaning districts.

This is just a few minutes of asking google, and specifically looking for items reported by reputable national news sources, not just random political blogs. I'm quite certain that far more documentation of similar incidents is readily available.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[DavidTC]

And, more to the point, it's not illegal to vote if you aren't a citizen and they let you. If you fill out all the voter registration forms truthfully, they would have, at some point, told you you couldn't vote. If they didn't do that, and for some insane reason you're not a citizen but they put you on the voter rolls and sent you a preceinct card, you cannot be arrested for attempting to vote.

I.e., even attempting to parse it as 'illegal immigrants' doesn't make any sense. There's no 'extra' checks on your own voter eligablity you have to do before voting. If you're registered, and didn't commit perjury by falsely filling out the form, you can legally vote, period, even if you aren't supposed to be able to.(1)

Now, if you lied when filling out the forms, you already commited a crime and can be arrested at any time, obviously. I wouldn't recommend compounding that by trying to actually vote.

1) This whole thing is assuming some crazy parallel universe where they actually put people who check 'no' to 'Are you a US citizen?' on the voter rolls by accident.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[DavidTC]

There's a damn good reason for that.

There have been studies done, and on 'important' political issues, about 3/4th of all people agree. Seriously. That's a frickin supermajority. I'm talking stuff about abortion and gay marriage and teaching evolution in school and all the stuff the Republicans like to make issues about.

And, when you look at what these positions are, they are slightly to the right of where the Democratic party stands. If you were to draw a scale on every issue from 0 to 100 between the far right and the far left, and put the Democrats at 75 and the Republicans at 25, almost 70% of people over 18 are somewhere between 60 to 70 on that issue.

Probably another 15% is spread between 60 and 15, and 5% between 70 and 85, with the remaining 10% making up both edges. (Aka, the 'far' right and left.)

Another way of looking at this would be to draw a bell curve, and put the Democrats almost right in the middle, and Republicans way over in the 15 percentile.

However, I have to point out, in this country, only 1/4th the people vote. People who outside the system, the 10% on the ends, almost always vote. But they cancel each other out, mostly, or vote for third parties.

So, we're left with 15% of the sane people. And, statistically, most of them would vote Democratic. It's a very fine line the Republicans have to walk. Punching the right button with the churchgoers are one way to do it, demonizing their opponants, trying to portray them as 85ers instead of 70ers, in hopes of catching the 60ers.

Randomly selecting, say, 10% of the unregistered voters in this country, making them spend a week listening to the issues, and then making them vote, would be a total disaster for the Republicans.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[socalmtb]

Actually, it was a mistranslation. The letter said that non-citizen immigrants who vote are guilty of crimes.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[AK Marc]

Just like the Bible says slaves should obey their masters, but if given the opportunity, they should cast off their chains. However, there was a minor mistake in the Bible translation into Russian given to the slaves/serfs there. It said to obey their masters, but if they should cast off their chains, they should get back in them. Obviously a simple mistranslation, and not an attempt to push a political agenda through lies.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[AK Marc]

I have no real reason to believe this guy was lying to me

Didn't you say he was a politician?

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[DragonWriter]

Actually, it was a mistranslation.

Perhaps into Spanish by the authors of the letter.

The letter said that non-citizen immigrants who vote are guilty of crimes.

As I understand, the only description of who could not vote was emigrados, which does not, as I understand, translate into English as "non-citizen immigrants", though it certainly would include, among others, non-citizen immigrants.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[Anonymous Coward]

How unfortunate that it happened to be mistranslated on accident. Did they happen to send out a whole bunch of the fliers in english too? I'm betting not, since it would be difficult to get away with saying the English fliers were also mistranslated from French.

Attention unregistered voters...it's illegal for you to vote.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[BryanL]

Don't confuse having a lack of leadership with having a different philosophy. I wish the Democrats had stronger leadership and a more focused message. The problem I see with Democrats is they have such disparate views that the party has a hard time forming a coherent message. That is one of the strengths of the Republicans. The problem the Republicans have is that there message is focused, but not on what many US citizens are concerned with. That is why they might be on the verge of losing control of one or both houses of congress.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[ChrisMaple]

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but Democrats have a decades-long history of multiple votes per person and fraudulent voter registration. Two generations ago, Democrat Dick Tuck was the king of dirty election campaign tricks.

The problem is that there's too much political power available, and people who want political power are without exception bad people.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[bergeron76]

Because the Republicans have failed. Period.

Republicans have had both Houses(Senate and Congress) and the Executive Branch for the past 6 years.

You have no one to blame but yourselves if you're a Republican. You can't blame Democrats anymore. You have no more scapegoats. You have to take responsibility (weren't Republican's the "take responsibility party"?).

Take responsibility for:
The IRAQ Crisis (3000 Americans dead)
The Katrina Disaster
The National Debt (not the Defecit, there's a difference).
The Economy (it's good; but it was better under Clinton(D)).

If you're a Republican, either TAKE RESPONSIBILITY (which is your party themesong), or SHUT UP.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[Jim_Callahan]

My impression was that the Democrats pioneered most of the nasty propaganda tactics, and the Republicans finally caught up and overdid it (just as the Democrats did before them, that kind of nasty nonsense was a part of why they lost power to the Repubs in the first place). The developmental cycles of the two parties are just a bit out of sych these days. That, and the republicans briefly have more money with which to be corrupt: I'm hoping the backlash guts the funding for both parties, honestly, because that's the only way to keep the Democratic machine from humming up to full speed again while everyone watches their opponents.

This is more a general impression from the history of the american political cycle than anything else, so if you want hard evidence, I'm not your guy (I only have precedent). That said, figured I'd input my two cents in case it sparked off an idea for anybody else.

(Just using recent history to avoid the confusion of changes in party names: Populists use advances in rhetoric to bring their godfather party, the democrats, to power early in the century. In the early 80s, Repubs reagain some power by calling them on their bullshit, itself an apparrently useful rhetorical technique. Repubs follow up by gaining power through the use of advances in rhetoric (as opposed to, say, advances in policy), and Democrats are now attempting to regain some power by calling repubs on their bullshit. Full circle. The conclusion: Political sleaziness is just the sin wave to political self-righteousness's cos wave. Secondary conclusion: I'd like to buy some politicians that will get over themselves and do their damned jobs... oh, wait, the very philosophical foundation of the party system prevents that. Ah, well...)

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[ignavus]

The trouble with democracy by vote is that nothing can stop a nation of idiots from democratically electing a bunch of criminal incompetents.

A more reliable system might be democracy without the vote: randomly select enough people to fill the legislature. The government will then be statistically representative of the people (with the usual variance in outcomes), and no campaign funds from big business, no policy bribes (vote for me and I will outlaw homosexuality), no phone campaigns, no Diebold voting machines, etc can intervene.

In a nation like the US, it may be the better choice. Certainly cheaper than voting.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[ocbwilg]

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but Democrats have a decades-long history of multiple votes per person and fraudulent voter registration. Two generations ago, Democrat Dick Tuck was the king of dirty election campaign tricks.

Well, it's not so much that I haven't been paying attention as much as it is I've only been voting for 20 years. And I have no doubt that there have been Democrats in the past who have pulled dirty tricks, but using those few incidents to justify the widespread deception, shenanigans, and violations of laws that we see today seems specious at best. It reminds me a lot of Mark Foley supporters claiming that there was a Democrat back in 1982 who had consensual sex with a page and that it somehow mitigated Foley's actions or somehow "evened the score." There's nothing that can be done about what "Dick Tuck" may have done way back in the day. All it's really doing is trying to deflect criticism from what is currently going on and what is currently important with what is ancient immutable history.

My real concern is that the GOP's efforts are not the actions of individuals acting alone, but rather appear to be the results of coordinated efforts at the party level, some of which (and I'm specifically referring to activities that took place in northwest Ohio in 2004 and in California this year) may be in violation of the currently standing consent decree against the Republican Party stemming from their illegal actions in 1981 and 1986.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[ocbwilg]

Don't confuse having a lack of leadership with having a different philosophy. I wish the Democrats had stronger leadership and a more focused message. The problem I see with Democrats is they have such disparate views that the party has a hard time forming a coherent message. That is one of the strengths of the Republicans. The problem the Republicans have is that there message is focused, but not on what many US citizens are concerned with.

The Democrats have plenty of diverse ideas. The Republicans don't. They call themselves "big tent Republicans", saying that the Republican party has room for all sorts of views. What they actually mean by it is that as long as you call yourself a Republican and vote Republican and toe the party line when it comes to votes and supporting the president, then you can believe whatever you want. As I said earlier, it's not about ideas for them, it's about power.

There's this thing about diversity, and it is that it makes the entire system stronger. Diverse DNA makes for a strong, more resilient population. Diverse ideas make for a stronger, more resilient society. Diverse political parties would be great, but since we're stuck with only two parties we're going to have to settle for one of them being more diverse than the other and hope that it works.

That being said, yes, the Democrats could use another strong leader to unite the party like Bill Clinton did, without trampling idealogical diversity. My best bet would be (with a few more years of experience) Barak Obama. His convention speech in 2004 summed it up perfectly. Not only did he show himself as a strong and charismatic leader, but he demonstrated that different philosphy that I was referring to.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[woztheproblem]

Based on my experience with one of the issues you mentioned (abortion), your theory that 70% of people are between 60 to 70 (i.e. closer to Dems) is factually incorrect. Almost any poll that asks a more detailed question on abortion than "are you pro-life or pro-choice" shows that more people are in line with the Republican view. For example: http://www.nrlc.org/Polling/zogbyapril2004.pdf I realize that this poll was sponsored by the NRLC, but it was easiest for me to find, and I've seen these results over and over again if you ask people detailed questions about what should be legal and what shouldn't. (Note that only a small fraction of abortions are a result of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother, so it is fair to count people who think abortion should only be legal in those circumstances as closer to Republicans, many of whom support those exceptions as well.)

There certainly is an issue of phrasing of the question affecting the results, as polls that ask if abortion should be legal in all or most cases show a majority pro-choice, but questions asking if abortion should be legal just to end an unwanted pregnancy show a majority pro-life. For example: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/aborti on_poll030122.html

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[DavidTC]

Yes, if you ask people if 'abortion should be legal just to end a life', you have most people say 'no'.

When you then ask them if doctors should be punished for it, they respond 'no'. If you ask them if women should be punished for it, they say 'no'.

So, frankly, it's a little hard to know what the fuck they mean by 'not legal'.

All that demonstrates is that people react weird if you include the word 'life' in the question, thanks to the Republicans continual efforts. But if you ask them what should actually be done with abortion laws, they'll come up with what the Democrats want, and have done, which is to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, but not making them illegal in the first trimester.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[woztheproblem]

What's the difference between asking people if abortion should be legal and asking them what should actually be done with abortion laws? I'd be interested to see a poll asking if doctors should be fined (not jailed) if they break a potential abortion law.

In any case, I think the issue is sufficiently complex that saying most people are closer to Democrats on this issue is too simplistic, and probably wrong.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[Shajenko42]

What's the difference between asking people if abortion should be legal and asking them what should actually be done with abortion laws?

I think that the first one is the same as asking "Should we take steps to insure that there are fewer (or no) abortions?"

Which even people who think that abortion should be legal will say yes to. These steps could include things like education and more widespread contraceptive use, or getting everyone to abstain until marriage.

Or it could simply be a knee-jerk reaction, and they haven't really thought about the issue and consequences of any specific course of action - they're just saying what their preacher told them to say.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[woztheproblem]

The first one isn't saying that. It asks "should abortion be legal?" That's a separate question from "should we do other things [in addition to / in place of] changing laws to reduce the number of abortions, such as education, poverty reduction, etc." You're right that most pro-lifers would answer yes to the question, not because they've been coached, but because they want fewer abortions! (that's the whole idea)

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[DavidTC]

In any case, I think the issue is sufficiently complex that saying most people are closer to Democrats on this issue is too simplistic, and probably wrong.

You can think that, but you're wrong, probably because you don't know where the Democrats are on the issue, because you've been feed Republican lies.

There is less than 15% support in this country for passing a law for fining doctors or women for first trimester abortions. If people do not wish a behavior to have any sort of punishment, they wish it to be legal. That's how laws work. And when I said 'punishment', I meant fines.

But, hey, go ahead, poll people yourself. Even in really conservative areas, it won't reach over 25%. No seriously. Go find a pro-choice person and ask them if we should fine doctors or women who have abortions.

Now, if I was, like you thought, talking about jail time for women or doctors, (Which would be what people who really think it's 'murder' must logically be for.) I'd be way down around 2%. No shit.

And, yes, just asking people if it's murder will get you more than 2%, but, somehow, that doesn't transfer into actually, you know, wanting to charge anyone with murder. So, again, they've internalized the idiotic rants of insane people, but are still enough of human beings to know it isn't actually murder. There are probably as many true-believer communists in the population as people willing to imprison a woman for having an abortion, despite all the yammering about 'It's a life, not a choice.'.

And, as a fun aside, if you actually do find one what says 'yes', either to fines, or even to a jail sentence, then ask how we could even tell that people in their first trimester were pregnant, or ask them how we'd tell an abortion from a miscarriage. But that's screwing with the polling.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[DavidTC]

And we've just demonstrated that people are idiots when polled about questions about abortions, because their answers make no sense. Trying to make out what exactly a question technically asked is craziness, when it's clear they just keyed off whatever random word they've been imprinted with.

So I propose we do exactly what they say. I propose we make abortion illegal, but with absolutely no jail time or fines at all for the first trimester. That should please everyone.

We can even include it under murder laws. It can be 'fifteenth degree murder' or 'embryo manslaughter', and the police can issue a citation requiring you to, I dunno, be polite to people the rest of the day or something.

Or, we can realize the Republican party has managed to create a case of schizophrenia in a large portion of the American voting public, where they think, and vote as if, they believe one thing, but they actually believe something else when asked to follow that thought to the logical question 'If it's illegal, what's the punishment?'.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[woztheproblem]

I guess I would disagree that because people are unsure what the punishment should be, that means they don't really think that abortion should be illegal. I mean, the question asked "should abortion be legal?"

But, second, even if people have conflicting views, it is unclear which side is causing the conflict. Just because some people can see both sides of an issue doesn't mean that they've been brainwashed by the 'idiotic rants of insane people.' Get a grip. It is a complex issue.

Re:Why does this seem to be republican-only?

[DavidTC]

I guess I would disagree that because people are unsure what the punishment should be, that means they don't really think that abortion should be illegal.

They aren't 'unsure'. They are completely sure. They uniformly reject jail time for women or doctors. More than 3/4ths reject any sort of fine, with a tiny amount wanting to fine doctors and an even smaller amount wanting to fine women.

There are only three options here:

1. They wish to restart some form of punishment we have stopped using, like the stocks or lashing with a wipe. I think that is unlikely, considering all thoses forms of punishment are harsher than fines, and they have problems with fines.
2. They have invented some form of punishment heitherto unknown to mankind. Society has been punishing people for about ten thousand years, and we've come up with: imprisoning people, physically injurying them (Which we stopped doing), or taking something of theirs away. I doubt a large segment of the populatin has suddenly come up with a new concept there.
3. They don't actually wish it to be illegal, and are thus wrong about what they believe. They are factually incorrect about their beliefs, and, yes, that's possible.

There are no 'conflicting views' there. The only 'conflict' is between people who know they want it legal, and people who don't know they want it legal, along with a very very tiny but very vocal segment of society leading the second half.

Can't we stop these?

[mspohr]

I'm getting these calls several times a day (California 4th) and I'm getting tired of them. At first I found it amusing to hear the outrageous things they would say about the Democrat. According to the calls, he would raise taxes, give welfare to immigrants, and rape our mothers and sisters (well... the rape part was only implied).

I guess it is a measure of the desperation of the Republicans that they are making these calls. I can't believe anyone would believe the outlandish claims but I guess they are counting on the stupidity of the electorate.

Re:Can't we stop these?

[Anonymous Coward]

he would raise taxes,

uh, won't he? do you really think the demicans will cut spending to maintain the current tax rates? or will they increase spending and increase taxes to keep deficits about the same?

the math is extremely easy... taxes have to go up to pay our own way instead of burying our children's children in our debt.

give welfare to immigrants,

if the dems gain control, you can bet your bottom dollar the 15,000,000 illegal immigrants will be given amnesty, code named, "path to citizenship."

no doubt about it. bush will sign it off in a heartbeat. more slave labor for his boyz down south. i mean cheap labor.

and rape our mothers and sisters (well... the rape part was only implied).

okay, that was slimy.

I guess it is a measure of the desperation of the Republicans that they are making these calls. I can't believe anyone would believe the outlandish claims but I guess they are counting on the stupidity of the electorate.

demicans raising taxes and making illegals legal are outlandish claims?

that's their platform, dude.

btw, i don't hate on illegal immigrants. they are people trying to better their lives. if this 20 million and the next 20 millionn and the next 20 million all get amnesty, i'm happy for them. having said that, they will absolutely lower the standard of living for the native born americans b/c they will pressure wages down (increase supply of workers = lower relative wages).

for those that don't "get it," both parties are gorging you...

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[patmandu]

It's pathetic that you apparently believe that more of the same from the republicans is the answer...

What the hell is wrong with you Americans?

[ip_freely_2000]

The RNCC must have lost it's freaking mind.

Between this, electronic voting, the whole WMD/invade Iraq decision and the Mexican border issue, half of you still vote Republican?

Not that the Dems are much better, but when are people going to start pushing back on the government?

America used to be admired. Now, I just pity you.

Re:What the hell is wrong with you Americans?

[JhohannaVH]

Remember, it's not 50% of American Citizens, it is but 1/2 of the percentage that leaves their television shows and actually VOTES: In 2004, a major Presidential Election, only 64% of Americans voted. Now, let's try comparing apples to apples here, and take it back to 2002, the last midterm election: 46% of Americans voted. I think that's more along the lines of what we will see tomorrow.

So, yeah... anyone who doesn't give a shit, doesn't vote, but they sure can BITCH! Just remember... if you don't go and press a button/pull a lever/sign your name -> YOU CAN'T BITCH!!!!!!!!

I, for one, am not voting for a single solitary soul (not that they have any) that currently is in office. It just pisses me off that because of my precinct, it will all be straight Republicans. Oh, and I'm voting NO on every single ballot issue.

Re:What the hell is wrong with you Americans?

[neonfrog]

Just remember... if you don't go and press a button/pull a lever/sign your name -> YOU CAN'T BITCH!!!!!!!!


I often choose not to vote so I hear this a lot. It is wrong every single time it is said.

Ours is a representative governemt. No matter who gets elected, they represent ME, whether or not I voted for them.

Additionally, I pay taxes just like nearly everyone. I pay and pay and pay for my right to bitch ... whether or not I vote.

Simply, if you vote for one guy (and passionately campaign for her/him), and the other guy wins, do you lose your right to call your elected representative? Didn't think so.

Re:What the hell is wrong with you Americans?

[StikyPad]

Not everyone has the right to vote. Absentee ballots are rarely counted, and some places (DC and protectorates) have no voting representation. Not to mention 4 million felons who can't vote.

Also, there's no reason to believe a sample size of 64% is significantly less accurate than a sample of 100%. So just because someone doesn't vote doesn't mean the results would change.

Additionally, Arrow's impossibility theorem makes a pretty convincing argument that voting is a fundamentally flawed decision-making process to begin with.

So there are lots of reasons for people not to vote. That doesn't mean they should remain silent in other areas. Of course it's always better to provide potential solutions than merely complain about the problems. On the other hand, problems rarely get attention if nobody complains about them, so it's not entirely unproductive to bitch, as you so eloquently put it, and nobody should remain silent just because he or she didn't vote.

Re:What the hell is wrong with you Americans?

[WilliamSChips]

So, yeah... anyone who doesn't give a shit, doesn't vote, but they sure can BITCH! Just remember... if you don't go and press a button/pull a lever/sign your name -> YOU CAN'T BITCH!!!!!!!!

I'm sixteen and can't legally vote. Do I have to stop bitching because the law says I can't vote?

Re:What the hell is wrong with you Americans?

[Anonymous Coward]

I often choose not to vote so I hear this a lot. It is wrong every single time it is said.

You're an idiot.

Ours is a representative governemt. No matter who gets elected, they represent ME, whether or not I voted for them.

Very good, bonehead.

Additionally, I pay taxes just like nearly everyone. I pay and pay and pay for my right to bitch ... whether or not I vote.

Look, chump change, there are quite a few citizens who do not pay taxes who do get to vote. Your right to vote helps to determine the way taxes are spent and the amount of taxes levied, that's it. Are you a felon? Then you pay taxes and don't vote. Tax payment != voting rights. Right to bitch? Your main (and for most of us only) chance to exert influence is during an election. Beyond that any given politician will tell you to piss up a rope until the next election, unless you're contributing a few hundred thousand dollars plus to their campaign. For most USians this is their main leverage, and you've forfeited yours. So no, you don't have a right to bitch. If you don't vote tomorrow, you are a simple-minded dolt and should keep your mouth shut for the next 730 days or so. If morons like you would start organizing behind write-in candidates shit might actually change, but your lazy asses want to sit in that Barkalounger and whine like the cunts that you are while munching down a BK whopper.

Simply, if you vote for one guy (and passionately campaign for her/him), and the other guy wins, do you lose your right to call your elected representative? Didn't think so.

Where's this "right" enumerated? Didn't think so, you stupid motherfucker. Your first amendment right says you can talk to dead air all day long but they don't have to listen.

Re:What the hell is wrong with you Americans?

[evilviper]

Between this, electronic voting, the whole WMD/invade Iraq decision and the Mexican border issue, half of you still vote Republican?

By all means, tell us where you are, and what a utopia your system is... so we can laugh at you and point out all the (even worse) debacles your country has seen.

Iraq was close enough before the last election that many people still didn't have a grasp of what a huge mistake that is. This time, however, all signs point to Republicans losing their (large) majority, even though only a fraction of congressional seats are up.

Not that the Dems are much better, but when are people going to start pushing back on the government?

Maybe when the Democrats get "much better"?

America used to be admired. Now, I just pity you.

America is still admired, and still hated, as much as it always has been. There's still loud mouthed fools like yourself who don't understand a thing about it, but are still quick to pass judgement on everything we're doing in ways you don't like...

When your next election is up, I'll be sure to let you know how stupid your countries coices were...

Re:What the hell is wrong with you Americans?

[JhohannaVH]

I'm sixteen and can't legally vote. Do I have to stop bitching because the law says I can't vote?

You can vote in mock elections, and you can volunteer, so yes. :)

Caveat - at least here in California.... the kids were out of school today to volunteer at our polling stations.

Re:What the hell is wrong with you Americans?

[JhohannaVH]

Not everyone has the right to vote. Absentee ballots are rarely counted, and some places (DC and protectorates) have no voting representation. Not to mention 4 million felons who can't vote.

The DC thingEy is jacked up. That's just wrong, and they have representation, so why can't they vote. I know that Guam can vote via Absentee Ballots, and that every absentee ballot, allegedly, is counted in California. But you are probably accurate about that. However, Felons should NOT be allowed to vote until their records are expunged. That's part of doing your time and sociatal debt, as it were.

It is completely unproductive to complain about situations if you are doing nothing for the change. That's what I believe. All those talking heads on TV better get their asses to the polls and cast their ballot, else they are bigger hypocrites than Ted Haggard.

The ONLY way we, as American Citizens, can exercise change and our own power is by voting. I think it should be criminal like in Australia to NOT vote.

Re:What the hell is wrong with you Americans?

[JhohannaVH]

Uh... Actually, that was supposed to say YES, you can bitch! It's about participation.

It is incredibly wrong to tell someone what they should vote when one does not act on said same effort. At least, that's my opinion.

Re:What the hell is wrong with you Americans?

[Kidbro]

America is still admired, and still hated, as much as it always has been.

That is highly incorrect. The USA actually used to be admired. It used to be an ideal.
Nowadays, I don't know a single (non American) person who doesn't loathe the country. I'm serious. You may be fed filtered bullshit about how popular the country is, but that is simply not true.

As you say, you may point out similar flaws in other countries, but that will not change the GP's points: The fact that the USA has gone from being admired to being loathed/pitied in a timespan of less than three decades.

Re:What the hell is wrong with you Americans?

[evilviper]

The USA actually used to be admired. It used to be an ideal.

Hardly. You can get plenty of examples from the past couple hundred years of huge numbers of people who absolutely hated the US. It's always the same thing. There are always people who despise what you're currently doing, and always people who appreciate those particular actions.

Republican bashing?

[msimm]

I'm sure most Republicans would be just as disappointed to here this news. And frankly I think its more indicative of the American political system and its failings then the evils of one party or the other.

Effective counter measure

[Anonymous Coward]

The most effective counter measure is - call to White House and ask to speak to mr. president G W Bush! Let's all do that and see what will happen.

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

At least as much as the Democrats, who:

- Waited to announce someone they called a "child predator" until October so they could use it as an October Surprise.

- Indicated that doing poorly at school would get you "sent to Iraq".

- Blamed the Republicans for "orchestrating" the Saddam guilty verdict coming out this past weekend.

And I know I'm missing a ton, because I really haven't been paying attention to them.

Not new

[Kelz]

Over the past three months the republican incumbant (under investigation by the FBI/DoJ for taking a $30000 vacation given to him by foreign lobbying groups) has been robocalling everyone in the county and some outside the county with calls that are basically designed to make you hang up the second you hear their tagline, "This call is about supporting Charlie Brown" (yes that is the democrat candidate's real name :P). Charlie's campaign doesn't have robocallers, but the actual campaign workers who call were rather surprised to hear from people that they got a robocall three minutes ago claiming it to be from their campaign.

Its rather a shame that the local republican controlled newspaper made no mention of this in their so-called "bad campaigning expose".

Re:Not new

[rsadelle]

You can't talk about Charlie Brown without mentioning that the incumbent's name is Doolittle.

It's quite possibly the best race ever for funny names.

Re:So Slashkos.. what are the Democrats dirty tric

[Anonymous Coward]

Lately it has always been the Republicans who have been doing dirty tricks.
By the way, here is a top 10 reasons for voting Republican:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/top10/26 7

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[nizo]

By all means, if there are Democrats doing this, they should nailed for it just as much as anyone else. Anyone have any news articles about the Democrats pulling the same stunt?

George W. Bush: +1, Infidel

[Anonymous Coward]

A vote for Republicans is a vote for Osama bin Laden's Sugar Daddy.

Call 1-800-ALQ-AEDA and demand the arrest of this world class war criminal.

Thanks for your patriotisim.

Patriotically as always,
Kilgore Trout

What's the problem with breaking an FCC reg?

[NatteringNabob]

Afterall, you are talking about a political party that is down with torture, coerced confessions, extended imprisonment without charges and without access to counsel, and warrantless searches. After all that, we are supposed to get outraged about a violation of FCC regs?

No.

[Peter Trepan]

I mean seriously, have Republicans no shame?

They have Morality, which is different. Shame prevents you from being evil. Morality allows you to be as evil as you like, as long as you feel really bad about it.

Re:No.

[the eric conspiracy]

And of course if you are an evangelical all you have to do is confess your sins and ask forgiveness. Then you are good to go.

Re:No.

[Saint Fnordius]

Shame prevents you from doing something you consider wrong.

Morality enables you to do something you consider wrong, because you're working for a Higher Purpose.

Quick radio ad blitz? Indignant press conference?

[OmniGeek]

Anything that gets the word out widely that this is going on, and pretends to be who it isn't, might be worth a try. Can you get the opposing candidate riled enough to deny it in public?

Look at me! I'm a Republican!

[Anonymous Coward]

My party sux, they're desperate and full of dirty tricks! Oh, please slashdot, don't mod me down!

"make it appear as if Democrats are spamming callers with telemarketing calls"

Gee... ya think the Democrats might be scamming forums with fake posts to make it appear that they're Republican?

This just in....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

The sky is blue.....

Re:So Slashkos.. what are the Democrats dirty tric

[Anonymous Coward]

the fact that you can't actually point to any dirty tricks by the Dems says a great deal (not that they're actually running completely angelic campaigns, but they are not anywhere near the despicable tactics that the GOP has reached).

This looks like...

[fohat]

A job for RoboGOP!

ok that was bad.

Your spelling, however, is less than genius.

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

Re:Your spelling, however, is less than genius.

[808140]

You're an idiot. Spelling genius as "genious" is a long-standing tradition in the hacker community. It is meant to be ironic (because the spelling is wrong, and appears faux-British) and call into question whether or not the person or thing being lauded is in fact "genius" or not.

For example uses, consider "<insert bad idea here>! GENIOUS!" is meant to suggest that the person who is apparently suggesting the bad idea does not, in fact, think it is genius.

This stuff is hard to get, I know.

Hahaha!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Dumbocraps have been doing this for years!

Silly liberal, trix are for kids!

A Variation in New Mexico

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in New Mexico the Republicans have been calling non-Republicans and giving them incorrect information on how to get to the polls. This problem has been featured prominently on the local news. The Democrats have been trying to get a temporary restraining order against the Republicans.

The Republicans claim the calls were made by mistake because some Republicans and non-Republicans share the same name. But they don't explain why they were trying to give incorrect information to Republicans. So this simple "mistake" explanation does not quite ring true.

This flurry of dirty tricks at the last moment does explain why both Bush and Rove felt the Republicans would win again this year despite the fact they trail so far behind in the polls.

MOD PARENT UP

[terrahertz]

That number needs to be made known.

Please mod this troll

[Dr. Spork]

Nice troll! One drunk left-winger, who has no connection with the DNC, does something stupid, and that's supposed to be morally equivalent to an organized RNC campaign across 53 districts where millions of illegal phonecalls are placed with the explicit goal of deceiving voters. Hmm, somehow the situations seem different.

Re:Please mod this troll

[scheming daemons]

Nice troll! One drunk left-winger, who has no connection with the DNC, does something stupid, and that's supposed to be morally equivalent to an organized RNC campaign across 53 districts where millions of illegal phonecalls are placed with the explicit goal of deceiving voters. Hmm, somehow the situations seem different.

Do you expect anything less?

The Rove/Bush machine put fliers all over South Carolina in 2000 during the primaries saying that John McCain had fathered a "black" child.

The Rove/Bush machine sent a debate-prep videotape to Al Gore's headquarters in 2000, hoping to then play the "Gore campaign stole our video tape!" angle that they used against Jimmy Carter in 1980. Only Gore's campaign didn't take the bait and immediately called the media to report it. It turned out that a RNC staffer sent the tape (and took the fall, even though she was doing exactly as her bosses wanted her)

This is how they operate. Republicans always feel the ends justify the means, especially this current batch. It is a pattern in everything they do. They wanted to go into Iraq from the moment they took office, and they didn't care how much they had to lie or trump up false evidence to do it. The ends justified the means.

They feel that this country cannot survive without them in power, so there is no tactic too shameless or illegal that they won't try. In their minds, they MUST remain in power, so they will do anything and everything - even if it involves violating the law - to ensure that they do.

It is why Blackwell in Ohio accused his opponent of being endorsed by NAMBLA. (As Jon Stewart said, "how far do you have to be trailing in the polls to throw out the NAMBLA card?")

It is why supporters of Corker in Tennessee aired an ad indicating that Harold Ford Jr. is interested in white women.

There is no strategy too vile, too shameless, too illegal, too immoral for the Republicans. They represent the worst side of human nature. They are pigs. They know it, and they don't care. Too them, the stakes are too great to allow the Dems to take control of any part of government, and they will lie, cheat, and steal to prevent it from happening.

The ends justify the means.

That is why, if there is any hope of saving this nation from the course it is on, we must fight against them at every turn.

Re:Please mod this troll

[Anonymous Coward]

the stakes are too great to allow the Dems to take control of any part of government, and they will lie, cheat, and steal to prevent it from happening.

Haven't you read? the Democrats are TRAITORS! How could you vote for a TRAITOR?

They also believe in "Separation of Church and State"! Have you ever heard of anything so un-American?

Re:Please mod this troll

[meeotch]

They represent the worst side of human nature. They are pigs... we must fight against them at every turn.

Am I correct in assuming that "+5 Interesting" is shorthand for "+5 Interesting how there are binary-thinking simpletons on both sides of the aisle who insist on undercutting their own arguments by reducing otherwise compelling evidence to, 'Yay our team, boo their team'" ?

I must say, I have a newfound respect for the subtlety and broad utility of the slashdot moderation system.

Re:Please mod this troll

[pommiekiwifruit]

It is why supporters of Corker in Tennessee aired an ad indicating that Harold Ford Jr. is interested in white women.

You would have to be american to think that that was racist in some way. They claimed he went to a playboy sponsored party. Are you telling me that playboy have never featured non-white women in their magazine? Now that would be wierd.

More significant (but not in the ad) was him ranting about the nuclear threat USA faces from the aspirations of Australia, Argentina and South Africa. WTF? South Africa is the only country who has had the nuclear bomb and then (voluntarily) disarmed itself of it (years ago). Australia is one of your staunchest allies, shoring up your rear now that you decided to give up on fighting al-quaeda and the taliban so you could concentrate on Iraq instead.

I agree with your sentiments but think that your obsession with voting for the ever-so-slightly-lessor of two evils is a cop-out. Out of 300 million americans can't you even find 100 good ones?

Re:Please mod this troll

[KKlaus]

You know, I agree to some degree with your sentiment, but football logic like this isn't really helping america either. Yes there is a republican party. It, however, is not filled with constitution burning satanist clones. Vote for and against individuals and their policies, not against parties because some in their leadership are very bad.

If intelligent americans decide to vote against all republicans because the rnc engages in immoral and (frankly) illegal tactics, that gives the Democrats a blank check to not solve problems, make decisions, or build a better america. Because, hey, they've already won by not being Republican.

So please, issues and indivuals, not teams. We're all americans.

Re:Please mod this troll

[Xiroth]

Australia is one of your staunchest allies, shoring up your rear now that you decided to give up on fighting al-quaeda and the taliban so you could concentrate on Iraq instead.

Hehehe, it's funnier than that - we're one of only 2 nations in the world with substantial uranium deposits. It's likely because of the strict safeguards that we've imposed in accordance with the IAEA that there are so few nuclear powers in the world.

But I suppose that yes, were we to desire nuclear weapons, as a developed nation with a hell of a lot of raw material we're likely in one of the best positions to do so. Good thing that people here throw up a stink if even nuclear power plants are proposed (we currently have none).

Re:Please mod this troll

[Anonymous Coward]

They wanted to go into Iraq from the moment they took office

Actually, long before that. See here for example (note the signatories on the letter).

If you have a moment, I highly recommend tracking down and watching this documentary. It's out there in torrent-land if you look.

(Posted anon due to previous moderation on this story)

Re:Please mod this troll

[javiercero]

But, when you consider that the other significant source of uranium is Kazakhstan, and that they may be royally pissed off after the whole Borat movie came out...

So what

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what you american get for being so lazy about your political process. One party of criminals and one party of dunces.

Re:So Slashkos.. what are the Democrats dirty tric

[Anonymous Coward]

"Lately it has always been the Republicans who have been doing dirty tricks."

Uh-huh... sure... You just keep drinking your kool-aid...

What's this?
http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/operation_infiltra tion_update

Re:So Slashkos.. what are the Democrats dirty tric

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously! You nerds are all a bunch or commie pinko fags. You need a wedgie or duck tape on your balls.

I'm NOT voting for the incumbants.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that'll send a message.

Robot Nixon approves of this tactic

[User 956]

I believe we should go one step further and allow these machines to vote directly, rather than indirectly through a meat proxy. Robot suffrage is absolutely vital to the future of any campaign involving a giant, bloodthirsty Robot Nixon.

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[wass]

This section has become nothing but a Republican/convervative/US bashfest from day one.

Let's see, Republicans have controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for the past six years, so why should most political problems from the past six years NOT be biased towards Republicans? When slashdotters gripe about political problems who should their frustration be vented to, the 'obstructionist' Democratic minority?

You obviously haven't been around here very long, because back in the Clinton days, even though Republicans had majority rule in both houses, there was a Democratic presidency, and there were MANY articles and comments griping about Clinton and Democrats in general.

It's just that now the GOP has been in full rule, and has no more scapegoating except itself. And apparently you're getting your panties in a knot when the citizens actually try holding the ruling powers responsible for their own political actions.

Calling All Voters

[Doc Ruby]

Here's a column published in Philly by someone thinking Democrats were harassing her with robocalls. Even though they sensibly asked why Democrats would do such a thing when it would turn voters off, they thought it was the Democratic candidate. Pretty typical reaction.

Their untypical reaction was to call the Democrat's office demanding an explanation. Which turned out to be "it's a Republican dirty trick". But how many people will find out before voting? And how many people will believe it's not Democrats lying to blame Republicans, when they already believe Democrats have been harassing them with robocalls?

Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, Republicans have followed up their 2002 phonejamming of Democrats' lines (preventing Democrats from getting voters to polls) with enough illegal robocalls to cost $100 MILLION in fines. Of course, those 2002 robocalls got John Sununu Jr (R-NH) into the Senate, where he controls the FCC, and he hasn't given up the job he DDoS'ed his way into. So I don't expect Republicans to cough up the $100M they'd owe for this year's attack on the election process.

Unless maybe enough Republicans get fired in the election tomorrow that they can't do these crimes unpunished anymore. Go to the polls and do your part.

Re:Calling All Voters

[Anonymous Coward]

The RNC are doing things that they KNOW are illegal. Harassment by phone is illegal in itself, plus all the other violations like not identifying who is calling. You don't premeditate a crime unless a) you know you will get away with it or b) you have to. They either think they will keep the house and senate or they must have some serious skeletons in their closet.

Considering all the Republican scandals and resigned congressman while they controlled the house, senate, and executive I think it's pretty clear why they are risking the jail time.

Re:Calling All Voters

[Tweekster]

I have been getting lots of these calls from both sides,

it isnt a clear cut, one party is doing wrong while the other is playing by the rules.

Is it somehow shocking that the republicans AND the democrats are breaking the law en masse?

Re:Calling All Voters

[DragonWriter]

Note: there is no "fine" for illegal robocalling, there is a penalty ($500 or $1,500), but it is not a criminal fine (its not a "crime"), nor one assessed by the FCC, but one recoverable in a private action in state court or one pursued by a State Attorney-General (again in State court). The FCC's only rule is writing the regulations.

So the Republicans control over the FCC has no effect on whether or not the Republicans are forced to cough up the money for these violations; that will be up to whether or not the victims or the state attorneys-general pursue legal action, and, if they do, up to the courts. Now, Republican influence over the Supreme Court could ultimately be an issue, but that's different than the FCC.

Re:Calling All Voters

[DavidTC]

No, you haven't.

If you think you have, google their name and 'robocaller' and you'll find out who's doing it.

Re:Calling All Voters

[Doc Ruby]

I didn't specify what controlling the FCC has to do with recovering these fines, because there's no "direct" connection. But I do think that Sununu getting elected by illegal robocalling to control the FCC tells us a lot about what's wrong with telecom in this country.

And what's wrong has a lot to do with Republicans. It's no coincidence that we've got (Bush) Jr as president, (Sununu) Jr from NH controlling the FCC, (Kean) Jr nearly in an NJ Senate seat, another Bush running Florida... these family cronies are just part of the crony system. Since you mentioned the Supreme Court, it occurs to me that Clarence Thomas' wife worked for the Bush 2000 campaign, vetting resumes for the incoming admin that depended on her husband's "vote" for Bush to be president. Oh, and Colin Powell's son was the first Bush FCC head. And

William Rehnquist's daughter was nominated for Inspector General with Health and Human Services. Antonin Scalia's son was made Solicitor of Labor. Clarence Thomas's wife was nominated for a top position in the Office of Management and Budget. And Strom Thurmond's son, only three years out of law school, was handpicked by Strom himself to be South Carolina's US Attorney.

Of course, there's plenty more where that came from. Now, I'm willing to believe that Democrats are just as nepotistic, just as cronyist. If someone can show me the evidence. Until then, I'll consider Republican obsession with "Kennedy Dynasty" and "Clinton Dynasty", much more limited and all ratified by voters (not merely appointments), as their inspiration to convert the US political system to the hereditary European system they emulate in so many other ways.

Re:Calling All Voters

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation +2
    50% Insightful
    30% Interesting
    20% Troll

Hopefully the diehard Republicans will turn out tomorrow in the same force as the TrollMods. The authoritarian 23% who would drag us all along as they follow Bush over the cliff. Which should get outweighed by the 80% (including the Democrats' 3 authoritarian points) voting to stop before it's too late.

Re:Calling All Voters

[Doc Ruby]

Are you in New Hampshire, on the Do Not Call list? What makes you think that the calls you've gotten are breaking the law? Political robocalls aren't against the law. Even in New Hampshire, they're only illegal if you're on the Do Not Call list, while other states don't even have that restriction.

I'm not shocked, but I'm disappointed whenever Republicans are caught at their crimes, and people's response is "Democrats do it just as much", without any evidence that they are.

Re:Calling All Voters

[glesga_kiss]

Please please please tell me that this stuff is all over the mainstream news and that most folk are aware of the dirty tricks. If not, I have offically lost all hope for the USA.

Re:Calling All Voters

[Doc Ruby]

Well, I'm not sure how "all over" it is in the mass news media. I don't tune in to the mass news media. Instead I took control of the media myself, using the Net even to find the TV I want to watch over cable. I haven't been able to read a newspaper for a over a decade without gagging on the obvious agenda, and broadcast news is even worse. Cable news is pretty bad, with a few exceptions, like some shows on MSNBC and PBS - but not all on those networks.

I'm not alone. I think the "mass" media is breaking up, giving way to interactive media, media blogs steered by commentary, and eventually P2P journalism. The old system is crashing under its own weight. Even these phonejamming and evil robocalling systems are new media, that people will learn to protect ourselves from.

So while it's pretty bad here in the US, I think we've turned some corners. YouTube, political/social blogs, mobile media phones, social networks - all of them give regular people much more balance of media power. That is where the hope lies in the US: the power of the people to work with (and against) each other, without relying on some king or CEO to connect to reality.

Re:Calling All Voters

[Doc Ruby]

Oh, and it's even worse - Republicans are scamming the vote everywhere they can, like in Maryland, where they'll probably lose anyway. I hope a lot of them go to jail, even though they'll overload the courts.

Re:Calling All Voters

[Tweekster]

Yes, I have. I dont think the republicans are running anti republican calls.

Re:Calling All Voters

[glesga_kiss]

See, that's what I'm hoping for. However, I am very aware of the fact that the people you find on the net aren't representative of the general population. Lot's of folk I know here in the UK don't use the net much past email and booking flights etc., so they are unaware of the "alternative media" out there. I suppose the best each of us can do is to play our part and point more and more alternate sources out to people.

Nice, that number works!

[Dr. Spork]

The answering machine lists various employees and their extensions. Unfortunately, the operator is not available.

This story is amusing...

[Overly Critical Guy]

This story is amusing because Republicans are claiming the same thing about Democrats. In fact, a caller on Rush Limbaugh's show today described a call she received at 3 in the morning from someone claiming to be a Republican, and that others are also receiving calls specifically from 10 to 3 at night, the theory being that pranksters are trying to anger voters.

Re:This story is amusing...

[ben there...]

Was the caller's name Mrs. Cheney? Because it sounds to me like they're trying to turn the story into "...but everybody does it." I could be wrong though, because you know everything you hear on Rush Limbaugh's show is the truth....

Re:This story is amusing...

[aardvarkjoe]

From reading the linked story, the calls might be a little misleading, but they're not claiming to be from a democrat -- in fact, the message ends with the obligatory "paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee" mssage. It's bad, though not really any worse than the "phone poll" smear calls that I was getting several weeks ago (which were all badmouthing republican candidates, for all those idiots who seem to think that this stupidity is limited to the party that they don't like.) Calls that falsely claim to be from a particular party are much worse, although I suspect that most of them are done by individual pranksters and not condoned by the people who stand to benefit.

I used to make a point of not voting for anyone who disrespects the people enough to harass them with automated phone calls. Of course, at this point, that pretty much means turning in an empty ballot.

Re:This story is amusing...

[LindseyJ]

Seeing as everybody does do it, I don't see how that's 'turning the story into' anything.

I could be wrong though, because you know everything you read on Slashdot is the truth.... (and not spun in the least)

Re:This story is amusing...

[Anonymous Coward]

ends with the obligatory "paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee" mssage.

Except the calls are required by law to begin with the obligatory disclosure. The problem is that these Republican ads are designed to deceive people into thinking they come from Democrats. That deception cannot be accomplished if the Republicans obey the law. So they don't.

Re:This story is amusing...

[woztheproblem]

Other people have commented that this law does not apply to political messages. (because there is an exemption in a separate portion of the US Code) Do you have a source you could post showing this to be false?

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

- As opposed to the Republican House leadership, which has known this for years and covered it up? Democratic members of the Page board was not told anything of the complaints about Foley.

- Let's theoretize for a moment that an experienced politician and a war veteran like John Kerry would intentionally insult the soldiers just before an important election. Not very likely, but even if he did the stupid thing and did not think how his words would be interpreted, that interpretation would be true. The Pentagon has been scraping the bottom of the barrel for new IED fodder. People with nowhere else to go in their lives are accepted into the military with welcoming hands.

- Are you really implying that the timing of Saddam's verdict is just a co-incidence? Then I have a bridge to sell you.

And it's also FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the 'summary' is just that person's interpretation of events. Most of the articles linked to just talk about how people are upset because they are hearing negative ads, not because people are supposedly duping them into thinking the Democrats are calling them.

but, Bill Clinton's PENIS!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all Bill Clinton's fault, Karl Rove told me! Republicans can do anything at all and find a way of shifting the blame to someone else. Bush lied about WMD, well it's no biggie because Bill Clinton thought Saddam had WMD. A high ranking Republican congressman had sex with underage boys and the GOP leadership covered it up, it's no problem because this one time 20 years ago a Democrat dated a page. Dick Cheney shot a man in the face while hunting quailtards and then that man had to apologize (!), it's no problem because this one time 30 years ago Ted Kennedy was in a car accident in which a girl died. The Whitehouse paid off reporters to write favorable stories, ordered the NSA to spy on Americans without warrants, tortures people, runs a series of secret prisons, put a crony in charge of FEMA and then fiddled while New Orleans drowned, removed due process rights for suspected terrorists, abducted people and shipped them off to be tortured without trial, etc. (I could really keep going for hours)- NONE OF IT IS THEIR FAULT, because you see there was this guy named Bill Clinton and has a penis...

Re:but, Bill Clinton's PENIS!

[LindseyJ]

Wow. You're really batting about 0 with everything you just wrote.

(I could really keep going for hours)

I'm sure you could. I also have a very active imagination.

Re:but, Bill Clinton's PENIS!

[Anonymous Coward]

:) That's hilarious!

If that isn't spin, I don't know what is.

[ben there...]

RTFA. It wasn't "just one person," it was SEVERAL Democratic campaign workers.

The actions of a few Democratic campaign workers who affected a few Republican voters in no way compares to a coordinated, tens or hundreds of thousand dollar strategy by a national Republican organization, affecting over 300,000 Democratic voters.

Re:If that isn't spin, I don't know what is.

[LindseyJ]

So turn off your phone. That costs you what, 3 seconds?

I wish you could say the same to those people who have to go buy new tires.

Re:If that isn't spin, I don't know what is.

[WilliamSChips]

What if, say, you need your phone for your job? I'd suspect that to be true for a large number of people.

I wish you could say the same to people who only have to spend at most a hundred dollars for new tires.

Re:If that isn't spin, I don't know what is.

[toddestan]

So turn off your phone. That costs you what, 3 seconds?

So that's your response to an attempt by a major political party to swing an election by illegal and unethical means? Democracy is doomed.

Re:If that isn't spin, I don't know what is.

[LindseyJ]

Seeing as both political parties do and have done it in the past (as well as a host of other illegal and unethical election-swinging methos), I don't see what your point is, exactly.

So yeah, that's my response. Turn your goddamn phone off. If it bothers you so much, sue them over it. Don't vote for them. Write your senator (chances are, he or she is doing it too, or something just as bad). Why you think sitting around a web forum and bitching about it will help in the slightest is beyond me. But the way I see it, people like you aren't likely to do much else, so I gave you the advice I thought would be most useful to you.

Re:If that isn't spin, I don't know what is.

[Anonymous Coward]

An Ohio woman, who did not leave her name, called The Washington Post in tears yesterday, saying she could not keep her phone line open to hospice workers caring for her terminally ill mother because of nonstop political robo-calls .

Yea, I can't imagine why anybody wouldn't just turn their phone off. It's not as if a jammed phone line can have horrifying consequences on perfectly innocent people, especially when the illegal jamming is done on a massive scale. I know that I've never had reason to try and keep a phone line open in anticipation of important news from family or friends.

Why you think sitting around a web forum and bitching about it will help in the slightest is beyond me.
Typical zealot copout. Your insanely pathetic position is exposed, so now you try to trot out whatever lie you think people won't be able to think up a valid response to. You picked a crummy lie to use.

I should do what exactly? Write my senators who had nothing to do with it and complain? Or maybe ask them to outlaw the illegal behavior? Or should I file a lawsuit that will be immediately dismissed since I didn't receive the calls? Or maybe you'd like me to write to my representative who's almost certainly about to lose his job, replaced by a democrat who had nothing to do with this? Pleae, you know it all, right? So why don't you tell me, what am I supposed to do that will have any impact on this except yell as loudly as I can so that people here about it? Come on, chuckles, let's hear you explain how I can have any impact here other than by educating fellow citizens?

What's your next excuse, that I'm not supposed to be morally outraged at the way innocent people are being harrassed by a massively corrupt political party? Should I just sit back and ignore the way other people are being abused because it didn't affect me and I have no legal recourse?

I guess that makes sense, though. R's didn't get the image of aloofness and callous self-absorption for no reason, after all.

Voter Information

[emil10001]

You can try this website:

http://www.vote-smart.org/

I'm in Mass, and I think they do a decent job with handling the information. For those who are in a voting office, you can see their records. Another really helpful thing is to check the NPAT (National Political Awareness Test) results, if available. Being the day before the election, the site seems to be running a bit slow, so be patient. Hope the site is helpful. (I am not affilated with vote-smart.org in any way)

Re:Voter Information

[thesaint05]

And as far as all those ads are concerned, you can check out Fact-Check. They go through and analyze almost every single political ad out there and determine the veracity of the claims made. They're also non-partisan.

Re:Voter Information

[cheezit]

I checked their questionnaire and noticed a definite conservative slant to their questions and to the options provided in response. I also noticed that many politicians (of all stripes) were unwilling to fill these out.

Seems odd that many interest groups (NRA, AARP, etc.) can examine positions and votes of candidates well enough to rate them, yet this site tries to put candidates on the spot, fails, and then claims that the candidates are hiding something. I don't really see why this thing is interesting beyond enabling one to bitch about what looks like out-of-touch politicians---which after all doesn't need a questionnaire.

Re:Voter Information

[Karl Cocknozzle]

You can try this website:

http://www.vote-smart.org/

...not tonight you can't.... Slashdotted to all hell, since tomorrow is election day... As expected, my fellow citizens are all waiting until the eleventh hour to do their research.

Sad, sad, sad

[TheCabal]

I'm saddened that politicos still find a way to shock me, even after all these years. Why is it that its always The People that wind up being abused to further one person's agenda? I suppose someone will make a comment that it's just indicative of just how desperate the Republicans are, but they've stooped to such low tactics before.

List of districts

[wass]

Here's an article from the DailyKos, which lists at least 24 districts (as of this post) from which people have reported getting the robo-calls. Has anybody here on slashdot received such calls AND in regards to a district not mentioned in that article?

My friend was killed by falling Dumbo-crap...

[StressGuy]

YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD!!!

Until then...I ain't never seen and elephant fly! {...sniff...}

Re:Google it -even more info

[microcars]

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:Ab8Dv9sbINEJ:w ww.conquestgroup.com/AboutUs/About.htm+www.conques tgroup.com/AboutUs/About.htm

includes address, phone and fax!

Conquest's offices are located at:
2812 Emerywood Parkway, Suite 103
Richmond, Virginia 23294
Ph. - 804-358-0560
Fax - 804-213-0797

also- this is their BIO page that was removed:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:CPnxuxurTJcJ:w ww.conquestgroup.com/AboutUs/bios.htm+www.conquest group.com/AboutUs/bios.htm

and look, here is a list of their clients:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:xa4ToI2UQAAJ:w ww.conquestgroup.com/Clients.htm+www.conquestgroup .com/Clients.htm

In Newspeak

[Ralph Spoilsport]

BB directive: Outerparty subcontract (2 million dollars +) thoughtcrime spamcalls for Emmanuel Goldstein. To unbellyfeel Goldstein thoughtcriminals, doubleplus fullwise BB victory.

I miss Bill Clinton

[ragtoplvr]

Heck, now I miss Nixon

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Talk about doublethink. In the same breath, you blame the Dems for the timing of the Foley scandal, and then think that the timing of the Saddam verdict must be just a coincidence. Must be weird living in your head.

And how is what Kerry said a dirty trick? Even if it had been a slam at the troops (which nobody but Tony Snow thought) then what effect did it have? Can you explain why Kerry said what you thought you heard?

What's the problem with breaking an FCC reg?

[Anonymous Coward]

Afterall, you are talking about a political party that is down with torture, coerced confessions, extended imprisonment without charges and without access to counsel, and warrantless searches. After all that, we are supposed to get outraged about a violation of FCC regs?

The Democrats are all about enfranchisement!

[ChePibe]

I mean, look at this!

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/ stlouiscitycounty/story/B400FAC3338F7D0C8625721500 2217D1?OpenDocument

Giving the right to vote to thousands of people, without even making them sign pesky cards or fill out paperwork.

How nice of them.

Obviously, the above is not the DNC directly, but an activist group which really, really supports the DNC. And it's an allegation, but one which seems to have a lot of steam behind it.

Even more obviously, the DNC is hardly alone in doing this - the good old GOP has done it as well.

What strikes me is that people are treating a stupid automated call drive as the big issue - it's not. Smear campaigns do fall under the first ammendment, regardless of how stupid they are (and I think they're a huge waste). Smearing an opponent does not disenfranchise voters the same way as preventing them from going to a polling place does.

There are serioius issues that need to be looked at when it comes to voting security - electronic or otherwise. Far too many zombies emerging to vote and far too many voter registration cards for people that don't exist.

Auto-dialers don't piss me off nearly as much as thousands of "questionable" voter registration cards. Now THAT is disenfranchisement by reducing the power of each individual's vote

Re:The Democrats are all about enfranchisement!

[Intron]

Ummm.. voter registration is not voting so how would it reduce the effectiveness of anyone's vote? Did you even read the article that you linked to?

If this is annoying you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please get the word out to your friends and family about what's really going on here. No doubt part of what they're counting on is that this won't hit the news at all -- or at least not until it's too late to do anything about it.

There are still a whole bunch of people who aren't connected to the Internet who are getting these calls and deserve to know the story behind them before they decide not to hit the polls tomorrow out of disgust. Although this may seem a little absurd given the context, give them a call and tell them what's up.

Parent is *not* flamebait

[Nimey]

Parent is not flamebait. Furrfu.

Democraps are doing the same thing in my district!

[Moryath]

So what's your point? Slashdot is hopelessly biased, we know that - but this is a common campaign scheme, and the Democraps are doing it to me and my neighbors in the middle of the night claiming to be calling from the Republican campaign.

What?

[dlhm]

This is funny! "and possibly all races"... Ok lets speculate.. I have received many calls on my cell phone and home phone from the DNC even though they are on the "do not call list" "potentially up to 18 times or more " yippe more specualtion! "they hear a smear message" yet another opinion... If it's true it's bad judgment.. if it's false it's a "Smear" campaign by the press and DNC against the republicans.. How much money has the DNC spent calling people? Why is this not quoted?

Re:What?

[tthomas48]

DNC is not on your "do not call list" except in your head. They are exempt, as are the Republicans. As are "Otters for Clean Streams" for that matter. The DNC and the RNC have spent millions calling people. But that has no bearing on this issue. The issue here is the fact that they are repeatedly calling after you hang up, which is illegal. They are also making it look like a member of the opposite party is doing it. Which may be illegal.
This has no bearing on whether or not you like getting phone calls during election season.

Re:What?

[spitzak]

Unfortunatly, Democrats and Republicans were both involved in making your "do not call list" and thus both managed to make themselves exempt from it.

Re:What?

[Panoramix]

How much money has the DNC spent calling people? Why is this not quoted?

I don't know, but if I had to guess, I'd say probably not much. I mean, if that particular datum were newsworthy, it'd be all over the news by now.

But... why is that particular question relevant? I mean, if the Democrats were doing the same, does it somehow justify the Republicans? Would it make it right, or at least not as wrong?

Anyway. I don't really care for, or know much about, your political parties. I'm just another foreigner watching the process from home, concerned about the possibility of your neocons keeping their power. That'd be just sad.

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

- Waited to announce someone they called a "child predator" until October so they could use it as an October Surprise.

- A Republican exposed Foley, you dipshit

- Indicated that doing poorly at school would get you "sent to Iraq".

- Listen to the quote in context, you dipshit

- Blamed the Republicans for "orchestrating" the Saddam guilty verdict coming out this past weekend.

- Who the fuck. ever. said. that? Post a source. Oh right, none exists. Dipshit.

Simple

[michaelwigle]

I think most Republicans just shrug this off when Democrats do it. I've been getting something similar to this from the Democratic party for a couple weeks. At first I thought it was a message from a Republican candidate (that I know fairly well) but it quickly turned into a malicious slamming with outright lies (I knew they were because I was involved with some of the things mentioned). I shrugged and hung up. I don't care. Truth of the matter is that both sides do really stupid things during campaigns and I'm not real proud of anyone during campaign time. But it seems to me that Democrats tend to yell louder and cry foul more but Republicans seem to quietly shrug their shoulders and let their vote speak for them. I think that's why it seem that Republicans do this underhanded stuff more. But from where I"m standing, both sides do it about equally.

As a side note, I'm a Canadian so I can't vote but I've lived in the U.S. for 7 years and am somewhat active in local politics and government because I live here and have a stake in things too. I can't vote, but I can tell my voting friends what I think on topics and individual politicians and let them decide for themselves.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

The premise of your comment is that Republicans are strong and take it but Democrats are weak and whine about it. But then you pretend to be a neutral foreigner. Looking at your website, it appears you have a strong connection to a particular church, so much so you decided where to live based on the location of your church:

Heather and I both serve our Lord Jesus Christ to the best of our ability. We worship Him at Christ's Community in Price Hill on 931 McPherson at 10:30am. One of the criteria we wanted when we bought our house was to live so close to our church that it made more sense to walk than drive no matter how bad the weather. We are only a block away for our church.

From where I am standing you are an evangelical or equivalent who wants to insert your politics into American government. Doing so is anathema to the continued survival of the United States (and unconstitutional). But you don't really have to worry about that, do you?

Except...

[ChePibe]

It was 4 of them.

One the son of a DNC congresswoman.

The other three DNC campaign workers.

And there is no mention as to whether they were intoxicated.

If you're going to complain, at least get your facts straight. I know we don't read articles here at slashdot, but I've found it to be helpful. Particularly when you complain about others trying to "deceive" people.

Re:Except...

[scotch]

Yeah, but, yeah, but, yeah, but. Jesus, you people will argue about anything. Only a shill would try to maintain that the two activities were comparable in scope, effect, and party endorsement.

You can now go back to your yeah-buts.

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[JhohannaVH]

Nah, the Dimowits are just *that* desperate. Muwahahahahahah.

Seriously, they aren't *any* freakin' better, and you know it.

Anyone that has served in office for the last 12 years is complicit in all the bullshit being flung today. So, do us all a favor... don't reinforce votes for any of the ASSHATS currently in office (hey, if you like your candidate, they must not be an asshat, right?). It just so figures that that means I have to vote straight Republican on my OH SO LIBERAL AND DEMOCRAT precinct. And vote NO on anything that raises taxes!

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

politics.slashdot.org did not exist in the clinton days. Point me to one truly negative article (not an opinion column) from a major news source when clinton was president.

Re:Look at me! I'm a Republican!

[DnemoniX]

And this has what to do with my post? If I were a Troll I'd post as an Anonymous Coward...oh wait...

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[squiggleslash]

Indicated that doing poorly at school would get you "sent to Iraq".

You meant of course indicated that poor planning would get you (the President) stuck in Iraq, right?

I mean, you wouldn't actually be lying about what Kerry said and meant now, would you?

Re:Democraps are doing the same thing in my distri

[scheming daemons]

So what's your point? Slashdot is hopelessly biased, we know that - but this is a common campaign scheme, and the Democraps are doing it to me and my neighbors in the middle of the night claiming to be calling from the Republican campaign.

Oh, bullshit.

You heard some astroturfer call in to Rush Limbaugh today with this and now you are claiming it is happening to you.

It's very easy to see what Republicans are up to.... just look for what they are accusing Democrats of doing, and then you'll know.

As Haggard, Foley, and others continue to prove... the GOP is the party of extreme hypocrisy. If you want to know what they're up to, just listen for what they're yelling about from the other side.

Don't forget the baby-eating!

[leoc]

A vote for the Democrats is a vote for baby eating! (*)

(*) This message brought to you by the Republican Never-Ate-A-Baby Committee.

Re:Don't forget the baby-eating!

[DavidTC]

I just saw this on CNN:

What appear to be three infant skull, at least one with what the FBI has called 'bite marks', have been discovered in the office of Mike DeWine (R-OH). DeWine has headed the Republican Never-Ate-A-Baby Committee since 1998. More on this story as it develops.

Re:Don't forget the baby-eating!

[Anonymous Coward]

(*) This message brought to you by the Republican Never-Ate-A-Baby Committee.

George Bush once put a baby in his mouth but didn't chew... so it doesn't count.

And this is any different than......

[Ian McBeth]

My Mom getting several calls between 10PM and 3AM, by Democrats pretending to be Republicans?

Somehow I think not.

If its wrong for one, its wrong for both. Tell the whole story next time, K thanks.

AT-5000 Autodialer

[xis10ial]

What would Happy Dude do?

Then sue.

[skids]

Then you would be well advised to gather data and sue them.

We Democrats are sure as heck going to be suing "Conquest Communications" and their financers, and frankly if there are some Democratic operatives that think it is OK to do this, you should sue them. We don't want those kind of people in our party. They are both a disgrace and a liability.

Someone I work with can't contact her MT son

[WillAffleckUW]

because all the robocalls to Montana are flooding the phone lines.

And I've been getting emails from relatives in Vermont that the illegal robocalls are happening a lot in the Northeast.

Main thing is simple: make sure everyone you know votes. Then the results are what they are.

Realize that those who lack morals will use dirty tricks to try to stop you from doing what you were going to do, and do it anyway.

Re:Someone I work with can't contact her MT son

[Anonymous Coward]

I called a GOP candidate and asked to be removed from their calling list. The lady who answered laughed at me. I asked why she thought that was so funny, and she said it is because "we live in the United States of America." If I didn't like it, I "should move to a communist country!" Well, I don't like it, and my vote is certainly not going to be for that candidate!

Re:So Slashkos.. what are the Democrats dirty tric

[Garse Janacek]

[Democrats are] running an innocent and angelic campaign and wouldn't do anything bad at all and/or their dirty tricks aren't things nerds would care about eh?

I see similar comments on every thread that talks about possible election shenanigans by the Republican party. Now, here's the thing... Assuming this sort of rebuttal is correct, and the Democrats are just as blatantly corrupt and deceitful as the Republicans (which somehow makes it okay? -- but anyway), the one thing I'd like to hear from you is:

Given the balance of power in this country, you Republicans are clearly much more skilled at your corruption, ballot stuffing, etc... so do you think you could give us some tips? We'd really appreciate it...

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Has it occured to you that your percieved slashdot bias against Republicans has to do with the 'news for nerds' angle.
The IQs are higher than average around here, the majority of the slashdot readership is smart enough see through these corrupt incompetents. Spin it how you will, worst President ever ...

I'll post as an AC as almost all of the rightwing spam on slashdot is AC

Re:don't call list? -- Cell phones?

[Hollinger]

I'm pursuing this now in my spare time -- I'm curious to know what the rules are re: political calls to cell phones.

I called the TN Regulatory Authority (among other things they manage the TN do not call list), and the gent I spoke with said that political calls are protected. However, the same document says (I *think*) that cell phone calling is disallowed explicitly.

Further, federal law states that cell phone calling is illegal (but gives the same waiver to political calls for other things).

I'm trying to send out feelers to see whether the "calling a cell phone" issue might superscede the free pass that political calls are given.

Anyone know?

Then we can be like Italy!

[HighOrbit]

And have a chaotic system. I forget the exact number, but IIRC, but through the 1940's-80's, Italy had more Goverments than years - The goverment falls and a new coalition has to be elected every eight months or so, because nobody has a real majority. It is a notoriously unstable system.

The two-party republician (i.e. president and congress) winner-take-all system is substanially more stable than proportional representation. The two parties are also able to co-opt third parties by incorporating any good ideas that the third party may orgininate, thus leaving the third party with only more extreme ideas to differentiate itself from the major parties.

Re:Then we can be like Italy!

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the main reasons for unstable governments in Italy was the U.S. interference in their domestic politics. Italy had a relatively powerful mainstream Communist party after WW2 and the USA was doing their best to keep them out of governmental power.

Re:Then we can be like Italy!

[pjt33]

If you're measuring the quality of a system of government by the length of time a government lasts, totalitarian dictatorship wins. There's a balance to find between being so stable that you don't respond to the will of the people and being so unstable that you can never get anything done. At the moment the US is on the too stable side.

Re:Then we can be like Italy!

[Phleg]

FWIW, voting systems that aren't first-past-the-post don't necessarily have to also enforce proportional representation.

Re:Then we can be like Italy!

[MichaelSmith]

And have a chaotic system. I forget the exact number, but IIRC, but through the 1940's-80's, Italy had more Goverments than years - The goverment falls and a new coalition has to be elected every eight months or so, because nobody has a real majority. It is a notoriously unstable system.

Not in Australia. We do have proportional representation and coalition governments but it hasn't resulted in instability. Our governments typically last longer than US governments, probably because we don't have a two term rule.

Our main right wing party is a coalition of the Liberal and National parties. They get along pretty well.

Sure, blame the "liberal media"...

[rjung2k]

Yes, the media is dominated by leftists who want to do nothing but make Republicans look bad -- why, I can't believe how they've been hammering Bush non-stop for bungling things the last six years...

Re:don't call list? -- Cell phones?

[tthomas48]

If you point this out they will probably just pass an exemption. There's really no way that either party is going to allow you to stop getting political calls.

The US system works well

[amightywind]

In the USA there is no prime minister, which is a shame. It is much, much easier for the parliament to get rid of a prime minister who turns out to be incompetent. Impeaching a president is a much more tedious process than a simple vote of non-confidence and a big deal in the USA.

In a parlimentary system the your chief executive is appointed by party elites, not unlike our senate or house leadership. The President is a popularly elected executive and a separate government branch. The checks and balances of the three branches has worked very well for us. The certainty of the length of term for the President allows them time to implement a program such that the electorate can judge the results. The parlimentary system is much less stable, judging from the way you in Europe burn through governments, and is short sighted.

Re:The US system works well

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps for the Executive branch specifically, but I do prefer the concepts of the parlimentary voting system as it might apply to the House of Representatives specifically. It's true that the US is an exclusive club of two different sets of really crappy ideas. The only time a third-party has any opportunity is when one of the two parties falters, which is an extremely rare occurance particularly since both parties are perfectly adept at adapting their cause instead of simply becoming obsolete and replaced. Even the two current parties are complete unrecognizable from what they were 30 years ago and 30 years before that. By today's standards Nixon would be a liberal commie pinko.

Re:The US system works well

[dash2]

The parlimentary system is much less stable, judging from the way you in Europe burn through governments, and is short sighted.

Acksherly, political scientists who have crunched the numbers find that parliamentary systems are more stable than presidential ones (think of all those Latin American presidents who become dictators). I think Lijphardt has something on this.

gop and dirty tricks? how surpising!

[coaxial]

The modern GOP (by that I mean since Eisenhower, and Ike wasn't even truly a Republican. He was apolitical -- as the entire military was up until Reagan -- and then ended with his Presidential tenure with the infamous warning of the Military-Industrial Complex. I'd like to see any Republican give such a speech today.) has a long history of dirty tricks, from the Watergate break in, all the way to today. In the 2002 election the GOP jammed the Democratic phone banks in New Hampshire. People went to jail because of that. Race baiting ads as part of their "southern strategy". Challenging legal voters based on bogus "felon lists." Challenging voters to present photo id when it's not a requirement. Informing voters in predominately black neighborhoods that the election was either postponed, or directing them to the wrong precincts. Frankly it's not surprising. The same ones that were running the party back then are the same ones running the party now. Total contempt for democracy. Macavelli would be proud.

No. Democrats don't do these sort of things.. Arguably, because liberals are "too pussy" to cheat, and "too naive" and believe in fair elections.

There was a time when the "Vote Facist for Law and Order" bumper stickers were funny. Now the seem just a bit too truthful.

--
"When the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
-- Richard Nixon, May 19, 1977 interview with Robert Frost

Fuck you, liar.

[Moryath]

Oh, bullshit.

You heard some astroturfer call in to Rush Limbaugh today with this and now you are claiming it is happening to you.

Fuck you, liar. I don't listen to Limbaugh. I got a phone call claiming to be from the Sekula-Gibbs campaign at 11:30 PM. The number (since the dumbfucks didn't block off caller ID) traced back to Lampson's campaign.

Now go fuck yourself.

Re:Fuck you, liar.

[scheming daemons]

Oh, bullshit.

You heard some astroturfer call in to Rush Limbaugh today with this and now you are claiming it is happening to you.

Fuck you, liar. I don't listen to Limbaugh. I got a phone call claiming to be from the Sekula-Gibbs campaign at 11:30 PM. The number (since the dumbfucks didn't block off caller ID) traced back to Lampson's campaign.

Now go fuck yourself.

Ah... so you live in Tom Delay's old district, and no doubt were a supporter of the "exterminator".

That explains a lot.

Since you got the number from caller ID, can you please post it on here so we can verify that what you are saying is true? And how you actually know which numbers belong to the Lampson campaign? Please tell us how you verified that the number on your caller ID was from the Lampson campaign.

I'm still calling you on your bullshit.

ps. If I go "fuck myself", is that better or worse than what right-wing hypocrits like Ted Haggard and Mark Foley have done? I'm sure someone from "Sugarland" like yourself can quote the appropriate scripture for me.

Re:Fuck you, liar.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please post the phone number, date and time of the call so the authorities can be notified.

Re:Fuck you, liar.

[Smidge204]

Caller ID is almost as easy to spoof as the FROM: field in an e-mail. Not to say it wasn't some dumbass intern that left the machine on all night, but if you want to cry conspiracy well... they could spoof the number too.

=Smidge=

Re:Fuck you, liar.

[terrymr]

I can't think of a single political call I've received recently that didn't have spoofed Caller ID ... usually (000) 000-0000. It's easy to do if you're on a PRI circuit.

Oh, it gets better..

[PopeRatzo]

There's more to this story: Today, the Chicago Tribune ran a half-page op-ed column by Dennis Byrne, who's well-known around town as a wingnut, complaining that the Democrats are doing the push-polling!. Now, the only reported cases of push-polling have been perpetrated by Republicans, and he actually uses a script from one of the Republican push-poll calls to illustrate his point, but then he says it was DEMOCRATS who were doing it, when there hasn't been a single report of that this cycle.

That's how slimy this GOP is nowadays. And they've got the stink of desperation on them, which makes them more dangerous than ever.

I really hope they get taught a lesson tomorrow.

Fishy

[dlhm]

WCityMike is from Herndon, VA or at least his ISP is... I think it's fishy :)

Re:Fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean from his website? I hate to tell you, but Herndon is kind of NOVA's hub for hosting providers. Verio and it's resellers have a datacenter there for one, unless I was told wrong.

Re:Democraps are doing the same thing in my distri

[Foobar of Borg]

You heard some astroturfer call in to Rush Limbaugh today with this and now you are claiming it is happening to you.

It's very easy to see what Republicans are up to.... just look for what they are accusing Democrats of doing, and then you'll know.

No kidding! Now they are accusing democrats of homophobia (for attacking people like Foley), anti-Semitism, racism, and wanting absolute power with no checks and balances. I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or move to Switzerland (well, okay, I actually do which one).

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[scheming daemons]

I don't have modpoints, but I have karma to burn, so I'm highlighting this insightful post by an AC so that it gets more eyeballs:

Has it occured to you that your percieved slashdot bias against Republicans has to do with the 'news for nerds' angle. The IQs are higher than average around here, the majority of the slashdot readership is smart enough see through these corrupt incompetents. Spin it how you will, worst President ever ...

Hypothesis 1: The average intelligence of a slashdot reader is higher than the average intelligence of a non-slashdot reader. Slashdot readers are more perceptive than non-slashdot readers and have a better built-in "bullshit detector".

Hypothesis 2: Reality has a liberal bias.

Conclusion: slashdot has a liberal bias because slashdot readers are smarter than your average bear...er... elephant.... and are better able to understand reality.

In marriage counseling they call it "dumping"

[skids]

...or "garbage dumping" when unrelated or long-past issue are brought into an argument in order to throw it off the rails.

Goes hand in hand with "projection" where you attack an adversary and accuse them of something you consider wrong about your own behavior whether or not the same is true of the adversary's. It can be preemptive or retaliatory.

Both are infantile, and favorite tactics of the RNC. Hopefully as a nation tommorrow we will establish that the average voter is "above that."

Re:In marriage counseling they call it "dumping"

[WilliamSChips]

Projection? Isn't that what the Cylons do?

Suing under the TCPA in California

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm reposting this from the other thread as it's relevant.

I have successfully sued companies under the TCPA 3 times in California, and won all three times. All 3 cases were related to fax spam.

In each case, I won by preparing a case that was so strong, the judge had almost no choice but to side with me (and the law). I brought letters from the Attorney General Bill Lockyer supporting my case, and an article from a newspaper where he suggests that the people of California bring suits under the TCPA, saying that's why it exists. I brought over 2,000 references to prior cases, printed into a booklet. I provided full written details of all of my interaction with the defendent.

All in all, I provided over 500 pages of material to the court broken down into many seperate exhibits. I also prepared a written opening statement, very carefully worded, and explained to the judge how the spam industry operates, painting it in an accurate light. The defendant's argument wasn't even relevant, as by the time I was done talking there was nothing they could do to help themselves. Pleading ignorance did not work. I won every time and spent no more than 10 minutes in court for each case.

I was awarded thousands of dollars in damages in each case, and ultimately, each business was forced to completely shut down their fax spam operation as a result of my legal action against them.

So yes, it's very possible to win, thousands and thousands of cases have been won across the nation. If you're not intimidated by the legal system and can handle the stress of representing yourself in a court case, the TCPA is a great way to flex your legal rights in court and to do some good for everyone.

I HIGHLY recommend reading every single word found at www.junkfax.org, which is the site I used as my primary reference during these cases. It helped tremendously and I would say that without that site, I would not have even gotten involved. After reading junkfax.org, I was motivated and confident that I could take these guys to court and win, and I did, and it was very satisfying.

Go get 'em.

Re:Should do things the GOP way ...

[brit74]

Of course, you could go with the Republican route and tie up the Democrat's phone lines so that they can't give rides old and handicapped voters rides to the voting booths.

2002: In New Hampshire, Democrats setup a phone line where disabled or elderly voters can call to get a ride to the polls. On election day, they are mysteriously jammed with calls from people hanging up. Legitimate voters can't get through. After some investigation, they trace the calls back to "GOP Marketplace" in Virginia. Republicans are convicted and admit that they did it to stop Democrats from getting to the polls. James Tobin, New England regional director of the Republican National Committee is convicted.
http://bigbrassballs.wordpress.com/tag/gop-scandal s/phone-jamming/
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/05/17/wednesd ay/index.html?eref=sitesearch

Re:So Slashkos.. what are the Democrats dirty tric

[tthomas48]

A hoax perpetrated by one website:

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/11/06/operation-infi ltraton-update-hoax-with-consequences/

So um. You got any examples of dirty tricks by the national party?

Values Voters

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are the values Republicans?

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean aside from the 6.02x10^23 articles about Lewinsky?

Too Bad the West voted 2 Weeks Ago

[WillAffleckUW]

You can robocall WA, OR, and CA all you want, we voted a long time ago.

Don't you wish you had mail-in elections too?

Re:Too Bad the West voted 2 Weeks Ago

[Anonymous Coward]

In CA it's called: Absentee Voter.

I've been an AV for several years now and it's grand. You get the ballot 30 days before the election so you've plenty of time to research the issues, props and candidates. You can send it back anytime before the election including a postmark that's the DAY OF the election. You can also drop it off at your polling place on the day off if that's easier than a mail box. And best of all?

For the foreseeable future AV will always get paper ballots to mail back and their votes will NOT be subject to any electronic voting machine 'wackiness'.

Also note that any registered voter can become an AV voter. You don't have to have an excuse (out of the country on a vacation Nov. 7th) to become one!

Thank you for your attention...

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The Republican house leadership thought it had been taken care of.

The Democrats KNEW it hadn't been.

2. John Kerry is already well known for insulting veterans. After the Vietnam war, he called his fellow soldiers "baby-killers" and rapists and all sorts of nasty things. Yes, I believe Kerry is quite capable of bad-mouthing soldiers. He had in the past.

3. Of course it's a coincidence. Have you been following the trial at all? It just happened to come to a judgment recently, it's not like they've been purposely delaying it to make sure it comes out in November.

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[wass]

politics.slashdot.org did not exist in the clinton days. Point me to one truly negative article (not an opinion column) from a major news source when clinton was president.

Stop dodging the point. While the SlashDot Politics section may not have existed in those days, if you don't think there were several political articles then you're entirely mistaken.

Off the top of my head there were discussions on the Clinton impeachment itself, the MSFT anti-trust hearings, stories about Eschelon and other governmental sniffing of emails and web traffic, governmental usage of OSS (although I don't recall the OSS acronym being popular in those days) vs closed-source software, stories on government spending levels for science research etc. I've also seen lots of Clinton bashing for shutting down the SSC (although that action happened prior to the creation of SlashDot it was brought up in later comments). Basically, there was quite a large amount of negative sentiment against Clinton, because he was the face of the American government at the time. Just like Bush is now, the primary difference is that Bush has his own party controlling both houses, and therefore no scapegoats when his policies don't work out.

Seriously, though, are you actually claiming that anti-Bush rhetoric on forums like SlashDot are more indicative of general slashdot bias instead of actual REAL CRITICISM of the policies the Bush Administration has implemented to begin with? Would you prefer a SlashDot comment author criticize a Democrat every time he/she criticizes one of Bush's policies?

In an elementary analysis, if you define one item which dominated Clinton's presidency (IMHO, at least) it was "It's the economy, stupid", and that defined the major crux of his policies, for better or worse. Bush's one item would be "The War on Terror", which for better or worse, has led to some seriously questionable activities and legislation which are of importance to slashdotters. So yeah, there are ALOT of things Bush is doing now that Clinton never tried to do, many of which slashdotters are quite sensitive to. So why should they not complain if they feel that strongly about such issues?

Democrats and the stock market

[Crazy Man on Fire]

Actually, the stock market has done better when the democrats were in power, according to NPR (no citation) and this Yahoo! Finance article. So, I welcome the change that is likely to happen tomorrow.

PS - I didn't get any stinking Bush tax cut. I'm not rich enough. Repeal the damn thing already!

Re:Democrats and the stock market

[WilliamSChips]

The Bush tax cut is really like taking out a loan. Which means that taxes will be paid in the future. By whom? Those of us who are young right now. Remember, when you support a tax cut, you support taxing our future.

Re:Democrats and the stock market

[cold fjord]

I question the validity of the data set and analysis of the article you link to. Why start from Trumans 2nd term, and not his first? He included Ford even though Ford only server part of a term. That does have the effect of trimming several years of flat growth, based on S&P500 data, which helps boost Democratic averages. I also question the assertion that the market reacts to policies that aren't enacted yet, and which may never be enacted, which is what he is doing by stating that the markets change on the election results. That may be true for some things, but I doubt it is for others. That timing of the analytical window for each administration also has the "happy" effect of insulating the Clinton administration from some of the internet bubble meltdown, pushing more of it onto the Bush administration, once again raising the Democratic Clinton administration average. On the other end, it may also steal some of the good economic numbers from the 1st Bush (Sr.) administration. I would certainly want to run those numbers a couple of different ways before I trusted them. For some reason I think he has run them more than once too.

Re:Democrats and the stock market

[ezeri]

PS - I didn't get any stinking Bush tax cut. I'm not rich enough. Repeal the damn thing already!

Only on slashdot could you say something so obviously BS and get modded up. The tax cuts were across the board, every singe tax payer got one. Unless you have no income (or perhaps some extreme poverty line), your lieing.

Re:Democrats and the stock market

[QuantumPion]

The Bush tax cut is really like taking out a loan. Which means that taxes will be paid in the future. By whom? Those of us who are young right now. Remember, when you support a tax cut, you support taxing our future.

Only if you assume a zero-sum static economy. In reality, tax cuts stimulate economic development, leading to an increase in government revenue.

Re:Democrats and the stock market

[nahdude812]

If this is true, then they should just keep cutting taxes and making more and more money!

Hyperbole aside, cutting taxes does stimulate economic development for a net gain only in a downward facing economy. It does increase government revenue in the mid term, but not as much as higher taxes in an upward facing economy. The principle is exactly the same as the one the Fed uses to decide on interest rates.

Substantial economic change, whether positive or negative, is unhealthy for the economy. Even healthy economies need brief periods of recession as check points. The longer you have unmitigated growth, the longer the necessary eventual recession. Short growth, shorter recession, repeat - this is the path to the healthiest long term economy.

Whenever you cut taxes, you eventually have to raise them again. The income that lower taxes ultimately generates for the government diminishes over time. A smart government raises taxes during economic growth to slow it down (and thus shorten the eventual recession), and lowers taxes during recession (to speed recovery).

What we see in the US is the republicans repeatedly expending this economic governance tool, and the democrats having to reset it again since the economy requires it.

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[DavidTC]

We had huge discussions over the DMCA, you fuckwad. We also had dicussions about that idiot, Tipper Gore, and her little 'Let's label everything under the sun' campaign.

But you're an anonymous coward, so have only been here the last two hours for all I know.

3 easy steps...

[ChePibe]

Step 1 - Register thousands of fake/otherwise uninterested people to vote

Step 2 - Get people to use these fake voter ID cards (all you need's the card - no picture ID) to "vote early and vote often" - absentee ballots, taking people to multiple polling stations, etc.

Step 3 - Power!

Re:3 easy steps...

[Intron]

1. The article you linked never mentions anybody getting fake id cards

2. Missouri requires photo id and proof of citzenship for all voters

3. Therapy may help your paranoia

Re:3 easy steps...

[Anonymous Coward]

2. Missouri requires photo id and proof of citzenship for all voters

Almost, but no cigar.

The Supreme Court has ruled the photo ID requirement for voting law unconstitutional

Or, from the Post
Missouri high court strikes down voter ID law

Re:So Slashkos.. what are the Democrats dirty tric

[Anonymous Coward]

"A hoax perpetrated by one website:"

Just like this entire post...

"But the RNCC, which has spent $16,000 in the last five days to fund phone banks against Hall, insists it doesn't condone the type of persistent call backs described by local voters in numerous e-mails to the Times Herald-Record.
"We are not engaged in what appear to be multiple phone calls taking place at regular intervals that appear to do nothing other than annoy voters," RNCC spokesman Ed Patru said."
or
"Jonathan Collegio, NRCC spokesman, acknowledged that the NRCC has paid for series of robocalls in the 6th and 8th districts, saying phone banking are part of any modern campaign.

"Phone banking is used by campaigns of all stripes and all these calls are made between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m.," he said.

Asked about the repetitive nature of the calls, Collegio said that may be a problem with the contractor.

"Because these calls are done by computers, it could be some kind of a glitch. This is all a matter of voter contact where we are trying to make sure people are aware of the upcoming election and make sure they vote the right way," he said. "

Gosh... why would SlashKos make a posting like this? Oh wait..

" I just got off the phone with the New York State head of the DNC's official lawyers committee.

She has local and national reporters who are EAGER to speak to voters who have been harassed by repetitive robocalls. We need to put some meat on the bones of this story.

If you have been called repeatedly please contact me. If you have recorded these calls even better because then it might be covered by the TV media, not just the print media. They want to speak to New York State voters only for this story."
ahref=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/6/1421 33/889rel=url2html-22005http://www.dailykos.com/st ory/2006/11/6/142133/889>

Or the RNC way?

[Travoltus]

Republicans engaged in phone jamming in 2004:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=18 29056

a Republican official was CONVICTED of this, too:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/05/16/AR2006051601712.html

Re:Look at me! I'm a Republican!

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be that they are. It could also be that it's evidence of widespread disillusionment with what the Republican party has become. I'm voting Libertarian and Democrat this year, and probably for the next few elections too. The Republicans have completely lost their way and they have completely lost my vote until there are some major changes.

Re:gop and dirty tricks? how surpising!

[uqbar]

Actually I would say the Democrats do these things - but they do them to the Green Party...

Counter-example: Diebold

[vistic]

Well... there's been some problems with Diebold's electronic voting machines where people were trying to vote for the Republican but the machine kept saying they voted for the Democrat. In fact, almost all the errors with electronic voting machines seem to favor the Democrats.

Oh... wait. My mistake, I got that completely opposite of what's actually been happening.

Yeah, I can't think of anything off the top of my head. I guess we just can't be as corrupt as the Republicans.

Wahahaha!

[Moryath]

And they call it "flamebait" to point out how biased the media is.

Fucking leftist crapmods we have here... business as usual for Slashshit.

Re:Wahahaha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's quite obvious by watching at least 10 minutes of the various news channels that the media is not 100% leftist.

That's why it's flamebait. Because it's not-fucking-true.

Re:Wahahaha!

[guspasho]

Troll much?

Re:Wahahaha!

[mode13]

Fucking leftist crapmods we have here... business as usual for Slashshit.

Do you have something against Democrap Islamofacist Loving Libtool Cut and Run Dhimmicrats as mods on Slashshit?

I just called! Re:Conquest Communication Group

[elwinc]

Josh Marshall, at Talkingpointsmemo http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ has a pointer http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001944.php to the google cache version http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:chTn88IH384J: www.conquestgroup.com/ContactUs/Contact.cfm+%22con quest+communications%22+and+contact&hl=en&gl=us&ct =clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a of Conquest Communications' contact page. When I called 804-358-0560, I got an electronic voice giving a list of two digit extensions counting up from around 24. I picked a random one, politely gave my (real) name and (real) phone number, said I had heard about the robocalling and wondered if they guy had any comment. I hope he calls me back!

Actually what I get

[Orion Blastar]

are calls about Republicans that pause and then smear the Republican. RoboDemocrats or whatever are doing the same thing the Republicans are accused of doing. The Caller ID is spoofed to 000-000-0000 and other numbers, so I cannot tell what number was used to call.

The Do Not Call List in Missouri claims that polls and campaign calls are not covered under the Do Not Call list. So they are legal in Missouri.

I signed up for a Democratic web site like The Daily Kos, and I get a ton of junk mail from them on Pro-Democratic issues and now phone calls that pretend to be Republican candidates, and then pause and start to trash the Republican candidate like saying he/she wants to take away our freedoms and liberties like George W. Bush does.

If you're going to rip of MAD magazine...

[whyde]

at least give the attribution:

Guaranteed Effective All-Occasion Non-Slanderous Political Smear Speech
By Bill Garvin
MAD #139, December 1970

Re:If you're going to rip of MAD magazine...

[diersing]

My apologies, I used an unreliable source to quote, I will re-verify such C&P items in the future. I meant no discredit or disrespect to Mr. Gavin and a thoroughly enjoyable pieced he penned.

Re:If you're going to rip of MAD magazine...

[ptbarnett]

at least give the attribution:

MAD Magazine may have expanded it further, but it's based on a alleged real event.

George Smathers was alleged to have given a similar speech to rural Florida audiences when challenging incumbent Claude Pepper in the 1950 Democratic primary for a US Senate seat.

However, it was not reported at the time by Florida newspapers and a $10,000 reward offered (by Smathers) to anyone that could prove it has gone unclaimed. The story was probably intended to poke fun at rural Florida (and Southern) voters, rather than Smathers.

Re:gop and dirty tricks? how surpising!

[funwithBSD]

You seem to have forgotten a few things:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ils/press/2006/Feb/02062 006_EllisLewissentencing.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_ele ction,_1960

http://www.ac4vr.com/reports/072005/washington.htm l

Resistance is futile!

[enharmonix]

I really wish that someone would stop the f------ smear campaigns and instead clearly list what they intend to do. If they ran before, I want someone (obviously the campaigns website won't) to list exactly what they said they were going to do and exactly what they did do so I can compare.

That's okay. You don't need to be 100% informed. The better informed you are, the better for all of us, but just do your part and vote how you want to. That's the most important part. In fact, the more people vote, the better democracy works. Not just ideology, either, there's a scientific basis to it. A collective of members each making independent decisions is smarter than any individual member in the group. And collective intelligence fails when the members decide to just do whatever a perceived leader wants to do (because it's really just acting the same as the one member, who is not as smart as the whole).

So there you go. You want a smarter government? Higher voter turnout engenders better government. Even if you can't independently figure out whether a candidate's a slimeball or not, the hive mind can. Or at least does a better job at it than you. And it (the hive mind) needs as many drones as it can get. As more people turn out, we eventually get better at picking the best public servants. Better public servants on the Hill mean a smarter Collective Legislator, and it's the public that wins. If you're dissatisfied with the quality of our elected officials, the worst thing you can do is stay home on Election Day!

See Collective Intelligence wiki to start you off. There was a Slashdot article on it too, but I can't find it now, about how a crowd of average people was able to collectively guess the weight of livestock more accurately than any of the agricultural professionals present could individually.

Resistance is futile. ;)

I'm a conservative

[Anonymous Coward]

A paleocon. I already voted early. I guarantee you I did NOT vote for any neocons in the R party. These ..humans... who have hijacked the R party and who have sullied what real conservatism means are an abhorrent bunch.

I am also convinced that at the highest levels THEY LET 9-11 GO DOWN FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. Freakin murdering traitors!

They deserve all the bashing they are getting. I hope after the sweep that there are REAL investigations, into 9-11, into vote fraud, into theft from the govenment, murder, destruction of governmental property, passing classified information to foreign powers (pakistan and israel for a start),with the result of life sentences for the perps who are complicit in those heinous crimes. They are in the civil branch of government, the military, and in private life. Those people who used the public airwaves, after official meetings for the talking points at the whitehouse, to spew propoganda before the election as alleged "journalists" and talk show hosts who were acting as paid disinformation outlets need to be investigated too, these are the people's airwaves, under *license*, they aren't owned by the neocon globalist fascist party. And so on. There's a lot of them and you can start with the members of PNAC and AIPAC and work up, down and sideways from there.

We are an OCCUPIED NATION, that has suffered a serious coup, the rest of the planet earth recognizes this and it's way past time the US people did.

The past two elections, and maybe three, were HIJACKED using sophisticated electronic vote fraud with the connivance of appointed and elected officials in all three branches of government. More crimes.

I will not "support" that organized crime organization who have hijacked the party. No, I will not. I apologize for the remnant who are still brainwashed, but that's just how it goes. The grassroots are by and large decent people who were petrified over the clinton-reno reign of terror (and it was, another time perhaps), so they are grasping at straws, but the leadership? Outright serious criminals. We need a dozen Jim Garrisons as soon as possible or this nation is going down the tubes into full bore despotism.

Two words: Gerry Studds.

[Moryath]

Republicans throw their gay rapists out.

You Demoshits keep yours in office.

Re:Two words: Gerry Studds.

[drc003]

Oh so you completely ignored his challenge to prove you're not full of shit and talking out your ass? What a surprise.

Re:Two words: Gerry Studds.

[ben there...]

If you're going to bring up Gerry Studds, why not bring up Dan Crane (R), who was implicated in the same sex scandal, also involving a 17 yr old page? Both congressmen were censured in 1983, so I don't know why you're bringing it up, but since you are, don't be a hypocrite about it.

Re:Two words: Gerry Studds.

[Anonymous Coward]

God I can't wait to put a bullet into the head of each and every one of you fucks.

Re:Two words: Gerry Studds.

[drig]

Republicans throw their gay rapists out.

Wasn't that the problem? Hastert and others encouraged Foley to stay and run for re-election.

Besides, Studds' relationship was technically legal. Yeah, I mean, he was borking a 17 year old page, regardless of the legality, though. Definitely immoral. The house voted overwhemlingly, 420-3, to censure Studds. Given that it was legal, besides asking him pretty-please to leave, that was about all they could do. But, they did it. No one covered it up.

Finally, this was 1983! There are voters nowadays who were not even born then! The Dems were swept out of the house in 1994 because of this exact sort of thing. Ancient history, get over it.

Re:Two words: Gerry Studds.

[Tinman_au]

"Republicans throw their gay rapists out."

Only the ones that get caught...

Re:Two words: Gerry Studds.

[feed_me_cereal]

lol... "demoshits". Where do you discuss politics, a fucking playground? Dude, if you have to go back 20 years just to bash democratic *voters*, you're seriously grasping at straws, and only underlining the fact that republican supporters can never take the heat; they can only throw out more attacks. The irony of the Foley case that makes it unique from the innumerable other cases of sexual impropriety (in both parties) in the government is that he broke his own law; a law he *designed* to stop people exactly like himself. That's pretty hardcore hypocrisy...

Repress the vote if you hate America!

[Soong]

Democracy is one of the most fundamental things we have. I don't think there are many greater treasons than attacking our demcracy. But for example giving away nuclear secrets might be one of those things.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Voter turnout even worse than that

[tritium6]

2002 was the first election since September 11, 2001, which increased turnout. The midterm prior to that in 1998 had 38% turnout, as did the midterm before that (38.8% in 1994) http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/11/03/ election/overview/turnout/

Re:Voter turnout even worse than that

[JhohannaVH]

Thanks! That's what I recalled, but the Census.gov site didn't go back much further - on first glance.

It's got no apostrophe when its is a pronoun.

[Anonymous Coward]

nt2

Re:Look at me! I'm a Republican!

[DnemoniX]

I am very disappointed with many aspects of my party and I for one fully intend to show my displeasure tomorrow at the polls. I hope everyone does the same. Stop voting the party line and vote for whom ever you think will do the best job, be it Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or an Independent candidate.

Another country

[Anonymous Coward]

If this was another country, the elections would be deemed invalid and there would be riots in the streets. America is f****d up beyond repair. American citizens seem to be willing to accept anything!!

Re:gop and dirty tricks? how surpising!

[coredog64]

You also left out Loretta Sanchez illegally using campaign money to have third parties drive voters to the polls.
Later investigation turned up approximately 4000 votes by illegal aliens -- pretty tough luck for "B-1" Bob who lost
by less than 1000 votes.

Another Republican smear

[ebcdic]

I see the Republicans have even paid people to post messages to Slashdot smearing the Democrats.

Re:Another Republican smear

[Orion Blastar]

I am a member of the Pirate Ninja party, I am not a Democrat or Republican. I am not paid to post here and I have been posting here for many years now.

You are the one using smear tactics, I am a third party who has been victimized. Now being victimized by you.

Shameful!

[TheCabal]

If BOTH political parties spent a fraction of the time they spend cooking up dirty tricks, and actually used that time to do the jobs they were elected to do, we'd probably have solved a great many of this country's problems.

Cell phone spamming too

[Anonymous Coward]

...and I thought I had been singled out for this special treatment. My prepaid emergency cell phone received over 18 calls from the RNC offering up information on the democrat running against them. I only had a small number of minutes on the phone, and these bogus calls wiped them out. I fell for it at first, figuring it came from the democrat in question and called his campaign office to tell them to cut it out, when they informed me that if I had listened to the whole message, it was from the republicans.

Really effective stuff too. I dont even live in the area served by either of these candidates. My dad does though...he'll be voting for the democrat sight unseen...another case of voting for "not the spammer".

Re:Democraps are doing the same thing in my distri

[mode13]

Democraps eh? Very clever.

How about a Klintoon? Al Bore? Sore Loserman?

"Repuke" is a nice comeback, however liberals don't seem to have the creativity and brilliant word warping skills that right-wingers do. They go more for limericks and rhymes "Bush lied people died" etc. But let me try the ultimate republican word warp: libdoltRATmainstreammediaKLINTOONDemocrapCHAPPAQUI DDICKdhimmicratsISLAMOFASCISTS.

p.s. how about "republicunts"?

Kent Brockman's surprise write-in victory.

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, the Republican party thinks systematically, and when they find something that works they try to milk it in all of their campaigns. Hence the multiple sightings of lether-clad men in lingerie, the robo-calls, the fliers, the push polls, the recent NAMBLA-related smears

So what you're saying is, the Republican party is evil, and the Democrats are too incompetetent to pick up on these same strategies?

*thinks*

Okay. I can by that. Now, who do I vote for? The liar or the fool?

Re:Kent Brockman's surprise write-in victory.

[bob_herrick]

False dichotomy. There is more than one reason to 'pick up on these same strategies.' Incompentence is one of the less likely explanations, since were that the case you would see the behavrior attempted, albeit poorly, which is not the case.

Re:Kent Brockman's surprise write-in victory.

[ocbwilg]

So what you're saying is, the Republican party is evil, and the Democrats are too incompetetent to pick up on these same strategies?

Well, that's not quite how I'd put it. Again, I'd say that the people calling the shots in the GOP are, if not actually evil, extremely nasty, unethical, and willing to stoop to almost any level to get/keep power. I'm not sure that I would call the Democrats incompetent, but I think that there are a lot of progressive types in the Democratic party (go figure) who are willing to put principles over power. Maybe that makes them foolish, but I think that there is a certain reason to it. I think it's similar to saying that if the US tortures it's POWs then we aren't any different than the insurgents who kidnap, torture and kill people to make Jihadi videos. If we are willing to take our own citizens off the streets and lock them away forever without access to the courts, or even without their families knowing what happened to them, then we are no better than the Iraqi regime that we helped to topple. By the same token, I think that the Democrats largely believe that if they stoop to the level of the Ken Mehlmens and Karl Roves of the world, then they would be no better and no more worthy of governing than the Republicans are.

It undoubtedly sucks to get repeatedly beaten by dirty tricks, but the tricksters don't always win. And how much better must it feel if you can win cleanly?

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

--the US military is crawling with foreign death squad members, convicted violent felons and other assorted mercenary scum (beyond the blackwater psychopaths), who get to become "Legal citizens" after their "tour". That's how desperate they are right now.

Other resources

[_KiTA_]

First off:

The Dems are On this, filing one of the only C&D letters I've actually supported. Kinda brilliant of the NeoCons, really -- they hire an impersonator to make a fake 5 minute message, robocall it at 11 PM till 4 AM, make it long enough that most people hang up long before they hear the "paid for by the Republicans" message at the end, and, well, it's just brilliant. Too bad the Democrats are too ethical to try something like this themselves.

Jim Webb's campaign is also being specifically targeted by this, in what is probably a "test run" by Karl Rove. Robo calls are reporting that people will get arrested if they vote, that their locations have changed, pamphlets are being handed out telling black people not to bother voting, and the Voting Machines are set up to "accidently" mess Mr. Webb's name up. Even the Board of Elections are saying these efforts are Widespread and Deliberate (and, oh yeah, ILLEGAL).

Kinda a pity that the Republicans are so afraid of the United States Citizens voices being heard that they have to resort to such disgusting efforts to repress the vote. Of course, having seen this the last 3 elections in a row, this isn't a real surprise.

Scientific Facts are indisputabe

[Anonymous Coward]

That Republicans are vile illegal immoral pigs is a SCIENTIFIC FACT like global warming or eugenics.
Denying science is like denying the Holocaust or believing the Earth is FLAT.
Soon criticism of established scientific fact will be a crime as it should be.

I call BULLSHIT!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have signed up for the DailyKos and have never received any junk mail or phone calls. In fact, I know some of the people who admin the DailyKos - can you guess what they say about your claim?

So now that we have established you are a total fucking liar, would you are to offer any evidence in your defense? Why don't you post a recording of one of the alleged calls so we can hear for ourselves? Why don't you post some of the junk mail sent to you by the DailyKos?

You suck at making shit up.

Re:I call BULLSHIT!

[Orion Blastar]

You are the one that cannot even sign your name to a post, so who is the one trying to hide something and bullshitting? I call you on it.

I am a member of the Pirate Ninja party, I am not a Democrat or Republican.

Re:I call BULLSHIT!

[Orion Blastar]

Alright, now I just got a call saying that for my talk on Slashdot about the daily KOS that I will be killed if I go to vote tomorrow. You can hide behind an anonymous name, and you can even spoof caller ID, but you won't stop me from voting tomorrow even if you do try and kill me.

I can subpoena the phone company for all call records to my number, and I am sure that some of them will trace back to Democratic call centers. I have no device to record phone calls, otherwise I'd post the WAV files here.

I am a member of the Pirate Ninja party of the USA, and I will not be threatened, not even with terrorist tactics such as the above poster tried to use and hide behind an anonymous account. I only posted the truth about what kind of calls I had gotten, and the only place I submitted my personal information to for the Democrats, and I was unjustly attacked by one such Democrat claiming to have ties to the Daily Kos, which show as facts that the Democrats are using smear tactics just as the Republicans are. I am sick of those sort of tactics, and I want to lead the charge for a change in the US system of politics with the Pirate Ninja party.

...and you call yourselves a democracy

[Stormx2]

People can vote in the USA, can't they? I mean, sure, they can sign their name, but who says its THEIR mind at work behind voting. I read this article and almost threw up. I'm from the UK, and before anyone replies saying I'm being high-and-mighty (I'm not fan of the UK, honestly), I just want to say from an outsiders perspective that ALL I have seen from american democracy is hype spin hype spin war terrorism hype.

This stuff shouldn't be included in elections. Its like bullying at school or something. The popular guy can cheat at exams and get found out by classmates, but they dare not tell because he has all the power. All that is going to happen is the courts are gonna hear this, and act so slowly but by the time a verdict is given nobody cares! Elections should be about ISSUES, not sturring people into sly action. It makes me cringe.

Re:...and you call yourselves a democracy

[Ian Alexander]

This is America; what do you expect, intelligent debate about the issues?

Re:Democraps are doing the same thing in my distri

[jkauzlar]

An extreme case: what would constitute bias if Jesus Christ were running in an election against Hitler? In our present state of affairs, I think Hitler would probably win.

You voted for Bush and can't admit you fucked up

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most voters I talked to said they wouldn't vote for Kery because they had no idea what he really stood for."

Whereas we all know what Bush stands for: bigotry, ignorance, religious fanaticism, torture, war-profiteering, pollution, incompetence, increasing deficit and deception.

It's kind of like having to pick between a bottle marked "poison", with a skull and bones, and another written in a foreign language. You can't understand the other label, and can't even be bothered to investigate, so you drink the poison and blame the other bottle.

Makes perfect sense.

Until the morons who voted for Bush stop trying to blame other people or come up with excuses for their own stupidity, nothing is going to change. Hey, I guess at least nowadays we have a more truthful image of what the US really is.

That's not our experience here...

[MerkX]

We have received 22 calls in October bashing Republican candidates and only 1 call bashing a Democratic candidate. Might I also mention, all the calls were brutal and that 17 of the 23 calls were actually endorsed by the favored candiate. Personally, I really hate bashing - I want to know the candidate's plan! I don't understand that "we the people" send these folks into office and all they do is bitch at each other. At my place of employment there are folks that I wouldn't invite over to my house or go out and have a drink with, but they do have good ideas and we listen to each other. What is it with politicians that they don't do the same? I really don't like bashing any standing president - I think it undermines progress. I was rasied never to complain about a situation unless you have a solution, so since this post might be interpreted as a complaint, here's my solution... Rather than having an up-or-down vote in Congress, Democrats should be Horde, Republicans Alliance (or roll for it - I don't care which); they should play Alterac Valley and the winner earns a vote. They should get sucked up into this time sink so their other deeds, like raising taxes and starting IRL wars cannot get done. Of course, the standing president can always veto a bill - after all, they would be the GM :)

Damn clinton

[bxbaser]

we all know it was his fault.

Evil Republicans - hmmm.

[joshsnow]

Conclusion: slashdot has a liberal bias because slashdot readers are smarter than your average bear...er... elephant.... and are better able to understand reality.

Indeed. And alot of slashdot readers are not USians and a significant proportion of us live in Europe. That might account for the "liberal" bias - if wanting to see the back of Bush and this generation of Republicans really is "liberal". I'm not sure that it is. ;)

The fact that you're constantly modded down

[Anonymous Coward]

even in a leftist slashdot environment should say something to you...

Look how many Republican defenders are being voted up on this thread...

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[WilliamSChips]

Not worst president ever (I think Warren Harding might be that one) but worst president in recent times.

It's not just you

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

See this resignation letter form a lifelong Republican who has a shelf full of thank-yous from the Bushes

Ideas and solutions

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>One is indistinguishable from the other. I'm getting a lot of finger pointing and name calling but no ideas, solutions, etc.

Maybe there's a place online that has excerpts from The Plan: Big Ideas for America, the Democrats's ideas and proposed solutions.

Indistinguishable? Look at the voting breakdown on the Abu Ghraib Legalization Act.

One the Supremre court wises up

[/dev/trash]

They'll ban such crap. Election day is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in Novemeber. Not a day sooner or later.

Re:One the Supremre court wises up

[WillAffleckUW]

No, as anyone who served in the Armed Forces knows, it's quite a few weeks sooner.

Was before I was born too.

Technically, the polls are open on the day you mention, but the day it's recorded is a few weeks later, when it's certified.

Re:One the Supremre court wises up

[/dev/trash]

How bout dem apples!

Now we have a recording!

[Dr. Spork]

Here is an mp3 recording of one of these phone calls.

One 50+ solid Democratic female voter has received this very same phone call five times just today. This one allegedly differs from some others that were placed in NY-25, as it has no long "inviting you to hang up" pause after "Dan Maffei".

We've contacted news outlets but it's too late for tonight's news cycle.

Re:Now we have a recording!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a great message to leave Conquest here, at 804-358-0560! Thanks. Plenty of extensions to leave it to too! (Just make sure you leave it in person...)

Re:Now we have a recording!

[Anonymous Coward]

One place to report the illegal Republican robo-calls is this diary on Daily Kos. If you do not have an account there, you probably know somebody who does (another Democrat).

There may be a federal class-action lawsuit coming out of all this wrongdoing by the Republicans, and the amounts allowed by fines for these violations of the law quickly add up over the numbers of illegal calls that have been placed. And that is without any accounting for the damages caused by the misleading nature of these illegal Republican phone calls in terms of affecting Democratic campaigns by suppressing voter turnout. The amount owed in compensatory damages by these criminal Republican robo-callers may well be incalculable.

Re:Democraps are doing the same thing in my distri

[Jim_Callahan]

"...the GOP is the party of extreme hypocrisy."

I really, really hope that you have some idea of exactly how hilarious that statement is. Because if you don't, I fear for the state of the American educational system: funny as those ignorant of historical context being doomed to repeat old mistakes, it's getting a bit old.

(Translation for the dim: seriously, the phrase 'party of extreme hypocrisy' is horribly redundant in the context of the history of American politics. Naivette ftmfl)

Class Action?

[Tiger Smile]

During discovery you get all the numbers they called and the number of times they called and ask for $500 per call. Seriously could this be done?

The point is, this clearly breaks the law

[Dr. Spork]

You're technically right, I think I would think about the way you do. The fact is, we've seen that many people don't. I have no doubt that the RNC have done extensive research to show that this works.

But this is all beside the point. The point is that this clearly violates the law. The law says that:

(d) All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages delivered by an automatic telephone dialing system shall:
(1) At the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call

Now listen to one actual phone call, this one placed five times just today to a female Democrat over 50. See?

Re:The point is, this clearly breaks the law

[Shajenko42]

But this is all beside the point. The point is that this clearly violates the law.

Unfortunately the people doing this are likely the "true believers" who will never ever believe that Bush makes mistakes/is evil, and are willing to go to prison to keep the Republicans in office. The candidates and other high-ups in the Republican party are well insulated from blame.

This will alter the election, and the Republican candidate will not get punished if he wins - only pawns will get sacrificed, and they're quite willing to do that.

Re:So Slashkos.. what are the Democrats dirty tric

[WilliamSChips]

B..b..but Clinton!

Re:To quote Chris Bergeron:

[bergeron76]

If you vote against them, are you free from guilt?

Fucking bullshit - This is "Insightful"???

[Anonymous Coward]

And the parent comment isn't?

What a bunch of fucking retards the mods are.

No. No, it wouldn't.

[Jim_Callahan]

Parties should not be a part of American politics at all. Individuals should be elected based on their ability to do the job assigned and the earned respect and trust of their fellow citizens: essentially, a man with a party badge is an extension of another man's will and therefore unfit to govern.

I realize that factioning is the inevitable result of the scale-up of a Republic as population increases and being truly known by one's constituency becomes difficult, and I further realize that the kind of ethical, hard-working types we would actually want running the country are usually too busy running successful businesses (*cough* at republicans) and not sitting around on their inherited fortunes occassionally throwing money at the occasional charity to assuage their guilt at not earning their own bread (*cough* at democrats). In this context, I'll accept the existence of the parties as an unfortunate necessity. However, giving official recognition to special-interest groups as our acknowledged masters is still an over-my-dead-body type of thing.

I'm quite serious here. If we actually make it part of the country's basic charter to recognize the authority of external, unelected groups to appoint their own representatives with a general public nod, the time for voting the bums out has passed: it will be time to break out the ammo boxes.


By this I mean no offense to all of you in proportional representation democracies out there: I know your history is different from the US's, and calls for different measures. In the case of the US, though, we rejected the direct tyrrany of the old religions over government long ago, and I have faith that we'll reject the new ones, too, in time. (In both cases, not as thoroughly as I'd like, but the thought was and will be there.)

Another independant moderate truth

[Orion Blastar]

By the way I am a moderate.

Moderate means I have the best of both worlds, and none of the biases that liberals and conservatives have. In fact most people are moderates and only extremists are liberals and conservatives. You are only upset that I am a genius who knows how reality, economics, computers, etc work, and I use critical thinking, and you are still being spoon-fed your views and opinions by your party's leaders and you use your emotions to think with.

I submit that both Democrats and Republicans are using these tactics, both Democrats and Republicans use smear tactics. It is time for other candidates to be elected that do not use smear tactics.

Notice how the Republicans are not denying or calling this story a smear tactic, but when it is pointed out that Democrats are doing the same thing, it is called a smear tactic and denied.

Disclosure Needed

[Anonymous Coward]

I think slashdot should state that its a mouth piece for the democratic party kind of like how it slaps on that disclaimer when it links to a sister site. Nothing says that slashdot has to be balanced, and it sure isn't, but stating its motivation for posting non-tech news would be nice.

Hah, the word it wants me to re-type is rubbish. Maybe a comment on my post?

I just filed a harassment complaint in NY.

[purduephotog]

I've been fighting for MONTHS to get off the call list. Friday I filed a police complaint alleging harassment- and saturday I received 4 phone calls at all hours of the day- including 854pm.

The police officer that took the case even contacted Conquest and told them to remove my number. That hasn't stopped the calls.

There is NO stopping these people- and if you'd like to complain I suggest you call 1-877-564-2006 (http://www.reynoldsforcongress.com/call.cfm) and complain if you're in NY..... or just if you feel like calling someone and complaining about COnquest. Ask for Melanie (lied to me about putting me on their blocklist) or Nick (campaign manager).

Either way, they are dishonest and abusing the law.

Which one was re-elected?

[HornWumpus]

As the GP says Republicans kick out their page fuckers.

Democrats on the other hand like to keep the gay ones around. Barney Frank as well. He ran a string of rent boys out of his apartment in DC. Blamed it on one of the pillow biters. Must not want to offend their base.

Re:Which one was re-elected?

[ben there...]

As the GP says Republicans kick out their page fuckers.

If by "kick out" you mean "failed to be re-elected when he ran" I guess you're right. Only a Republican would try to rewrite history that badly though. Neither of them were kicked out. They were both censured.

Re:gop and dirty tricks? how surpising!

[coaxial]

Well 1960 isn't really the modern era is it?

And you're right I did forget some things. 2004 Ohio, and 2000 Florida, and of course Bush v Gore.

In MN the Rs are Ds. The Ds are flat out Reds.

[Anonymous Coward]

Crazy state dontyaknow. People too stupid to move away from the tundra.

Re:Those Evil Republicans

[toddestan]

Not worst president ever (I think Warren Harding might be that one) but worst president in recent times.

On the other hand, America survived Warren Harding. We still have 2 more years of Bush.

Many districts in MO have more voters then people.

[HornWumpus]

They're not R strongholds.

This is not isolated. Watch Ohio if the ID law stands (last I heard it was on again). The results will shift as D shenanigans are slowed down.

Yeap, I got that...

[LuisAnaya]

I got the republican message myself and I was baffled because the whole thing was silly. You see, the background "democrat" message was from a "candidate" in Oklahoma, and I live in New Jersey. You can barely distinguish one voice from another and at the end, you end up with a very low signal to noise ratio on the call. I think that I'm voting green anyway.

The "call me" ad

[Anonymous Coward]

It is why supporters of Corker in Tennessee aired an ad indicating that Harold Ford Jr. is interested in white women.

You would have to be american to think that that was racist in some way. They claimed he went to a playboy sponsored party. Are you telling me that playboy have never featured non-white women in their magazine? Now that would be wierd.

The ad in question went much, much further than merely claiming Ford went to a Playboy sponsored Superbowl party. The ad ended with a white woman looking at the camera, holding her hand up like it was a telephone and saying "Harold call me!"

Your point that Playboy features at least some non-white women in their magazine seems to bolster the argument of the post you were responding to. It makes the ad (featuring a white woman coming on to Ford) look like it was intended to incite racial fears in conservative white voters.

This ad (publicly defended by Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the RNC) came from the same people who smeared John McCain (a fellow white Republican) by claiming he had fathered an illegitimate black child. Many analysts think this smear campaign against John McCain was the deciding factor in Bush beating McCain in the Republican presidential primary.

You don't have to be an American to realize the "Call Me" ad was racist, you just need to know more than a smidgen about American politics. Your indication that the ad merely claims he went to a Playboy party indicates that you were either talking about something you knew nothing about or were acting as a shill.

Re:The "call me" ad

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you think the most significant thing about that women was that she was white means you would have to be racist to think that that was racist. I thought it meant that slightly ugly older women fancied him (he did get voted one of the 50 most beautiful men in the world didn't he?). If you would have preferred that women to be darker in skin colour in order for that ad to be acceptable, aren't you supporting "racial purity" ideas?

Re:gop and dirty tricks? how surpising!

[funwithBSD]

Then you don't know that Eisenhower is the 50's? That was the bar YOU set in the OP!

Typical weaseling.

DO NOT VOTE this time around!!

[SonicSpike]

DON'T VOTE!!!

Have any of you seen the AARP commercial on TV that says 'Don't Vote?!" I have caught it a couple of times. If you haven't seen it, you can see it here: http://www.dontvote.com/spots.html

I tend to agree with this idea: DON'T VOTE! If you do not understand a few basic concepts, then please DO NOT VOTE.

First off, one must educate themselves BEYOND the personality marketing and the basic sound bites. One must study the policy positions of the candidates prior to voting. Have you done this yet? It's real easy to study, simply visit the websites of the candidates and look at the section that titled 'issues' and read their statements. Sometimes they make their policy and issues statements vague and ambiguous. If this is the case with a candidate that you are considering, then don't vote for that candidate because you don't know what you are getting.

Want to know all of the candidates who are running and what their websites are? Wan to know who supports them? Want to see their voting record?
You can check that here: http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

Next, look and see who is giving money to these people. You can do that very easily here: http://opensecrets.org/ This handy website lists every member of Congress, every candidate, and shows all of the financial contributions for their campaign. This is a good way to see who has influence with the winner.

If you plan on voting for a Democrat or a Republican then you are PART OF THE PROBLEM, and I ask you to also not vote! The Republicans want to expand the government, take your children's money and erode your civil liberties. The Democrats want to expand the government, take your money (and your children's money), and also erode your civil liberties. They are practically the same party with very little difference between the two.

Democrats pander to the poor/minorities, Republicans pander to the religious community. Both groups are being USED by these two parties in order to gain political power. Do you think the Democrats really care about the poor? Not unless it buys votes. Do you think the Republicans really care about the religious conservatives? Not unless it buys votes.

Are you happy with the country as it is? Would you like to change direction? Polls have suggested that the majority of voting citizens are not happy with the state or direction of our nation, yet keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. Isn't a popular definition of insanity: "repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?"

Personally, I will be voting for any candidate that is NOT a Democrat or a Republican. I realize that most 3rd party or independent candidates do not have a chance to win (yet) but I also want to send a crystal clear message to the current political cartel/oligopoly that they do NOT represent me and I will no longer support their stranglehold on the American democratic process.

Why don't others vote for 3rd party or independents? In most races there are plenty of 3rd/independent candidates that are conservative or liberal and do not have a (R) or (D) next to their name. However many voters 'want to be on the winning side' and cast their ballots in that manner. Lots of people say they don't want to waste their vote on someone who will lose. I have a question to people who vote with the idea of 'voting for the candidate who is most likely to win' -- since when did our democratic process become a sporting event?! Voting for the person most likely to win is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want change, think about changing the way you vote!

And finally, if you do not have a good understanding of history, if you have not educated yourself on our democratic process, if you do not understand the rule of law, if you have not read the Constitution and Deceleration of Independence (which are written in plain English by the way), then

Re:DO NOT VOTE this time around!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking idiot/asshole, not sure which. Maybe you're a troll. Even if I did agree with you I would say vote for an independent. But at the very least, vote for the person who you most agree with! Do you really want other people to make the decision between the two evils you describe?

Shame on you.

Re:DO NOT VOTE this time around!!

[SonicSpike]

Actually you are the troll as evidenced by your inability to choose other words besides profanity. Not to mention the fact that your post doesn't really make sense as a response to my post. If you would like to rephrase your point so that it is comprehendible, and choose some more intelligent language, I might be able to give you a better response.

Re:You voted for Bush and can't admit you fucked u

[Matilda the Hun]

There's a difference between "bottle marked with an unknown language that you might be able translate" and "a bottle that sometimes has a poison label, sometimes a not-poison label, and sometimes no label, depending on what time of day it is and what bottle it's sitting next to".

How stupid do you have to be?

[bill_mcgonigle]

TFA:

One of the calls features a woman who opens by saying "Hello. I'm calling with information about Paul Hodes." She goes on to criticize his position on rolling back some of the recent federal tax cuts and ends by saying the call was paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to a tape recording of the call released by the state Democratic Party.

I'm in the NH 2nd and heard this call being played to my answering machine. I didn't ever think it was a call from Paul Hoades' campaign; it wasn't even a little bit ambiguous. The delay was very short and sounded like your typical IVR system delay.

There must be some really dumb voters out there to get confused about this message. I don't think there really are - somebody is just trying to make up a last minute campaign issue about this since the Republicans did get caught jamming last time around.

Whiners and complainers all around. I'm interested in this law that gets me $5000 fines, if it really exists.

I think I speak for those of us who can't vote...

[caitsith01]

...mostly due to historical and geographical inconvenience (i.e. we're not US citizens) when I ask, beg, urge, beseech, implore, plead, and demand that every single one of you Slashdotters who CAN vote gets out and does. Do NOT look on in disgust and refuse to participate. Do NOT stay at home playing World of Warcraft or coding your latest piece of hobby software. Do NOT spend the afternoon surfing for hentai and humorous pictures while your country continues to degenerate (in other ways).

I don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian. Please, please, just get yourself out of the house, down to a polling station, and vote.

Do it. Now. It is the only way to save your democracy.

Re:Democraps are doing the same thing in my distri

[ocbwilg]

No kidding! Now they are accusing democrats of homophobia (for attacking people like Foley), anti-Semitism, racism, and wanting absolute power with no checks and balances.

Ah, that's just typical Limbaugh. My personal favorite was a couple of weeks back when he claimed that the NYT failing to mention that the man running against Republican Senator Mike Dewine in Ohio was a black man was proof of the NYT's liberal bias. The funny part wasn't his logic (OK, it was funny too), but that Mike Dewine's opponent is Sherrod Brown, a 7-term congressman who is...wait for it...WHITE! You would think that's the sort of detail that you just might want to investigate for 15-20 seconds before you go on the air with it, but not Limbaugh. Why let facts (even the most trivially verifiable ones) stand the in the way of a good lie?

Re:Democraps are doing the same thing in my distri

[stinerman]

In our present state of affairs, I think Hitler would probably win.

Jesus of Nazareth says to love thine enemy. Jesus loves terrorists. Jesus is soft on terrorism and wrong for America.

Re:You voted for Bush and can't admit you fucked u

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not matter if the bottle next to it is poison, is labeled, and the bottle with the changing label is not poison. You can drink the poison. I will drink from the bottle that does not threaten my constitution. In other words, if you want to kill our country by voting Republican, that's your prerogative. I will vote for the Democratic candidate. That may be a mistake at some unforeseen future time and it may have been a mistake in the past, but it is not a mistake now. Unless the anti-freedom laws that have been passed and the imbalance of powers going on between the governmental branches do not stop and soon, this country is genuinely going to go to hell in a hand-basket. And that does not even cover the fiscally insane behavior that has been going on with the Republicans in power. Let me put it to you straight: I want my savings to be worth something in thirty years. And sure is not going to be if we continue down this path. Tomorrow is about change. And it cannot come too soon.

I'm sure someone else has said it....

[tweek]

but you CAN'T sue the political campaigns. They exempted themselves when the DNC (do not call) was set up. The probably have the same loop hole in CANN SPAM as well.

Charities, political groups and "surveys" are exempt in addition to companies with which you have a "prior business relationship".

The part that ticks me off is the slew of "We're doing a survey about long distance rates...."

fuckign loopholes.

Settle down

[Orion Blastar]

use some HeadOn for your headache. Apparently you never read my profile here that says everything I post is a joke. I am found to be funny elsewhere and I exist to expose frauds like you.

Re:Settle down

[TorKlingberg]

So we are expected to read your profile before reading your comments? Please go back to Uncyclopedia and stay there. That site is funny as hell, but I expect a little less bullshit here on slashdot.

Re:Settle down

[Orion Blastar]

What do you have against the freedom of speech? Telling me to go back there is censorship!

Re:You voted for Bush and can't admit you fucked u

[Falco Danderfluff]

I just have to ask, do you have one example where these "anti-freedom" laws have actually squashed your freedoms?

politics not

[Anonymous Coward]

I getting fucking sick of slash dot posts on politics.

stick to technology and cut the political crap.

speaking of taxes & spending

[SpectralDesign]

okay, I'm going slightly non-sequitor here but here goes!

I was looking over some Reuters online polls today and saw one (recalling from memory here) "Do you think the economy is better served by a Republican or Democrat administration?" >50% of respondents said Republican. A few polls further down the list, "Will you be spending more, less, or the same this Christmas as last Christmas?" >50% of respondents said less.

I'm sensing a substantial disconnect with reality here... If the 'pubs are better at managing the economy, then why are so many of the (potentially) same respondants spending less this Christams than last?

RNC is inept

[Lawrence_Bird]

they do themself more damage than good but are too clueless to realize it.  I twice called the RNC in DC to complain about the spam email lists they have bought to no avail.  They were not targeted lists and contained addresses out of use for over 10 years (the only reason they don't bounce is I still have emails to that domain forwarded).  So to hear they are pissing people off with autodialers on purpose, somehow believing it will hurt the Democrat candidate.. well I'm not shocked.  Its time for a good house cleaning in the RNC and hopefully it will begin tomorrow.

Wow

[ChePibe]

1. They wouldn't need them - they can always vote absentee.

2. No, they don't - read their website

3. A basic knowledge of voter fraud may help your willful ignorance.

The Republican Party has made spamming a policy

[randolph]

...so now you know how to vote.

This is very likely done with the authorization of presidential advisor Karl Rove, if it was not in fact his idea.

More details

[randolph]

There's extensive coverage at TPMmuckraker. The races involved are named, as is the firm committing these crimes, Conquest Communications. (The original Conquest link has been taken down, gee why?)

There's another firm....

[randolph]

Feather, Larson & Syndhorst DCI ...and Karl Rove knows them.

Vote against the spammers.

An this surprises who???

[Twitchie]

Ha ha ha. "The moral compass of America." Does this really surprise anyone? Wonder if they're calling the parents of their Pages with these messages too? Hmmmm.

Re:gop and dirty tricks? how surpising!

[coaxial]

Listen I said "since Eisenhower" whose term ended in 1960 with the election of JFK. There fore wer're talking the election of 1960 and later.

It really helps if you read the entire sentence, unless of course you're intentinally trying to misrepresent someone. In that case you're doing a bang up job. Kudos.

Don't take the respondents at face value

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sensing a substantial disconnect with reality here... If the 'pubs are better at managing the economy, then why are so many of the (potentially) same respondants spending less this Christams than last?

Did they ask the same question in different years?

I'd bet that almost every year, people say that they will spend less at Christmas than the previous year. They probably even believe it to be true. People consider thriftiness and restraint to be virtues. They don't think to themselves, "Yeah, I'll probably go shopping and impulsively buy a bunch of crap on December 15."

In general, you have to be very careful when interpreting the results of this kind of poll question, especially when it asks what the person did in the past, or will do in the future.

When the pollsters ask, "Are you going to vote on Election Day?" to determine the likely voters, they find that around 50% more people say "Yes" than will actually end up voting. In other words, about 1/3 of the people who answer "Yes" turn out to be either mistaken or lying.

And when they ask "Who did you vote for in the last Presidential election?", the candidate who won the election consistently gets his numbers boosted, usually by about 5-10%.

I don't think so

[fsickert]

The calls are critical of the democrat. If you are a moron, yes you might think it is from the democrat. As soon as I heard "information about x" I would know it's not x calling.

Re:Look at me! I'm a Republican!

[Jimithing DMB]

Stop voting the party line and vote for whom ever you think will do the best job, be it Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or an Independent candidate.

This is very good advice and I recommend everyone heed it when voting tomorrow. In general I tend to vote republican because I like their positions on issues. I am in favor of people getting paid what they will take, not a predetermined national minimum. I am in favor of health insurance not nationalized health care. I am in favor of giving parents the economic freedom they need to choose where they send their children to school, not forcing them to use a failing public school. I am in favor of allowing the executive branch to intercept communication with one endpoint outside the U.S. without a warrant. I am in favor of parents being notified if their daughter is going to have an abortion just as they would be notified with any other medical procedure. I believe a woman who shoots herself in the stomach two days before delivery should be charged with murder. I believe abortion mere days or even weeks before expected birth date is clearly murder.

On the other hand, I'm in favor of allowing gay couples to make contracts providing marriage-like benefits. I am in favor of legalizing abortion legislatively, not through some assinine court decision involving a legal house of cards. I would hope though that we could have some working sex education that explains to kids both the proper usage of condoms as well as pushes the idea that abstaining from sex is a wise decision for someone not prepared to be a father. Of course, that leads into a whole new political quagmire.

You see, I simply believe that a man should stand on his own but that a man's community should offer him help to get back on his feet when necessary. I do not believe in giving welfare checks to people for having babies. I do not believe in shoving the kids into public schools then lowering the testing standards so everyone can "pass".

I could go on and on but I'll stop here. What does that make me politically? I guess more a republican than a democrat. Although not entirely because there are a number of good democrats with views very similar to mine since these are I believe rather moderate views.

I am in Virginia's 2nd district. That means I get to vote Drake (R,I) vs. Kellam (D) and Allen (R,I) vs. Webb (D). Unfortunately, most of what I've seen from both sides is a negative campaign. I have seen and heard _some_ issues talked about by the democrats and some talked about by the republicans. And when I ignore all of the negative ads and focus on the issues ones I find I like the positions of the republican candidates more.

The thing is though, go to say Phil Kellam's website. Can you find where he stands on any issues? Hmm. Neither could I. His website has been this same thing primary attacking Drake and highlighting his great work banishing city stickers in Va. Beach. I will say his website looks "slick". Sort of like he does. Clinonesque I guess. The only place I can find anything is the "Media Center" section. Even there I find crap about Foley and the GOP did this and Drake did this and so on and so forth.

Drake's website isn't much better. The best section is again the "News" section which is showing news stories from local papers. Drake's site still has an awful lot about her challenger but has at least some about what drake stands for. Not as much as I'd like though

Do I like the way things are going in Washington? Not entirely. Am I going to go out and vote Democrat to send those damn Republicans a message? FUCK NO. What message would I be sending to washington? Run a better smear campaign and don't ever talk about the issues at all and you can win? Great, next election cycle we can expect more of this shit because it obviously worked!

How things will come out tomorrow is anybody's gues

Re:No. No, it wouldn't.

[ciggieposeur]

I further realize that the kind of ethical, hard-working types we would actually want running the country are usually too busy running successful businesses (*cough* at republicans) and not sitting around on their inherited fortunes occassionally throwing money at the occasional charity to assuage their guilt at not earning their own bread (*cough* at democrats).

That's an interesting cough you've got there. Republicans are the hard workers and Democrats are the lazy fat cats? Sounds like you just stepped out of Bizarro world.

Re:"smear message"4

[Jeremi]

how we have not lost any American lives to terror since 911, vote for Republicans.

What, the 2,800+ Americans killed in Iraq by IEDs, snipers, etc, don't count? By my accounting, that's nearly another September 11th's worth of dead Americans.

Logical fallacy alert?

[Travoltus]

Your post asserts the importance of long term thinking to minds that can only think as far as the next NASCAR race.

All elections should be recall!

[HappyEngineer]

I agree completely. I dearly wish that every election was a recall election. Look at how the California recall allowed numerous non-party people to run for office. The only change I'd make is to eliminate the need for the 50% vote to remove the incumbent from office. Let's just have the free for all election every time.

Many people may not like Arnold, but he's a hell of a lot more moderate than anyone is who was elected through the traditional pro-two-party process.

The key aspect of the recall is that anyone can get on the ballot with just a small number of signatures. I love that.

In fact, I think I'd prefer a requirement that if you're the incumbent, you need to get more than 50% in order to get reelected. If you get less then the next most popular person would get the job.

too simplistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Go further, where the digits first come from, how they go out, how they come back. They take federal reserve notes back for those bonds, and primarily they take *back* exported pieces of paper. And they printed those notes up out of thin air first, and someone used them to trade for some tangible goods (for the most part).

As long as they can keep up the elaborate charade where people outside the US will keep taking those pieces of paper for the stuff they build or raw materials they have for sale, they can do all they want to, and even then, contracturally and legally, all they are obliged to do later on is just ..print up enough pieces of paper with the corresponding total of digits to "pay off" those bond "debts".

What happens is, the bond holders have this long term illusion that for some reason this number they have bid for and invested in will still mean something, because if they don't keep trading their manufactured stuff or raw materials (like oil or what have you) for paper, that means their "investment" goes "bad", so they are then forced to continue or just write off as ridiculous everything they have traded so far. They are forced into supporting it, because they started taking them in the first place.

It is one of the more remarkable and long running cons ever conceived or pulled off. You have to admire the sheer chutzpah of it all.

And *taxes* domestically? That has always been a con on the people inside the US to keep them-force them-to be loyal to the government. The government, through their contracted private bank, print the dollars up out of thin air, then they are allowed to "borrow" the money from themselves and "lend" it out at "interest" to themselves, directly or through proxy in the banks downstream from the Fed in the form of mortgage loans (mostly this is how it enters circulation), or in a fast daisy chain of obfuscated paper corporations buying "stock".

  Income taxes exist only to keep the worker under total control, they are social engineering at its finest, they have nothing to do with actual funding of government under a fiat currency system. Under an old styled tangibles backed currency system, yes, that would fund government, but under our system, no, it funds total political control and forced allegiance over everyone "you" who happens to be a "citizen" of the US, Inc.

Re:too simplistic

[joshsnow]

As long as they can keep up the elaborate charade where people outside the US will keep taking those pieces of paper for the stuff they build or raw materials they have for sale, they can do all they want to, and even then, contracturally and legally, all they are obliged to do later on is just ..print up enough pieces of paper with the corresponding total of digits to "pay off" those bond "debts".

The trouble with printing paper, is inflation and the corresponding currency devaluation. I vaguely recall reading that this happened in the past in the 1970s - didn't the Fed print cash to cover some debt and the net result was a huge hike in the dollar price of oil?

Not everybody does this illegal crap

[Saint Fnordius]

As Josh Marshall has detailled, there's only one party doing this illegal form. True robocalls are done by all, but they identify who they are at the beginning. The Republican robocall was designed to make it seem like a call from the Democratic candidate by doing the following: first they announced that they had info about the Democratic candidate, then a pause, THEN went into the smear, and FINALLY announced the source. If you only heard the name then hung up at the pause, you would have gotten a return call, sometimes up to 18 times in a row.

This is a deceptive GOP smear tactic designed to make the opponent look like he or she was doing the harassment. The negative message is just a fig leaf. That is why it is illegal, and the people responsible deserve to be punished.

Re:Democraps are doing the same thing in my distri

[Anonymous Coward]

/. may be biased, but you appear to be the pot to their kettle. And btw, feel free to substantiate your claim of calls. Otherwise, I think you're just a knee-jerk lie-monkey.

Finding Good Political Information

[Kevinoid]

I completely agree with the gripe about the lack of solid information about candidates views (other than supporting non-controversial positions). The best source that I have found for such information is Project Vote Smart http://www.vote-smart.org/ and specifically candidates responses to the National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) http://www.vote-smart.org/npat_about.php - which gathers information on the candidates' positions on political issues.

Still not good enough

[aepervius]

I can count 300K people estimated dead over 20 years in the state.gov link above.

There was an estimate hanging around of 600K people which died since the start of the US invasion.
  Even if it was 1/6 less than that and in reality 100K this is the number of live lost over way LESS than the 20 years than Saddam had.
So.... Quote "has resulted in tens of thousands fewer" sorry but this is not true. Extrapolated over the same time period, the us invasion any way you see it killed MORE people than if Saddam was still in power. ESPECIALLY that all massacre happenned while he was a US "friend". He refrained from anything way too bad in the last years.

Re:Still not good enough

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

He refrained from anything way too bad in the last years.

Google "no fly zones" and you'll see why he "refrained from anything way too bad". Yep, those big bad americans were preventing him from killing people.

Re:You voted for Bush and can't admit you fucked u

[Anonymous Coward]

I just have to ask, do you have one example where these "anti-freedom" laws have actually squashed your freedoms?

The fact that you have to ask shows you really don't understand freedom. Implicit in your question is that it is okay for the government to take others' freedom away so long as they are not at the moment taking your freedom away, You are the enabler during Hitler's regime who did not speak up when they took the Jews. Knowing history and its consequences, your decision to sit idly by and not speak up about the usurpation of freedom in our society shows you to be a coward with no moral fiber. At present, the name you go by is Republican.

Re:I think I speak for those of us who can't vote.

[Anonymous Coward]

Our democracy is fine, thank you. If the Democrats win back any seats, then you can worry. Very few people in the US are actually Democrats, and the Democrats winning seats in face of the recent overwhelming display of evidence that Bush's Iraq policy is working would be troubling indeed.

Re:Democraps are doing the same thing in my distri

[StealthPenguin]

Yeah, sure. I guess the past 6 years of "George Bush Sucks" and "Bush is an idiot" is somehow exempt from the categorization of "oh-so-terrible negative campaigning" right? Get a clue. They're ALL politicians and they'll ALL do whatever they can to win. Your perceived "moral superiority" is just that -- perceived. With only minor exceptions, they're ALL (Republican and Democratic) worthless.

Tactics

[DeanFox]

Republicans are to Democrats what Islamics are to Christians. Many common goals, different tactics.

Who are the 'Democraps'

[Anonymous Coward]

Never heard of 'em. I've heard of Republicans. And I've heard of Republican phone-based schemes that were determined to be illegal.

So who are these Democraps and where are the convictions?

Re:gop and dirty tricks? how surpising!

[funwithBSD]

I find it amusing how you split hairs instead of adressing the basic fact, in the 1959 election, because you know that the election is held the year before the president takes office, and in later elections, democrats have rigged elections.

And JFK vrs Nixion is the first modern election. Why? because they debated on television.

You didn't get a tax cut?

[tacokill]

PS - I didn't get any stinking Bush tax cut. I'm not rich enough. Repeal the damn thing already!

Bullshit. Pure bullshit. If you have a job and are above the poverty line, you got - at least - $300 in tax cuts going back a few years.

And it's not one "damn thing", it's multiple tax cuts. Death taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. There were lots of taxes that have been cut so you can't just "repeal the damn thing". You have to repeal lots of damn things.

Your post makes me think you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Or give them some automated calls

[snowwrestler]

Have Dwight Schrute give them a call:
http://www.theofficedvd.com/dwight/

Tax cuts a sham

[Slashdot Parent]

The Republicans have not lowered my taxes because they failed to remove or readjust the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Just wait until you have to pay it too in a couple of years and see how happy you are with your "tax-cutting" Republicans.

That went out before habeas corpus

[benhocking]

That went out before habeas corpus, IIRC.

Lowercase-C Conservatives

[Slashdot Parent]

It's nice to see the true lowercase-c conservatives finally getting the point that the current "Conservatives" are very much not conservative.

Give me a true pro-fiscal responsibility, pro-personal freedom conservative, and I'll happily vote for him. I want my balanced budget amendment. I want my freedom back. Where have all the conservatives gone in the Republican Party?

Trust me, there were no tax cuts

[Slashdot Parent]

Cutting taxes on the rich? Hardly. Sure, they cut some rates here and there, but they failed to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax.

So they gave with one hand, but they took it right back with the other. I, for one, want my goddamn tax cut.

With us or against us

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to accept W's "with us or against us" attitued as the attitued of the entire party, after all he is head of the party, and vote against every fscking Republican. Maybe once the entire party is decimated politically will the neo-cons and evangicals lose their influence and party become worth considering again. But untill then

Re:Democraps are doing the same thing in my distri

[hey!]

The Republican message on election fraud is "everyone does it". The implication is that we may not like it, but we have to accept it because doing something about it would mean harming one of our own partisans.

Anybody who buys into that rubbish ought to be ashamed of themselves.

I say to hell with our partisans, if they're breaking the law, throw the bastards in jail and lose the key. Is party loyalty a higher duty than preserving democracy?

I'm a lifelong Democrat, but until 2000 I was not particularly partisan. Since then, this kind of self-serving garbage has me completely disgusted with the Republican party.

Citing skewed statistics

[amightywind]

(think of all those Latin American presidents who become dictators).

What argument are you making if you cite statistics that are skewed by your own admission. Answer: a weak one.

Re:Citing skewed statistics

[dash2]

I was just giving an example. The argument made by Lijphardt relies on solid data and regression analysis, as far as I am aware.

Re:You voted for Bush and can't admit you fucked u

[99bottles]

> You are the enabler during Hitler's regime who did not speak up...

Um, "history and its consequences" tell many tales.
Some may argue that the UN is equivalent to the League of Nations, who sat by and watched Hitler violate the Treaty of Versailles and come to power in the 30s. Similar to the UN resolutions that Saddam Hussein ignored.

Tell the Kurds who didn't speak up.

It's a win-win!

[benhocking]

Don't you understand the genius? They cut taxes now and increase spending, thus guaranteeing that when the Democrats get into power the Democrats HAVE to raise taxes - thus reinforcing the Republican arguments that the Democrats are the party of higher taxes. Genius!

(Excuse me why I go puke.)

But you will vote anyway

[benhocking]

Right?

If you don't vote, then you're helping to perpetuate the system. I know a lot of people who recycle, but who don't see the point of voting. You know what? Recycling a single bottle doesn't really do anything more than casting a single ballot. But you do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do.

Please vote - it's your civic duty.

Do you really believe that story?

[benhocking]

Seriously, do you really believe it?

Re:Do you really believe that story?

[SengirV]

I'll look for some more reliable sources as the day goes on. Just posting something I saw early on.

Fair enough

[benhocking]

If I were to find such a story on DailyKos (with the opposite slant, of course), I'd be skeptical, but I would be on the lookout for supporting information.

You forgot something

[benhocking]

Let's see, Republicans have controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for the past six years, so why should most political problems from the past six years NOT be biased towards Republicans?

They have also controlled the Supreme Court for far more than the last six years, although you'd never have guessed that from all the complaints about activist judges. 7 out of 9 justices were appointed by Republican presidents.

Fox News has it, too

[benhocking]

Although it did take me a while to find it.

Fox News story

[benhocking]

So, is Fox News part of the drive-by media, as well? Because they have the story as well. Granted, it's quite tricky to find on the Fox News web-site (I had to use "search" to find it).

I did not notice the conservative slant

[benhocking]

But I did note that it had me agreeing with my (Republican) incumbents a lot more than I would have thought. So, I'm definitely not saying the slant isn't there, but if it is, it's subtle enough for me not to spot.

So, then the question remains

[benhocking]

What was the better policy? Status quo (no fly zones, etc.) or our invasion? (Especially considering that we had/have unfinished business in Afghanistan.)

Note, I'm not asking what was the best policy - just what was the better policy. (Status quo does not seem like a good policy, but it does seem like a better policy than this particular invasion.)

Haven't you been listening?

[benhocking]

Stay the course!

Em, no, wait, that got thrown out.
*rustle*
Where is it?
*rustle*
Aha! Found it!

Benchmarks!

(Disclaimer: This is a joke. I know Republicans actually have plans. So do Democrats. However, if all you do is listen to sound bites - i.e, if you don't think Democrats have plans - this is the impression you get of the Republican "plan".)

Politicians vs. people

[benhocking]

This group that you show so much distain for represents about half of this country, and believe it or not, they want fair and honest elections just as much as you do.

Absolutely. I think it's important for us to remember that the vast majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation want fair and honest elections. Having said that, I strongly believe that Republican politicians are far more corrupt right now than Democrat politicians. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that.

Again, however, it is important to remember to be civil to our fellow Americans who happen to have different beliefs than us. (I can't pretend to always have a great memory about this, but I do try.)

We believe you

[Anonymous Coward]

I would NEVER do this

Relax, we believe you. Furthermore, we will NOT be arresting you in the middle of the night. -FBI

Is Fox News composed of leftists, too?

[benhocking]

Because they have an article on the story as well.

Re:I think I speak for those of us who can't vote.

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing here is that the right wing commentary is so lowbrow and dishonest these days that I can't honestly tell if you're being dryly sarcastic, or if you're actually stating something you believe.

Re:Should do things the GOP way ...

[SengirV]

How about the mysterious outages of all of the Campaign Phone Lines of George Allen(R-VA) the day before and day of the election?

Or the VRWC rigging the electronic voting machines to not allow anyone to vote for the GOP candidate in NJ? http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=election s&id=4737362

Amazing thing about conspiracies, you can find them wherever you look.

Re:gop and dirty tricks? how surpising!

[coaxial]

And the GOP are rigging an election right now as we speak http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15603344/ Of course you can always find one or two examples, but the fact is the widespread orchastration of voter supression and voter fraud comes from the Republican party. Every election is like that. You can try and cloud the issue, but it just ain't so.

Re:You voted for Bush and can't admit you fucked u

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States left Saddam Hussein in power after the acts he was on trial for occurred. God, you are dumb.

Of course, that is why the show trial was cut short -- so Saddam Hussein could not call all of his witnesses and put the evidence on the table of the United States having supplied and supported him during the Iran-Iraq War which lead to millions of people dying. But don't tell Republicans that Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam Hussein's hand. They just don't want to hear it.

George Bush has shown himself to be a clear and present danger to the freedom of the American people and the world. He belongs in prison. His supporters are, for whatever reason, no different from those who did not speak up during Hitler's regime.

Tell the more than 300 people being held in the Guantánamo Bay concentration camps who didn't speak up. And keep on supporting the occupation of Iraq, just like a coward, with no concern for the people dying there.

Assholes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully we all learned how to deal with these folks last week.

RANT
Tiny fines issued by a small claims courts are not going to stop these assholes. They need to be spending ever increasing sentences breaking rocks in Leavenworth.
/RANT

Hopson won

[Gorimek]

I looked into this race, and as it turns out, you're right about the candidates different styles, and as one might expect, while Durrett earned your respect, Hopson earned the seat.

The perhaps difficult fact to face here is that campaigns go negative because the voters react to it. The day voters will start voting for candidates with a positive message, campaigns will turn positive very quickly.

In a democracy, you ultimately have to blame the voters for what's wrong...