Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Attorney General Resigns
willie3204 is one of many to mention that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned. One of Gonzales' main opponents praised his decision stating that: "'For the previous six months, the Justice Department has been virtually nonfunctional and desperately needs new leadership,' said the Schumer statement. 'Democrats will not obstruct or impede a nominee who we are confident will put the rule of law above political considerations. We beseech the Administration to work with us to nominate someone whom Democrats can support and America can be proud of.'"
Fortunately for Gonzales, he will probably soon forget he held the position and made a mockery of the judicial system...
Right now, the opposition party has failed in it's watchdog duties. This resignation is only good news if they finally gain some moxie and push for a hard Atty Gen, one that will actually ensure oversight of the branches of government as the position is supposed to be doing.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
The Daily Show starts a 2 week break this week.
Is anyone noticing a trend where resignations seem to occur while The Daily Show is off on break?
How many Alberto Gonzaleses does it take to change a lightbulb?
One, but he'll end up doing it multiple times because he can't recall doing it before.
Good! About damn time!
One of the most frustrating, maddening things about this administration is disregard for the people's will. Bolton was a good example. He was only supported by the president and Republicans. When appointing someone that represent the American people you need to have the support of the American people not just your party.
It's in that same spirit that I'm voting Republican in the next presidential election. Do you REALLY think one party rule is going to better under Democrats? I like the idea of one party controlling the White House and the other controlling Congress. It forces people to work together. Something this country BADLY needs now... and for the world as well before we damage things even more.
Actually Gonzo and I were at the same school at almost the same time. No way he could have graduated with such a weak memory, so I've basically been wondering what happened to him. He still has his wits and he's just faking the idiocy? Or was is some kind of mental disease from excessive mental gymnastics and brown nosing?
Anyway, I'm still amazed that Dubya let him resign, even if Chertoff is the replacement (according to rumors). The last thing the neo-GOP wants now is a functional DoJ. Everything is coming unraveled for them.
One more thing. Don't let the door hit ya' on yer way out.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Remember how excited everyone got when Ashcroft was fired^W^Wresigned? That's when Gonzales was put in. Be sure there will be someone just as pliable and loyal to the Party--and probably smart enough not to get caught perjuring himself. So I wouldn't get too excited.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
I am no friend to Attorney Gonzalez. In fact I've wanted him out of the position for some time. But to his credit, he has been placed in a horrible position.
Lets assume for one moment, before he took this position that he was a good lawyer. But to be led by a man who has destroyed so many other reputations is no easy task. It is a great honor and massive amount of responsibility to be in that position. But then to be "Serving at the Will of the President...", augh. He has shown to be loyal to his president. Did he misplace is trust and loyality? Maybe yes, Maybe no. But a strong un-dying loyality in this day and age is very very difficult to find.
In many ways, I respect that ill lasting lasting loyality. But sadly, I would have respected him more had he had the courage to be an honest man with integrity.
This is of course, only my opinion.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
They were the ones who first latched onto the US Attorney firings. It was through their investigative reporting that congress got involved.
Talking Points Memo
photosMy Photostream
Here's another one...the VP also used this "I do not recall..." slogan while under fire. It's about time our constitution was amended to automatically have a senior official resign when the all of a sudden they cannot recall matters so important and held so dear to these United States.
Might be hard to believe, but a lot of conservatives aren't happy with the way things have been going throughout this administration. If anything could prove that Republican != Conservative, it's certainly been the Bush White House. I think the more things get shaken up, the more both conservatives and liberals win.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Got a better idea? What should they do? Impeach him? What kind of Congress would waste months of time and disillusion millions of Americans by impeaching a President when they know they will never be able to get a conviction in the Senate..... oh wait, n/m....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
nobody wins until the balance of power is restored to the people, where it belongs.
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
The President shouldn't have to nominate someone that the democrats support, but someone that is competent, experienced and has a history of obeying the law. If the democrats can't support that then they've got no hope in November of 2008.
From the article: "Bush will likely nominate Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to the position"
Events like this remind me to donate to the ACLU.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
For starters, W. will try to put one person forward, the dems will nix them, and W. will appoint in the middle of the next vacation of congress. This person will simply replace gonzales and will ensure that no real investigation occurs until the end of W. time. The dems need to go after after W. AND obtained convictions, then it would make future presidents about doing such actions. But congress, and the dems in particular, have shown that they will allow it to drop. Nixon and reagan were allowed free walks due to the succeeding presidents being republicans. But the next president will almost certainly be a dem. If so, they need to not pardon and allow justice to prevail. Otherwise, we will see that each republican will continue to screw US at will.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
it takes some effort to make john ashcroft look like a brave defender of american's freedoms. and ag ag did that, by acting like some sort of blitzkrieg operative for the extension of capricious and dubious powers. all very shady, all very slick, all very despicable, and forever afterward in my mind ag ag was worthy of not just resignation, but prosecution and punishment
now it looks like, like a previous white house operative (ag was the general counsel of gw bush in texas), that he's just the fall guy for his higher ups. resigning and taking the heat that rightfully should lead to dick cheney, karl rove, and gw bush
i'm not one for impeachment, it's a radical act, but i'm wondering where all the self-righteous a-holes who were ready to pillory clinton for whitewater and getting a blowjob from an intern are on the subject of gw bush, (or iran-contra, for that matter). or is it just a partisan game to get the other team at all costs, regardless of any actual judgment of the scale of wrongdoing?
personally, clinton could have had roman orgies on the scale of caligula in the white house. compared to what bush has done to this country's image in the world, orgies in the white house ranks as an impeachable offense a couple of orders of magnitude below what the shocktroops of chicanery the gw bush team has given us
gw bush: the usa's worst president, ever. he's just a moronic drunk rich kid. he wasn't even rightfully elected by the will of the american people. can you imagine how different things would be on the world stage today if al gore was in the white house?
the 2008 elections cannot come fast enough
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Lot of liberals aren't happy with it either, and the difference is, they didn't vote it in in the first place. If you voted for the republicans in any of the last 3 elections, you've got to accept responsibility for your choice.
Don't get me wrong; I don't blame the conservatives. They always vote the same way (well, some vote libertarian). Same with the libs when it's their party who is screwing stuff up; gotta ride that sinking ship right to the bottom. The thing that pisses me off is the damn fickle swing vote. You'd think, since they're not really wedded to an ideology, they'd be better than the right or the left, but really, they're just a bunch of jokers who vote based on whether a candidate has "Presidential Hair" and other such simplistic crap.
We may blame all the problems on the government, but it's the responsibility of the people to demand good government, and to put good people in power.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
He's just one disaster in a string of disasters. It's not going to get any better either because basically what people have elected into office is a huge disaster.
Until there are term limits on every office, real congressional districts instead of roarshark tests, and a voting populace with a brain you're not going to see much different.
We've done too good of a job polarizing the two parties. everything they do is boiled down to one issue for that voting block and that is what makes the call. If you're against abortion, you'll vote republican no matter what because the Denmocrats want to open Joe's Abortion Clinic - you rape em we scrape em - on every corner.
If you're gay, well, you're fucked because neither party will support you 100%. However the democrats will at least wave your direction when you walk by but then turn around and tell the other folks you're just being nice to them because you feel sorry for them.
If you like guns, you'll vote republican because no matter what they say the Democrats will take away your gun the first chance they get, don't know how to hunt, or many other problems.
It doesn't matter that the candidate is a closeted gay, child molester, or anything else long as he votes for / against whatever one issue you let decide.
And I don't think this is a new phenomenon, they've just gotten better at it. No one wants to compromise anymore. It's my way or the highway seems to be the prevailing wind. You see that attitude everywhere from open source vs. closed source to civil unions vs. marriages. We wouldn't know what to do with someone who actually tried to work for a solution instead of standing up top going my way or the highway. The one campaign statement that to this day that infuriates me to know end is that over and over Bush said he was a uniter, not a divider. Post 9/11 he is the perfect example of a divisive president. The entire world was ready to invade Afghanistan and destroy anything that looked at you crosseyed after 9/11 and then next thing you know forget Afghanistan and the real issue, let's go to Iraq.
I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was some feel good hippie that just got in the way, he killed a good chunk of people and is up there with some of the bigger bad guys in the past. However the path we took really screwed us, but we can't bail out now or our leaving will kill more people than Saddam did in the first place. It's a culture battle at this point and we're too stupid to realize that. Democracy isn't for everyone, and you can't force it on them any more than you can anything else.
I've gotten to the point where I don't know what we can do. the Democratic party currently isn't offering anything worth looking at as far as the 'front runner' is. By the time my state's primary comes around the decision will already be made for me as to who the candidate is because of our fucked up system of nomination. I truly believe that the primary should be one day, nationwide, in February before the election. It's an IRV ballot where you rank your choices, winner take all. the fact that I believe it is after 'super tuesday' nothing can change the outcome.
It's not like IA, NH, and SC are really representative of the US Population either. Iowa gives whitebread a new meaning, as does NH. SC starts to represent the mix of ethnicity that makes this nation so great, but the real melting pot states aren't until later and receive less focus than any other state.
My $0.02 of ranting.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
That's what Karl Rove and Gonzales are trying to be for Bush and Cheney. I wish to god there was someone in the Democratic party with the balls to bring Rove, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and all the gang to justice. Letting these guys resign and skate away to enjoy the spoils of their crimes is just as deadly to our democracy as the crimes themselves, because our system of checks & balances and faith in the rule of law remain compromised. Impeach, try, and convict. That's the only way to begin to untangle the disaster they've visited on us and the world.
To those who call themselves Republicans and resist this idea, just imagine Hillary Clinton as president with all the powers Bush and Cheney have arrogated to themselves. It should give you screaming nightmares, because it sure does me.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
We pay lip service to the people, but really, the people have very little say.
When the country was founded, the founding fathers envisioned the electoral college as a hedge against mob rule...The members of the electoral college were typically rich landowners, and they weren't required to vote based on the votes of the citizens beneath them, so if the rich landowners didn't like candidate A, they could just vote for candidate B, regardless of how the people voted.
That's not the case these days. These days, most states require the EC to vote based on how the people in the state vote...No wealthy landowners here!
Except...Who do the people vote for? The candidates chosen by the two big political parties. How do the big political parties choose their candidates? Effectively it's money. Whoever can line up the most wealthy landowners behind them, that person wins. That's pretty much the point of the primary system...Trot out the candidates, and see which one the money guys like best.
Sure, there are two guys up on stage, but really they're the same. They go to the same schools. They know the same people. They do roughly the same crap in office.
Power to the people will be a first in this country, if it ever happens.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Except of course the conservatives were quite happy to claim Bush and his admin as one of their own when things were going better.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Gonzales is yet another example how the Bush administration values loyalty over competence. In virtually every executive-appointed office, Bush has installed people who are not qualified to do the job, but are unconditionally loyal to him and his party.
While this may have always been true, it's never been more true now and this exemplifies the weakness of the American system of government. You elect a president, and then he puts incompetent cronies in positions of huge responsibility in important areas of the government. We've also seen that Bush has no reservations against using loopholes like congressional recess appointments to get around the checks and balances in Congress.
In other countries like Switzerland, heads of each major area of government, from transportation to defense, are independently, democratically elected. The next time an American starts talking about "democracy", remind them that they need to look elsewhere, far outside of their own country, to find a more true example of the democracy.
This is the guy who testified to the Senate that the right to habeas corpus is not guaranteed to US Citizens.
What a strange 6 years we have lived through since 9/11. I'm hoping it will be over soon. At least the Gonzalez chapter is.
...to simply outsource the DoJ to somewhere offshore which can perform its non-function for much less money?
Just wondering.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
"What kind of Congress would waste months of time and disillusion millions of Americans by impeaching a President when they know they will never be able to get a conviction in the Senate..... oh wait, n/m...."
I know you're going for a laugh, but it has to be said: "A congress which watched the constitution with even half as much attention as it watched it's ass."
Remember kids, correlation does not imply causation
And repeating that sentence over and over doesn't mean there is no causation. Correlations are important, because they do imply something significant every now and then.
In this case the correlation is mostly comical though. So laugh.
Because Code is Law.
Or do you live on a planet where 80% of the world's telecommunications links do not run through the United States of America, where those 80% are not illegally wiretapped, where strong encryption wasn't suppressed under a fifty-year-old munitions law, where the most popular vendor of operating systems software did not secretly include an escrowed backdoor to their encryption engine, where merely fixing broken technology doesn't earn you an indictment and/or a designation as a terrorist, where the US government doesn't kidnap innocent people off the streets of foreign countries, torture them for months, and dump them in countries that will torture and kill them?
Nerds are still People.
There's an agreement between the president and the Senate Leader Reid to no longer due this. If the President breaks that agreement, it'll upset folks, plus the Senate can be kept perpetually in session by having a senator come in every few days throughout the normal recess. It's not legally binding, of course, but if the President wants to accomplish anything in the next year, I suspect he'll keep his word.
It's easy to be suspicious when the wind if finally blowing that direction--where were you when this crap started? I knew about Abu Ghraib before I knew about Abu Ghraib, because I've read about the Zimbardo prison experiment. This has been ugly since day one, and I'm not too sympathetic to anyone who gave Gonzalez et al the benefit of the doubt for this many years when they gutted habeus corpus, normalized torture, built secret prisons, etc.
Probably nothing, legally.
Yes, yes: "they serve at the pleasure of the President."
Fine, fire them all because it's raining out. Or even fire them for political reasons, like they didn't donate enough money to your campaign. I'll give Bush the right to fire them for whatever reason, political or otherwise.
But, don't you think we have at least the right to know whether people were fired because they wouldn't investigate democrats in the months leading up to elections? Don't we at least have the right to know that people are being selectively prosecuted because of their party affiliations? Don't we at least have the right to know that justice is being meted out fairly?
Just because they are political appointments, doesn't mean that once appointed, the appointees are the stooges of the White House. They still have to follow the law. And it would be interesting to know if they were being fired for not being stooges.
And if you don't think the Congress has the right (nay, duty) to investigate such things, you're smoking crack.
Content aside, that's the funniest misheard/mistyped term I've seen in a while. It's not roarshark, it's Rorschach . I'm normally not a pedant on things like this, but had to correct this one.
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
--Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
There's one big reason why I won't advocate impeaching Bush: President Dick Cheney
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It's just a sad, sad statement when the most informed news you can get, in the paraphrased words of John Stewart, is a fake news show lead into by puppets making crank calls. John gets that. I honestly don't know how he manages to be so chipper and funny - he has to get up on that stage and make fun of some of the saddest/worst stuff in this country. Daily. Perhaps in the hopes that he's entertaining AND informing ... as opposed to places like Fox News, or CNN, which are failing us on so many levels.
Shit like this really REALLY pisses me off.
Right, Left, Rebulican, Democrat...we are all AMERICANS. When will you people get that through your thick skulls?
There are no "teams" here, people. We are all in this boat together. The more of you that put a letter after your name, the more this country falls apart.
The "team" nature that this country has become obsessed with is the marking of our downfall. People like the person quoted in this post are the EXACT reason why this country is fucked. It's not because he is for the liberals or because he is for the conservatives...it's because he is declaring a "side" as "winning".
The instant you do that, we all lose.
Living With a Nerd
That's why the impeachment proceedings are generally going after Dick first. If you get him first, then you can go after Bush on the same materials.
You know who then becomes president? Yep, that's right.
Congress has only barely worked up the will to investigate these misdeeds, and I am saddened to realize that Alberto Gonzales' resignation will completely end somehow push everyone to "move on." If ever there was an administration that deserved to be hounded until the end of its days, it would be this one - but they are practicing strategic resignations. Every time there is a lull in an investigation, the official under fire resigns, to be replaced by an equally inept and loyal official who simply isn't under investigation yet. The fact that the obvious target of hatred is gone saps the will of the investigators, and everyone involved gets away with no jail time and no penalties.
Federalists passed something called the "Alien and Sedition Act" in 1798 which allowed prosecution of anyone who said bad things about the current government. This particular governmental power was hastily repealed in 1802 when it became likely that Thomas Jefferson (a staunch opponent of the act and those who passed it) would win the next presidency.
Politics is like football. We've been at it so long that we forget that fitness was the original purpose of the game, and just care about winning.
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Yeah, well the difference is that Republicans have been blindly following party dictates and castigating anyone who dares criticize their brethren. Being secretly disillusioned means nothing if by action you show 100% loyalty.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Every politician seems to be using this logical fallacy these days, to the extent that they're pretty much one-trick ponies. I can hardly stomach any interviews with a politician because they just launch straight into a false dichotomy at the earliest opportunity, immediately muddying the discussion, turning it into an ideological debate rather than arguing the problem at hand, and diverting from any fault that may be attributable to them.
It sickens me. What annoys me more is that journalists (including the interviewers) love it too. They just carry on with their interview and debate the extremes. It makes for heated debates, and bigger headlines. It all avoids doing any actual fucking journalism.
The world isn't full of extremes but unfortunately it's currently being run by people with 1-bit vision and 1-bit responses. It's all going to end in a 1-bit result if it carries on - and I don't think it'll be the good one.
I'm not particularly worried about what political talking-heads say, but you know they will and, more importantly, you know that there are people who vote who believe them.
WRT losers: damn right. I'm almost more disgusted with the Congressional Dems who don't have the spine to stand up to Bush's abuses than I am with The Decider himself.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
First past the post elections systems tend to become two party systems after a long enough period of time.
The UK would be considered a two party system, the Labour and Conservative parties are the major parties with the Liberal Democrats a distant third (the 2005 UK election results shows this well, even though the Lib Dem got 22.1% of the vote they only got 9.6% of the seats. Also look at the difference between Labour and the Conservative vote, 35.3% vs. 33.3% of the vote but 55.2% vs. 32.7% of the seats respectively. Just for note, the small parties with a few seats each are mostly parties with significant local issues i.e. Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales)
In order to have a strong multi party system you would need to change election system from a first past the post system. My personal experience is with proportional representation as used in Ireland (single transferable vote).
This uses multi seat constituencies with a single transferable vote. Looking at the results of the 2007 election you can see that while two major parties still exist, there exists a number of strong smaller parties. It is also interesting to see that the percentage of seats in the Dáil (parliament) is relatively close to the percentage of first preference votes. This also means that in order to have a single party government you need the majority or very close to the majority of the votes.
Independence? That's middle-class blasphemy. We are all dependent on one another, every soul of us on earth. G.B Shaw
Thanks for that excellent post. Sadly it will probably not get its due in one of these topics where most people are more interested in venting than anything else.
The attacks on the traditional primary line up and the whining of other (larger) states is largely misguided and the current trend of trying to jump the line is going to be a disaster if allowed to continue.
The early primary states are not a problem, they are a national treasure.
Any sense of disenfranchisement from states voting later in the season has less to do with the so-called lack of diversity in NH and Iowa than it does in party rules, the media, and political funding. The political conventions have become nothing more than a 3 day media spectacle because the parties have changed the rules so that the outcome is known 6 months in advance. When was the last time there was a real floor fight or 2nd or 3rd nomination ballet? Campaigns now approach elections using the Powell doctrine of warfare: use overwhelming force (money) and persuasion (crappy media ads) up until Super Tuesday and the winners then watch the other campaigns slowly bleed to death because they cannot finance media buys in the big states. This is the way the parties want it - not IA, NH, or SC. Undermining these states is the wrong solution aimed at a complete misreading of the problem.
The voters in New Hampshire, for instance, take the primary process very seriously and I would confidently put their collective political knowledge up against that of any other state. Yes, it has only a million people - exactly why politicians are forced to get out of the limos and participate in retail politics. Which works as intended. Mitt Romney, for example, cannot hide behind his money and slick ads when waitresses in Manchester diners can pummel him with questions and objections to his health care plans.
A national primary or front loading big states would be a disaster. CA or NY can never have real retail politics so all that will happen is that the pols will climb further up the asses of big corporate money so they can finance pigeon campaigns where they fly over and dump ads on the populace.
If your idea of democracy in action is 30 second ads by pols preselected by the corps, or political conversation on the order of our misnamed television "debates", keep dumping on IA and NH and front loading the primaries. We will get the political outcome we desearve.
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
The people have as much power as they have ever had. In fact they have more power than they had in the early days, because the electoral college has been reduced to a rubber stamp based on the popular vote in each state...at least now your vote is being overridden by your fellow citizens and not some rich elector.
Except that the people have to exercise that power for it to make any difference. The #1 thing that takes power away from the people is this depressive meme that what they do doesn't matter anyway. So yeah, if you're sitting around bitching about how you don't have power, instead of voting and writing letters and making phone calls and attending town hall meetings--you're right you don't have power. I'd submit that that's your own fault though.
I think the money aspect is usually overplayed. Money matters, but it's not the only thing. For example--which side of the "drill in ANWR debate" has more money? But they've lost like 20-some votes now, most of which were even under Republican rule. In the end it always comes back to votes. Money can help with those, but it can't actually buy them. No amount of money was going to get Mark Foley back into office.
And to continue my rant just a little longer, it seems like the power of the president is always overplayed in these discussions. Congress is directly elected by the people (even Senators now--another example of increasing power to the people), and is directly accountable to them in a very local way. A lot of the problems of the past 6 years could have been avoided or at least mitigated had Congress been in greater opposition to the President.
So maybe you say: well there's always only two candidates, and I don't agree with either. Well first of all I'd say you're probably not paying attention, since most elections go through a primary process that involves many more candidates than 2. So there's your first chance to affect an election.
I'd also say that there's another way to look at elections--as a beginning not an end. The goal is not to get someone who will "represent you" perfectly, the goal is just to get the person elected who is most likely to be sympathetic to your position on your pet issues. The key is what happens after the election, when the rep. has to start making actual decisions and votes--that's when citizen activity matters most. This is how all the trade associations and interest groups and lobbyists view elections BTW.
You're never going to get someone who agrees with you on more than a couple issues. If we imagine some simple world of only 6 for/against policy positions, that's still 64 possible combinations of beliefs. Whether there are 2 or 4 candidates to choose from does not significantly change the odds that you'll get someone you agree with 100%. And the real world is way more complicated than that.
Finally, losing is not necessarily proof that the system is broken, it's probably just proof that more people disagree with you than agree with you. So what next? It's possible to change minds but it takes time. It took decades of continuous work for the Republicans to get Congress, but they did it. They fucked it up in record time, but the point is that they wanted it, they worked for it, and they got it.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
You are doing it all wrong. You should vote. You should just vote for a third party. The reason people are afraid to vote for a third party candidate is that they have been convinced that they are "throwing away their vote". If you are actually advocating literally throwing away your vote, you can double the effectiveness by voting third party. There is little to no chance that the third party candidate will win, so it doesn't matter what the candidate stands for. Besides, they are unlikely to be a bigger problem than either of the two major candidates.
If you think that 20% voter turn out will get the governments attention, just imagine what a 70% turnout would do to them with 30% of the votes going to third party candidates! So, don't encourage your family and friends not to vote at all. Don't try to convince them that they should think a third party will get elected. Just explain that if they are going to withhold/throw away their votes, withhold them from the possible winners by putting them on a third party.
If not voting is supposed to be the death by a thousand cuts, voting for a third party is the salt you rub into the wounds.
Now that Rove is available I am sure he would be confirmed with no problem. Certainly a man that can put the law before partisan considerations.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
When Ronald Reagan was in, all they did was replace the attorney general every time some republican cronie was up for investigation to keep delaying the prosecution of said cronie. That's in addition to appointing idiots to the post anyway. In the end everyone got away scott free with the effect of creating a group of individuals that have contributed to the current system that is even more corrupt than before. Give it up, the constitution has been subverted. Democrats, get some balls or disband. By the way, impeachment for treason is not a radical act, executing the entire administration in the middle of 1600 Ave for treason is a radical act.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
You are both right, in a sense. Doing nothing more than voting once every four years doesn't do a damn thing to help matters, but then, protesting by not voting at all accomplishes even less. I think you both need to get out there and try to actively make changes yourselves, just as many others have tried to do in the past. You may have no effect at all; then again, you could become the catalyst this nation needs to wake up and see the evil leadership we are under. If you think we need a revolution, then revolt! If you feel that by not voting you are making a difference, then do more than just refuse to vote. Talk to people about why, and not just on geeky internet forums like this. Get out there and speak to groups, rally the folks to see the truth behind the corruption and misdeeds of our woefully inadequate government.
..to see what books are on that shelf in the background. What are the odds on World Leadership for Dummies?
Probably not as good as World History: A Story in Pictures.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere