Ultimately it doesn't matter to the judge how unfair life is to you. The rules set by the CPD are non-partisan, they don't "endorse" either candidate. The CPD does not conduct the polls you complain about which DO in fact mention third party candidates (Nader is in almost every poll), they aren't the TV networks or Newspapers that don't pick up your story (there ARE stories though their rare frequency reflect your small level of support). The pollsters DO start asking about third party candidates when those candidates start exhibiting in other forums a level of support or relevance that makes them worth asking about. In the every one of the past four elections we have had third parties break through displaying enough popular support in other forums to EARN the notice of pollsters and the MSM: Perot in 1992 and 1996, Nader in 2000 and again in 2004. Get just 5% and you get federal funds next time (if the Libertarians would accept them)
The Libertarian party DOES get coverage, the chance to make their case and win support. Here we are on a pretty popular site talking about Badnarik and not Jack Grimes from the United Fascist Union who is also running this year (supposedly he came in 6th last time). Where is your outrage that he has been refused the chance to be at the debates? Where is the outrage that his name is not mentioned in the polls or by the major media? You aren't outraged about it nor should you be... he's a laughable fringe candidate running an exercise in ideological vanity instead of a campaign. In other words he could just as well be a Libertarian (or a Green, Natural Law, Socialist, Constitutionalist, etc. etc. etc.)
Breaking into a market dominated by two huge rivals consisting of vast coalitions which in their bowels already HAVE component parts that represent your unique appeal is a tough possibly impossible business. I understand your frustration, but I don't see why anyone should be compelled to go out of their way to make it any easier for you. If the two parties utterly failed to reflect a large body of impassioned opinion out there that you did you would start to get the numbers to FORCE the system to notice you... Sadly, that just isn't the case. Libertarian support is what it is, there isn't a huge untapped reservoir of libertarian sentiment just waiting to hear your message at the debate. What does exist are libertarian voters that are imperfectly satisfied voting for either the Republicans or the Democrats because they realize their viewpoint isn't going to get to 50%+1 without allying themselves with, and compromising with, followers of other ideologies with which they can find *some* common ground. EVERYONE "holds their nose" on election day and votes for the lesser of two (or three, or four, or sixteen) evils not because the system is broken but because 50% +1 of the people don't ALL AGREE on everything, the best anyone can hope for is a minimally acceptable consensus which is exactly what the two party system provides in it's messy, idiosyncratic way.
how exactly is a third party candidate supposed to garner 15% support if NONE of the major polling & media is mentioning, asking, or offering our candidates as actual CHOICE
By getting to the minimal amount of support that gets them to start paying attention to you. It's not the polling organizations job to do your marketing/campaigning for you. It's not the governments job to force them to. It's YOUR job! Your failure to do so is not THEIR fault. Ralph Nader is mentioned by name in almost every single major poll. His campaign is getting fairly decent coverage (considering his poll numbers) in the major media. Stop whining and looking for an electoral handout. If you can't find a way to break through and get the coverage you crave that is nobodies fault but your own. Other third parties have done it, your failure to do so is YOUR failure to do so.
But, politics are too complicated for lots of choices.... the LIE that there are only two evil choices
These two statements display the fundamental failure to understand the current system common to third-party advocates. In this election cycle there were ELEVEN major candidates with a decent chance of victory representing a reasonably wide variety of views. (Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark, Sharpton, Kucinich, Gephardt, Lieberman, Braun, and Bush). To be fair that list tilts toward many "progressive" choices but not many libertarian or conservative ones - because Bush was a consensus candidate from that axis established four years earlier when the choices included (Bush, Alexander, Bauer, Keyes, Dole, Forbes, Hatch, McCain, and Quayle as well as Gore and Bradley) - Plenty of choices there. Badnarik could have been among them, it's that he couldn't WIN and that he didn't bother trying. The hard-core, doctrinaire, uncompromising Libertarian position just isn't shared by enough people to get a majority of the votes. It COULD compromise with other factions with which they agree on SOME general principles and build a winning COALITION - but they are too pure, to ideological, they refuse to compromise to a degree sufficient to get support beyond those very few voters that agree on almost every particular. Consequently the 1-2% support they get at the polls is a pretty accurate reflection of their actual support. If you demand ideological purity you will only get the votes of the ideologically pure... sadly for you that is only a tiny fraction of the electorate that is not worth the bother of including in the polls or in most news stories.
When you are serious about winning 50% +1 vote and willing to make the compromises required to get all those people with diverse views to vote for you come back and complain about being shut out of the system. While you are shutting YOURSELF out don't whine to me about how "unfair" it is.
*Sigh* If you disagree with the points I made refute them... simply restating the case using the bold tag doesn't make for a very convincing argument.
I'll try again. The university is not ENDORSING anybody. It's hosting a debate put on by a private organization. That organization has opened the debate to ANY candidate, from ANY party that exhibits a sufficient level of public support to be considered a serious contender. There is nothing intrinsically partisan about doing so. You may think that they should invite any candidate, or any candidate that fulfills some lesser qualification that just by coincidence happens to include your candidate. But a judge isn't going to find such limitations to be partisan because strictly speaking they aren't.
The Libertarian party's failure to find support is THEIR problem. If their views were REALLY as popular as they thought they WOULD find sufficient support to show up in the polls, get some media attention, etc. Their complaint is ultimately NOT with the debate commission, the university, the state, not even with the media that won't cover them... it's with the voters that won't support them.
No, it is a bi-partisan entity. That is the whole complaint! Read a little...
Yes that is their complaint (I read it). But where it counts... the rules for who can be part of the debate,they are not bi-partisan... they are NON-partisan. There is nothing explicitly partisan in the debate commissions rules for who is invited. There is nothing limiting the debate to the two parties, or even guaranteeing the participation OF the two parties. The rules, on their face, simply limit the debate to candidates with enough support in public polls to be considered serious contenders (a minimum of 15%). I'm sorry, but it's not unreasonable to limit a debate to serious candidates, and no the libertarian candidate isn't serious. It is a vanity campaign for ideological purists who can't get over the fact that their ideology has only limited appeal. Tough! I'm sorry but don't feel much sympathy for the Libertarians, or the other third parties... I see them as dilettantes and whiners who when faced with the relative unpopularity of their position take to empty complaints and retreat to a fantasy world where "if only we got a chance" the public that rejects their views would flock to their banner.
OK... evolved then. It amounts to much the same thing.
The thing third-party supporters forget about with all the whining about "only two choices" is the PRIMARIES. In this election we had ELEVEN major candidates representing a fairly wide range of views, in 2000 there was an even larger field of major candidates representing an even wider range of views including several fairly libertarian ones.
The primary system is funky, weird, it isn't what you would have if you had a system "designed" by the poli-sci department as a "perfect system" but that is as you said it wasn't "designed" but EVOLVED and continues to do so. I like social systems that evolve rather than those that are "designed" - think about the difference between neighborhoods and the results of "urban renewal" projects designed by the best and the brightest.
The main downside of the primary system is that voters in later states usually "don't have a choice" by the time they get to vote (technically they DO actually, it's just that they already know their guy lost by the time they get to vote). On the other hand that same flaw is also a feature, unknown candidates with no national support have a chance in small, early states to make their case and *build* support to take with them into later states and larger multi-state contests.
The problem I have with third parties is that they are unserious. Nobody agrees with you. That's not your fault, nobody agrees with ANYBODY! The two or three percent that libertarians get isn't THAT far off from their real level of support. Maybe it would triple or even quadruple if everyone who agreed (by and large) voted that way. Whoopdee-do! 12-15%! Not exactly a mandate to rule the remaining 85% of us. Serious groups face the fact that nobody agrees with each other and they work with people they agree with on at least a few issues to build a winning coalition. That is what the two parties are... a whole bunch of loose, smaller parties that can (almost) agree on at least some broad general principles. Every group gets their chance to try and win the primary and have it be THEIR guy that everyone else will "hold their nose" and vote for this time around.
Instead of being serious and trying to move the country towards their ideal, the third-party purists maintain their precious ideological purity, their 2-3% and their whining. I'm sympathetic to many of the Libertarian party's views, I long ago ceased to be sympathetic to their complaints.
... it is in fact funded by Arizona taxpayer money and held at Arizona State University, which is a taxpayer-funded institution.
The first statement is sort-of true only because of the second statement. The University is covering some costs associated with hosting the debate... Also, they are trying to get private sponsorships to cover those costs. However they are going to cover those costs whether they find private sponsors or not THEREFORE the Libertarian party is arguing that the debate is taxpayer-funded and therefore must allow the Libertarian candidate to take part.
This lawsuit doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell... it's a publicity stunt. No judge is going to insert himself in such a manner into the political process and they have PLENTY of outs. First, the "public funding" is only to host a debate put on by a private entity. There is plenty of legalistic wiggle room here to justify the public expenditure.
Secondly and much more importantly, that private entity is non-partisan... there is nothing in their rules which on it's face discriminates against the Libertarian party. There ARE rules which discriminate against parties and candidates with with only miniscule discernible public support... Nothing explicitly partisan about that. If the Libertarian party cannot get to a level of public support that qualifies them as serious contenders that is THEIR problem not the debate commissions or the Universities, the States or the courts.
Fine, what is the Libertarian stance on abortion then? I suspect they would be against making abortion illegal.
Most yes, there are however a at least some pro-life libertarians, and the most prominent libertarian think tank is officially agnostic. The reason being that IF you accept that the unborn is a human life with rights then the laws against abortion are as legitimate as laws against any other form of homicide... this is a question that is beyond the ken of libertarian philosophy in and of itself. The libertarians governing philosophy can only be applied AFTER that initial position on whether the unborn have rights or not has been answered.
Most Democrats are strong believers in civil liberty-- you are free to do whatever you want, as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others
No... they are strong believers in SOME civil liberties almost exclusively limited to the area of sex at this point. You can do whatever you want as long as it's not smoking, owning a gun, saying something "insensitive", doing whatever you want with and on your own property, keeping your own income, associating, or NOT, with whomever you want for whatever reasons you want, taking risks with your health, educating your own children, etc. etc. etc.
A well-designed government can be used to promote equality for all people....
("business" libertarians) could care less if... a business pays white workers more then black workers
This is exactly the difference between libertarians and Democrats. That you use it as an example of something you think contradicts libertarianism shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what they believe. Libertarians place the highest value on liberty, Democrats place it on equality or perhaps "fairness". The two are NOT the same at all and are in fact VERY OFTEN in conflict. Your (sadly, not so) hypothetical is a perfect example of the difference. The arrangement between this employer and his black employees is one arrived at by the consent of both in liberty... A libertarian can think that employer a bad man, may personally shun him, may even organize a boycott of his business. A libertarian would likely think this man would eventually harm his own busines and be supplanted by another company that will properly values labor. A libertarian would point out that institutional racism ultimately REQUIRES government enforcement because of this truth. The one thing a libertarian would NOT do is advocate government action to FORCE that man to do something with his own money that he didn't want to do of his own free will.
Your example is at one extreme where even some libertarians today may see the case for government action. The problem with your argument is that Democrats see such justifiable violations of peoples liberty *everywhere*. Laws, upon laws, upon laws in almost every sphere of human activity, exercised by the most centralized government body available. Laws dictating when and where I can build a house, earn a living, employ other people, what I MUST pay for insurance against future calamity etc. etc. etc. All of them with excellent justification for why following them will make me and others happier, healthier, wiser... it's just that it's not my choice.
I belive that all people have an equal right to the basics -- food, shelter, health, happyness, love, others
The problem with these "rights" is that they are not rights I carry in myself but OBLIGATIONS that must be imposed upon someone else. I could argue that I have a RIGHT to grow, or earn my own food... but to have a RIGHT to food itself government must FORCE someone else to give it to me, same with shelter, health, love etc.
Let me point out that I am NOT a libertarian. I'm perfectly OK with and approve many of these laws and think that government has some broader responsibilities beyond what a true libertarian would agree with. I do however understand the philosophy and can see that you don't... that is why you think (wrongly) that there is a large body of libertarians within the Democratic party that may bolt to the Libertarian candidate. Unless of course you think there is a large body of Democrats that would find the logic above regarding racial hiring practices perfectly sound, I rather doubt it.
It'll never happen. Then again I think the Free State Project should have chosen Maine instead of New Hampshire. Specifically just the first congressional district... they'd have a decent chance to get that ONE electoral vote. It could be worth having with the nation divided so closely. A 269/269 spit is not that unlikely with the polls where they are (Bush loses Ohio and NH but picks up Wisconsin - all in accordance with some recent polls, and then pulls something of a surprise victory in NM... he's only a point or two behind)
A 269/268/1 split would be a VERY interesting position for the Libertarian party to be in.
It's generally assumed that Libertarians draw from Republicans, but this isn't really true--I think they draw about 50-50.
I tend to doubt this. Some erstwhile Republicans will stray to the Libertarian party on account of the unlibertarian social policies of the Republicans... but that is because there were libertarians in the Republican party to start with. There has never been a big libertarian presence in the Democratic party. Their entire philosophy of government is diametrically opposed to the libertarian vision. There are libertarians that might vote on occasion for Democrats on account of social issues but they are not part of the Democratic base being lost to the Libertarian candidate... they are swing voters that just don't swing this time.
I figure the "lost" Democratic votes are probably no more than 25% of the Libertarian vote, another full 50% is lost Republican votes, the remaining quarter would just stay home if there wasn't a Libertarian candidate.
The Republican political technique is based on repeating a small number of simple consistent messages to the electorate. It's the "talking point" thing. Get everybody top to bottom saying exactly the same thing in the same phrases over and over and over again in every venue you can put them in, and pretty soon the message starts to stick.
To be fair... this isn't just Republican political technique, it's just plain "political technique". Both parties & candidates do it. It's the only way to get your message through the media filter.
His problem wasn't that he *intentionally* repeated talking points, it was that he is a spectacularly inarticulate guy. He actually did better than usual in the first half of the debate and then started doing a lot worse than usual as it went on. He struggled to find words and when he couldn't find them he fell back on those tired phrases... "hard work"... etc. He got more and more irritated and it showed. I suspect that there is some truth to the Republican excuse that he was tired, I suspect he was poorly prepared... I think his "victories" against Gore went a little to his head and the campaign believed their own press releases about Kerry's own problems with clarity.
But to be fair Cheney had at least half of a valid point. The Establishment Survey measuring payroll jobs has employment down... the Household survey which includes the farm workers, the self-employed, and start-ups that are often missed by the Establishment survey has employment UP. The Democrats are arguing that the Establishment survey is the only one that "counts" and that "self-employed" is just a proud mans way of saying "unemployed". The Republicans of course prefer to talk about the Household survey. Cheney's point about eBay was that the economy has changed - there is more self-employment, independent contractors, people doing all sorts of little side businesses in sectors that didn't exist before and aren't going to be adequately reported in the Establishment survey. eBay may not have been the best example for his point, then again it did well over $2 BILLION in sales so it's surely not a mere "Lemonade stand" as Edwards countered.
The truth is probably somewhere in-between which is why we have both surveys. A lot of "self-employed" people are surely just doing odd jobs while they try to find a real job... but not ALL of them are. Big businesses HAVE shifted to outsourcing not just to overseas but to smaller businesses, independent contractors etc.
How can anyone who believes in the traditional conservative values of small government, fiscal responsibility, and prudent foreign policy still support the guy?
This characterization is just crazy and the question asked has no answer. I'm glad Republicans get mod points though...
I don't see why this is crazy. Rumsfeld has been deeply unpopular for long YEARS within the Pentagon (especially with the Army, especially with Infantry and Armor) because of his strong views on force structure.
Many of the retired Generals Kerry boasts about supporting him are the other side of that internal Pentagon debate, and given many of his own public statements & record on weapons systems development I think it's fair to conclude that he, at least in a broad sense, falls into that more traditional camp. Which as I pointed out relies far more on numerically large armored and infantry divisions.
Kerry would probably be far less aggressive, but should he find himself in a war anyway he has given every indication that he will choose to fight it with greater numerical superiority, and that he would not be as willing to draw down troops from Europe & South Korea.
A draft is highly unlikely in either event. But whatever small chance exists doesn't seem to me to cut against Bush any more than Kerry. Bush may be more likely to get us into another war, but conscript troops have no place in Rumsfeld's military doctrine - they are an anathema, less than useless to his way of thinking. Kerry is less likely to get us into a war, but with his stance he is more likely to use a LOT more troops if one comes to him and conscripts *could* play a role in the massed armor & infantry force structure that the generals supporting him believe in.
The ONLY way that you could say I'm "crazy" is if you believe Kerry is lying about his true positions on defense. I hope believing that Kerry is honest about his positions isn't "crazy" though.
That may be YOUR argument, but that is not the argument of the emails that were going around to college students.
As for your argument. Rumsfeld (and by extension this administration) has been a big advocate for a numerically smaller, higher tech military for a very long time. I very much doubt Rumsfeld would EVER want a draft, which is just completely counter to his entire approach to the military.
On the other hand it was KERRY that pledged to enlarge the military by an additional 40,000 troops, has criticized the administration for not having enough troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has criticized the planned drawdown of troops in Western Europe and South Korea. Also Democrats, Kerry foremost among them, have generally opposed the kind of expensive, high-tech weapons development that means we can do more with fewer troops.
Bush IS a cowboy, he might get us into more wars. Then again Kerry is on record essentially favoring issuing an empty threat* a position that is perhaps even MORE risky in the long run. It is a dangerous world and even the most dovish President may (regretfully) find us in a war. Giving their different approaches to the military (smaller size & more expensive equipment vs. larger size & less expensive equipment) which approach is more likely to result in a draft?
*Voting FOR an war ultimatum to gain "diplomatic leverage", but then stating he could conceive of "no circumstances" where he would have followed through.
That's not a conservative value. That's a libertarian value. Be careful not to confuse them.
In America it is reasonably safe to confuse them. Conservatism most broadly is about preserving existing values and social structures. In the USA those existing social structures and values often have a generally libertarian cast to them. Meanwhile the progressive impulse in the USA has been egalitarian but also statist, mildly socialist, centralizing power. The result is that the conservative movement in America is a sometimes uneasy mix of traditionalism and libertarianism.
Even the most traditionalist conservatives in America would agree with the statement you describe as exclusively "libertarian". It is not an either/or thing. The sentiment expressed is BOTH libertarian AND conservative.
There is plenty of room to criticize Bush's from a conservative perspective. Of course Kerry's critique is coming from the other side and he would be quite a bit worse from the conservative perspective than Bush is.
You can't fight a war, and remain rigid, because the constructs of war are constantly changing. You have to be flexible and be able to recalculate your plans at every step....
This, in effect, proves that Bush thinks that by remaining firm, not changing his plans, we will "win" this war. That is outright ridiculous.
Be fair to here is what Bush said about this exact issue.
"Of course, we change tactics when need to, but we never change our beliefs, the strategic beliefs that are necessary to protect this country in the world."
It may well be true that Bush is dangerously inflexible, but in this he has a valid point. Large-scale, geo-political strategy decisions can't be changed based on the latest casualty report, New York Times editorial, or opinion poll. The Iraq war HAS been carried out with a great deal of operational and tactical, and even strategic flexibility. The decision of whether or not it was "worth it" has not, nor should it be. At least not by the President that made that decision. The voters can and should consider that question.
I don't have any problem with Senator Kerry's criticism of that initial decision. I don't have a problem with him having a different strategy based on his differing values & judgement. I think we as voters can and should consider and change the geopolitical strategy. What I DO have a problem with is Kerry's apparent inconstancy in his own view of geo-political strategy.
If among the caveats, and conditional clauses that surround his emphatic declarative statements one can discern the consistent policy he now espouses it is a really poor and dangerous one. his recent statements are that he wanted to THREATEN war to gain diplomatic leverage, but that he would NOT CARRY THROUGH on those threats under any conceivable circumstances. Bush's rush to war is extremely dangerous. Making empty threats is almost as dangerous. Publicly declaring a policy of empty threats is perhaps MORE dangerous. Should Kerry win, he will never be able to issue a credible ultimatum. The potential for catastrophic misjudgment is very high.
Sadly between these two candidates I don't think either one is really fit to be President. Bush tends to become fixated upon one view of a situation and one solution to it without properly considering alternative views and solutions. Kerry is so used to senatorial CYA politics that he can't make a decision without throwing in an escape hatch caveat he can pull out later if the initial decision looks bad a few months later. His middle ground is (in this case, and probably many others) MORE dangerous than a simple decision for or against.
You say the audio tapes aren't genuine? I guess you know better than the CIA and the rest of the world's intelligence agencies, because they say he is alive.
No, as a matter of fact they don't. They *believe* the tapes are genuine, but to quote the CIA press release "the poor quality of the tape made it impossible to verify it was bin Laden's voice with 100 percent certainty." Of course finding WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk", so take the CIA's testimony for what it's worth.
Outside voice experts have concluded that it is NOT genuine. However it is an *extremely* poor quality recording so their methods can't conclude for certain that it is a fake. Of course that cuts the other way too. Those that think it's a fake see the extremely poor quality as an argument in their favor... An impostor would intentionally use poor quality to confound accurate analysis.
Without any absolute proof the CIA and the administration are operating under the assumption that he is alive. But the theory that he is in fact dead, and the tapes are fakes while at odds with the official policy has plenty of adherents. The parent poster overstated the case... we KNOW for a certain fact that a significant number of Al Queada escaped from Tora Bora, but on the other hand we know that an even larger number did NOT. The fact that Bin Laden has not shown his face despite the huge benefit it would be to him to prove to the world that he is alive and operating is awfully suggestive.
His last known location was subjected to heavy bombing shortly after his presence there was confirmed (by radio intercepts). On top of that he was a very sick man in very arduous circumstances without access to the medical care his kidney condition required. The only subsequent proof we have of his continued existence is a very poor quality recording whose authenticity is debated by the experts and unprovable either way. It's possible he's still alive, but I tend to think it's more likely that he is dead.
he CIA constantly analyses the videos (and audios) for signs of where they were shot.
Yes they did, there was talk in the media about having geologists analyze the stone/cave backdrop to come up with some clues. Of course the moment that was mentioned on air all subsequent videos from Al Queada have been filmed before a cloth backdrop... Not much to work with. Once again our openness is a tactical weakness, even while it is also our ultimate strategic strength.
Osama never broadcast his videos, they were shot and then hand delivered to Al Jezeera. They probably went through many hands, at some reasonably significant delay in time. There is no reason to think that Bin Laden would still be wherever he was when the video was initially shot. The risk he could be tracked back through the video communication exists, but isn't that high. Any other communication is just as risky.
On the other hand while the risks are not that high, the benefits are significant. The video proof of his existence would be a significant boost to the morale of his loose, far-flung, organization and a blow to ours. Such proof that he continues to live and operate apparently unhindered by our efforts would be well worth the risks. In the absence of significant attacks on the U.S. (something he promised) it would almost seem necessary.
I think it's likely that he IS dead, or perhaps wounded/disfigured or ill to such a degree that showing his face would damage rather than enhance his credibility.
I don't know, Several of their calls look REALLY wrong based on the polling I've seen. They have Washington as a toss-up when polling there consistently has Kerry ahead by by *just* within the MOE if not outside of it... Meanwhile they have Oregon "weak Kerry" when polling there has been consistently much closer... Kerry within the MOE a few ties and even a few with Bush ahead by one or two. Maybe they got the two states confused? They also have New Mexico as "Strong Kerry" when all the polling (except the most recent Zogby) has it well within the MOE and Mason Dixon and Albequerque Journal both have Bush ahead (by 2 and 3 respectively).
They don't seem to be particularly partisan in their weird calls, they just seem weird... States that are consistently going to Kerry aside from a few outliers are toss-ups (WA, ME, NJ), other states that are consistently toss-ups aside from one or two outliers are going to Kerry (NM, OR)... little net effect, just screwy.
I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand political campaigns should be serious and about serious issues. Not what candidate is better with photo-ops, or what they did as kids (yes 20 somethings are "kids") 35 years ago.
On the other hand this kind of jocular sniping has always been part of campaigns and is engaged in by both sides. On the other side we have seen Millionaires for Bush, Pleasure Boat Captains for Truth. Think of this as the Republican equivalent to giant paper maché puppets the far left trots out during street protests.
Such humorous jibes CAN be devastatingly effective though. To be effective though there must be a grain of truth and reflect some serious concern to (some) voters. It's sort of interesting that the Democratic jokes and Republican votes are very similar in this case. Pleasure Boat Captains for Truth, Millionaires for Bush and Football Fans for Truth are all saying basically the same thing... The candidate is a rich elitist who isn't like you, he does not share your values, he does not share your concerns. Consequently he will pursue policies that you won't agree with. Both political "practical jokes" also insinuate that the opposing candidate is a poser, a phony who is pretending to be something he is not.
These are not illegitimate arguments, even if they are raised in a humorous way.
Besides it's funny... laugh... if only because that is the ONLY way to defuse the "joke" politically. A candidate that laughs at his opponents jokes about him displays a comforting level of self-knowledge. He displays that he knows his own weaknesses, is willing to admit to his own failures and by implication is likely to address them in some way. A candidate that doesn't "get" a truly funny joke about himself is worrying because it suggests that he is not being dishonest with us, he is being dishonest with himself. It suggests that whatever weakness is being lampooned will not be properly compensated for if he is elected, with potentially disastrous consequences.
The problem isn't that felons can or can't vote. It's that people who are likely to vote for Democrats are getting their voting rights taken away, and that people who are likely to vote for Republicans aren't.
No! Wrong! That is HALF of the problem! The other half is the *reality* of voter fraud.
A little history is required to understand the voter disenfranchisement in 2000. Go back to 1998. In that election cycle there was a mayoral race in Miami. The Democratic party did a spectacular job of getting out the vote and won it for their candidate. Unfortunately they did a little TOO good of a job. They got out not just the convicted felon and illegal alien vote, the even got that traditionally Democratic demographic, the deceased-American vote. There were paid vote-brokers, forged signatures, ballot tampering, the whole nine yards. It was so bad that something VERY rare happened. A court overturned the election and installed the other candidate.
This was not the usual low level voter fraud by a small number of overzealous and ethically challenged individuals. This was widespread, organized classic corrupt machine politics, and subsequent state-wide investigation found it wasn't limited to Miami, and not just to that election. Some people had a better voting record in the years since their death than they had during their life.
It is wrong for legitimate voters to be disenfranchised. Having your vote essentially cancelled out by a dead man voting the other way is just as much disenfranchisement. In some ways it is worse since it is only rarely caught. The living disenfranchised voter will raise a stink, assuming the corpse is properly buried it won't - and the voters whose votes were essentially cancelled out never know.
It's because Zogby was the most accurate poll of 2000
But Zogby did pretty poorly in 2002. He nailed in in 2000, but was that because he really nailed it or because he was the low end of the range for Bush and the last minute DUI issue hadn't had a chance to fully factor into any polls (including his)... Was he smart or was he lucky?
Also, while I think Gallup definitely has had major sampling problems, I think Zogby is too rigid in adjusting his sample to conform to a hard-wired percentage break-down by party identification. People shift their self-identification, not as much as the Gallup polls are suggesting but a lot more than Zogby is willing to concede. There are a lot of people that are major-part/independent. Their self-identification will depend on how they feel about the party in question at that moment. Kerry does something great, and the guy on the fence proudly says "I'm a democrat". Kerry stumbles, flubs a debate, whatever and it's "I'm an independent". The same is true of fence-sitting Republicans..
Take me as an example: In my state an independent can vote in either primary - you affiliate (briefly) with the party whose primary you want to vote in on your way into the poll, you vote, on your way out (if you remember) you disaffiliate. I'm a dyed in the wool Republican, but I'm in a one-party Democratic state where the only election that counts is the Democratic primary - so i remain a registered Independent who half the time registers temporarily as a "Democrat". If I forget to disaffiliate on my way out I'm legally a Democrat (by accident) but I'll identify myself to a pollster as either a Republican or Independent depending on how I feel about the party at any given moment. Zogby's rigid party-counting method doesn't account for me, and I'm far from being alone.
The author of Election Projection is obviously biased. But he created a model and has stuck to it... Over the summer his model had Kerry winning by the same wide margins that Bush is winning now. The problem with his projection is not his bias but that his model overstates the electoral lead of whoever happens to be leading in national polls. So Bush's 4-5 point lead in national polls is switching states to him (according to the model) where actual state polling is showing a much more even race.
I think his model was nice to play with early on when there was only limited polling. But now that we are in to the actual campaign we have much better, and more detailed information which renders his model based on broad generalities moot and reveals it's flaws.
Slashdot Mirror
Ultimately it doesn't matter to the judge how unfair life is to you. The rules set by the CPD are non-partisan, they don't "endorse" either candidate. The CPD does not conduct the polls you complain about which DO in fact mention third party candidates (Nader is in almost every poll), they aren't the TV networks or Newspapers that don't pick up your story (there ARE stories though their rare frequency reflect your small level of support). The pollsters DO start asking about third party candidates when those candidates start exhibiting in other forums a level of support or relevance that makes them worth asking about. In the every one of the past four elections we have had third parties break through displaying enough popular support in other forums to EARN the notice of pollsters and the MSM: Perot in 1992 and 1996, Nader in 2000 and again in 2004. Get just 5% and you get federal funds next time (if the Libertarians would accept them)
The Libertarian party DOES get coverage, the chance to make their case and win support. Here we are on a pretty popular site talking about Badnarik and not Jack Grimes from the United Fascist Union who is also running this year (supposedly he came in 6th last time). Where is your outrage that he has been refused the chance to be at the debates? Where is the outrage that his name is not mentioned in the polls or by the major media? You aren't outraged about it nor should you be... he's a laughable fringe candidate running an exercise in ideological vanity instead of a campaign. In other words he could just as well be a Libertarian (or a Green, Natural Law, Socialist, Constitutionalist, etc. etc. etc.)
Breaking into a market dominated by two huge rivals consisting of vast coalitions which in their bowels already HAVE component parts that represent your unique appeal is a tough possibly impossible business. I understand your frustration, but I don't see why anyone should be compelled to go out of their way to make it any easier for you. If the two parties utterly failed to reflect a large body of impassioned opinion out there that you did you would start to get the numbers to FORCE the system to notice you... Sadly, that just isn't the case. Libertarian support is what it is, there isn't a huge untapped reservoir of libertarian sentiment just waiting to hear your message at the debate. What does exist are libertarian voters that are imperfectly satisfied voting for either the Republicans or the Democrats because they realize their viewpoint isn't going to get to 50%+1 without allying themselves with, and compromising with, followers of other ideologies with which they can find *some* common ground. EVERYONE "holds their nose" on election day and votes for the lesser of two (or three, or four, or sixteen) evils not because the system is broken but because 50% +1 of the people don't ALL AGREE on everything, the best anyone can hope for is a minimally acceptable consensus which is exactly what the two party system provides in it's messy, idiosyncratic way.
how exactly is a third party candidate supposed to garner 15% support if NONE of the major polling & media is mentioning, asking, or offering our candidates as actual CHOICE
By getting to the minimal amount of support that gets them to start paying attention to you. It's not the polling organizations job to do your marketing/campaigning for you. It's not the governments job to force them to. It's YOUR job! Your failure to do so is not THEIR fault. Ralph Nader is mentioned by name in almost every single major poll. His campaign is getting fairly decent coverage (considering his poll numbers) in the major media. Stop whining and looking for an electoral handout. If you can't find a way to break through and get the coverage you crave that is nobodies fault but your own. Other third parties have done it, your failure to do so is YOUR failure to do so.
But, politics are too complicated for lots of choices.... the LIE that there are only two evil choices
These two statements display the fundamental failure to understand the current system common to third-party advocates. In this election cycle there were ELEVEN major candidates with a decent chance of victory representing a reasonably wide variety of views. (Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark, Sharpton, Kucinich, Gephardt, Lieberman, Braun, and Bush). To be fair that list tilts toward many "progressive" choices but not many libertarian or conservative ones - because Bush was a consensus candidate from that axis established four years earlier when the choices included (Bush, Alexander, Bauer, Keyes, Dole, Forbes, Hatch, McCain, and Quayle as well as Gore and Bradley) - Plenty of choices there. Badnarik could have been among them, it's that he couldn't WIN and that he didn't bother trying. The hard-core, doctrinaire, uncompromising Libertarian position just isn't shared by enough people to get a majority of the votes. It COULD compromise with other factions with which they agree on SOME general principles and build a winning COALITION - but they are too pure, to ideological, they refuse to compromise to a degree sufficient to get support beyond those very few voters that agree on almost every particular. Consequently the 1-2% support they get at the polls is a pretty accurate reflection of their actual support. If you demand ideological purity you will only get the votes of the ideologically pure... sadly for you that is only a tiny fraction of the electorate that is not worth the bother of including in the polls or in most news stories.
When you are serious about winning 50% +1 vote and willing to make the compromises required to get all those people with diverse views to vote for you come back and complain about being shut out of the system. While you are shutting YOURSELF out don't whine to me about how "unfair" it is.
*Sigh* If you disagree with the points I made refute them... simply restating the case using the bold tag doesn't make for a very convincing argument.
I'll try again. The university is not ENDORSING anybody. It's hosting a debate put on by a private organization. That organization has opened the debate to ANY candidate, from ANY party that exhibits a sufficient level of public support to be considered a serious contender. There is nothing intrinsically partisan about doing so. You may think that they should invite any candidate, or any candidate that fulfills some lesser qualification that just by coincidence happens to include your candidate. But a judge isn't going to find such limitations to be partisan because strictly speaking they aren't.
The Libertarian party's failure to find support is THEIR problem. If their views were REALLY as popular as they thought they WOULD find sufficient support to show up in the polls, get some media attention, etc. Their complaint is ultimately NOT with the debate commission, the university, the state, not even with the media that won't cover them... it's with the voters that won't support them.
No, it is a bi-partisan entity. That is the whole complaint! Read a little...
,they are not bi-partisan... they are NON-partisan. There is nothing explicitly partisan in the debate commissions rules for who is invited. There is nothing limiting the debate to the two parties, or even guaranteeing the participation OF the two parties. The rules, on their face, simply limit the debate to candidates with enough support in public polls to be considered serious contenders (a minimum of 15%). I'm sorry, but it's not unreasonable to limit a debate to serious candidates, and no the libertarian candidate isn't serious. It is a vanity campaign for ideological purists who can't get over the fact that their ideology has only limited appeal. Tough! I'm sorry but don't feel much sympathy for the Libertarians, or the other third parties... I see them as dilettantes and whiners who when faced with the relative unpopularity of their position take to empty complaints and retreat to a fantasy world where "if only we got a chance" the public that rejects their views would flock to their banner.
Yes that is their complaint (I read it). But where it counts... the rules for who can be part of the debate
OK... evolved then. It amounts to much the same thing.
The thing third-party supporters forget about with all the whining about "only two choices" is the PRIMARIES. In this election we had ELEVEN major candidates representing a fairly wide range of views, in 2000 there was an even larger field of major candidates representing an even wider range of views including several fairly libertarian ones.
The primary system is funky, weird, it isn't what you would have if you had a system "designed" by the poli-sci department as a "perfect system" but that is as you said it wasn't "designed" but EVOLVED and continues to do so. I like social systems that evolve rather than those that are "designed" - think about the difference between neighborhoods and the results of "urban renewal" projects designed by the best and the brightest.
The main downside of the primary system is that voters in later states usually "don't have a choice" by the time they get to vote (technically they DO actually, it's just that they already know their guy lost by the time they get to vote). On the other hand that same flaw is also a feature, unknown candidates with no national support have a chance in small, early states to make their case and *build* support to take with them into later states and larger multi-state contests.
The problem I have with third parties is that they are unserious. Nobody agrees with you. That's not your fault, nobody agrees with ANYBODY! The two or three percent that libertarians get isn't THAT far off from their real level of support. Maybe it would triple or even quadruple if everyone who agreed (by and large) voted that way. Whoopdee-do! 12-15%! Not exactly a mandate to rule the remaining 85% of us. Serious groups face the fact that nobody agrees with each other and they work with people they agree with on at least a few issues to build a winning coalition. That is what the two parties are... a whole bunch of loose, smaller parties that can (almost) agree on at least some broad general principles. Every group gets their chance to try and win the primary and have it be THEIR guy that everyone else will "hold their nose" and vote for this time around.
Instead of being serious and trying to move the country towards their ideal, the third-party purists maintain their precious ideological purity, their 2-3% and their whining. I'm sympathetic to many of the Libertarian party's views, I long ago ceased to be sympathetic to their complaints.
The first statement is sort-of true only because of the second statement. The University is covering some costs associated with hosting the debate... Also, they are trying to get private sponsorships to cover those costs. However they are going to cover those costs whether they find private sponsors or not THEREFORE the Libertarian party is arguing that the debate is taxpayer-funded and therefore must allow the Libertarian candidate to take part.
This lawsuit doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell... it's a publicity stunt. No judge is going to insert himself in such a manner into the political process and they have PLENTY of outs. First, the "public funding" is only to host a debate put on by a private entity. There is plenty of legalistic wiggle room here to justify the public expenditure.
Secondly and much more importantly, that private entity is non-partisan... there is nothing in their rules which on it's face discriminates against the Libertarian party. There ARE rules which discriminate against parties and candidates with with only miniscule discernible public support... Nothing explicitly partisan about that. If the Libertarian party cannot get to a level of public support that qualifies them as serious contenders that is THEIR problem not the debate commissions or the Universities, the States or the courts.
Fine, what is the Libertarian stance on abortion then? I suspect they would be against making abortion illegal.
Most yes, there are however a at least some pro-life libertarians, and the most prominent libertarian think tank is officially agnostic. The reason being that IF you accept that the unborn is a human life with rights then the laws against abortion are as legitimate as laws against any other form of homicide... this is a question that is beyond the ken of libertarian philosophy in and of itself. The libertarians governing philosophy can only be applied AFTER that initial position on whether the unborn have rights or not has been answered.
Most Democrats are strong believers in civil liberty-- you are free to do whatever you want, as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others
No... they are strong believers in SOME civil liberties almost exclusively limited to the area of sex at this point. You can do whatever you want as long as it's not smoking, owning a gun, saying something "insensitive", doing whatever you want with and on your own property, keeping your own income, associating, or NOT, with whomever you want for whatever reasons you want, taking risks with your health, educating your own children, etc. etc. etc.
A well-designed government can be used to promote equality for all people....
("business" libertarians) could care less if... a business pays white workers more then black workers
This is exactly the difference between libertarians and Democrats. That you use it as an example of something you think contradicts libertarianism shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what they believe. Libertarians place the highest value on liberty, Democrats place it on equality or perhaps "fairness". The two are NOT the same at all and are in fact VERY OFTEN in conflict. Your (sadly, not so) hypothetical is a perfect example of the difference. The arrangement between this employer and his black employees is one arrived at by the consent of both in liberty... A libertarian can think that employer a bad man, may personally shun him, may even organize a boycott of his business. A libertarian would likely think this man would eventually harm his own busines and be supplanted by another company that will properly values labor. A libertarian would point out that institutional racism ultimately REQUIRES government enforcement because of this truth. The one thing a libertarian would NOT do is advocate government action to FORCE that man to do something with his own money that he didn't want to do of his own free will.
Your example is at one extreme where even some libertarians today may see the case for government action. The problem with your argument is that Democrats see such justifiable violations of peoples liberty *everywhere*. Laws, upon laws, upon laws in almost every sphere of human activity, exercised by the most centralized government body available. Laws dictating when and where I can build a house, earn a living, employ other people, what I MUST pay for insurance against future calamity etc. etc. etc. All of them with excellent justification for why following them will make me and others happier, healthier, wiser... it's just that it's not my choice.
I belive that all people have an equal right to the basics -- food, shelter, health, happyness, love, others
The problem with these "rights" is that they are not rights I carry in myself but OBLIGATIONS that must be imposed upon someone else. I could argue that I have a RIGHT to grow, or earn my own food... but to have a RIGHT to food itself government must FORCE someone else to give it to me, same with shelter, health, love etc.
Let me point out that I am NOT a libertarian. I'm perfectly OK with and approve many of these laws and think that government has some broader responsibilities beyond what a true libertarian would agree with. I do however understand the philosophy and can see that you don't... that is why you think (wrongly) that there is a large body of libertarians within the Democratic party that may bolt to the Libertarian candidate. Unless of course you think there is a large body of Democrats that would find the logic above regarding racial hiring practices perfectly sound, I rather doubt it.
It'll never happen. Then again I think the Free State Project should have chosen Maine instead of New Hampshire. Specifically just the first congressional district... they'd have a decent chance to get that ONE electoral vote. It could be worth having with the nation divided so closely. A 269/269 spit is not that unlikely with the polls where they are (Bush loses Ohio and NH but picks up Wisconsin - all in accordance with some recent polls, and then pulls something of a surprise victory in NM... he's only a point or two behind)
A 269/268/1 split would be a VERY interesting position for the Libertarian party to be in.
It's generally assumed that Libertarians draw from Republicans, but this isn't really true--I think they draw about 50-50.
I tend to doubt this. Some erstwhile Republicans will stray to the Libertarian party on account of the unlibertarian social policies of the Republicans... but that is because there were libertarians in the Republican party to start with. There has never been a big libertarian presence in the Democratic party. Their entire philosophy of government is diametrically opposed to the libertarian vision. There are libertarians that might vote on occasion for Democrats on account of social issues but they are not part of the Democratic base being lost to the Libertarian candidate... they are swing voters that just don't swing this time.
I figure the "lost" Democratic votes are probably no more than 25% of the Libertarian vote, another full 50% is lost Republican votes, the remaining quarter would just stay home if there wasn't a Libertarian candidate.
The Republican political technique is based on repeating a small number of simple consistent messages to the electorate. It's the "talking point" thing. Get everybody top to bottom saying exactly the same thing in the same phrases over and over and over again in every venue you can put them in, and pretty soon the message starts to stick.
To be fair... this isn't just Republican political technique, it's just plain "political technique". Both parties & candidates do it. It's the only way to get your message through the media filter.
His problem wasn't that he *intentionally* repeated talking points, it was that he is a spectacularly inarticulate guy. He actually did better than usual in the first half of the debate and then started doing a lot worse than usual as it went on. He struggled to find words and when he couldn't find them he fell back on those tired phrases... "hard work"... etc. He got more and more irritated and it showed. I suspect that there is some truth to the Republican excuse that he was tired, I suspect he was poorly prepared... I think his "victories" against Gore went a little to his head and the campaign believed their own press releases about Kerry's own problems with clarity.
Funny...
But to be fair Cheney had at least half of a valid point. The Establishment Survey measuring payroll jobs has employment down... the Household survey which includes the farm workers, the self-employed, and start-ups that are often missed by the Establishment survey has employment UP. The Democrats are arguing that the Establishment survey is the only one that "counts" and that "self-employed" is just a proud mans way of saying "unemployed". The Republicans of course prefer to talk about the Household survey. Cheney's point about eBay was that the economy has changed - there is more self-employment, independent contractors, people doing all sorts of little side businesses in sectors that didn't exist before and aren't going to be adequately reported in the Establishment survey. eBay may not have been the best example for his point, then again it did well over $2 BILLION in sales so it's surely not a mere "Lemonade stand" as Edwards countered.
The truth is probably somewhere in-between which is why we have both surveys. A lot of "self-employed" people are surely just doing odd jobs while they try to find a real job... but not ALL of them are. Big businesses HAVE shifted to outsourcing not just to overseas but to smaller businesses, independent contractors etc.
How can anyone who believes in the traditional conservative values of small government, fiscal responsibility, and prudent foreign policy still support the guy?
Look at the (realistic) alternative.
This characterization is just crazy and the question asked has no answer. I'm glad Republicans get mod points though...
I don't see why this is crazy. Rumsfeld has been deeply unpopular for long YEARS within the Pentagon (especially with the Army, especially with Infantry and Armor) because of his strong views on force structure.
Many of the retired Generals Kerry boasts about supporting him are the other side of that internal Pentagon debate, and given many of his own public statements & record on weapons systems development I think it's fair to conclude that he, at least in a broad sense, falls into that more traditional camp. Which as I pointed out relies far more on numerically large armored and infantry divisions.
Kerry would probably be far less aggressive, but should he find himself in a war anyway he has given every indication that he will choose to fight it with greater numerical superiority, and that he would not be as willing to draw down troops from Europe & South Korea.
A draft is highly unlikely in either event. But whatever small chance exists doesn't seem to me to cut against Bush any more than Kerry. Bush may be more likely to get us into another war, but conscript troops have no place in Rumsfeld's military doctrine - they are an anathema, less than useless to his way of thinking. Kerry is less likely to get us into a war, but with his stance he is more likely to use a LOT more troops if one comes to him and conscripts *could* play a role in the massed armor & infantry force structure that the generals supporting him believe in.
The ONLY way that you could say I'm "crazy" is if you believe Kerry is lying about his true positions on defense. I hope believing that Kerry is honest about his positions isn't "crazy" though.
That may be YOUR argument, but that is not the argument of the emails that were going around to college students.
As for your argument. Rumsfeld (and by extension this administration) has been a big advocate for a numerically smaller, higher tech military for a very long time. I very much doubt Rumsfeld would EVER want a draft, which is just completely counter to his entire approach to the military.
On the other hand it was KERRY that pledged to enlarge the military by an additional 40,000 troops, has criticized the administration for not having enough troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has criticized the planned drawdown of troops in Western Europe and South Korea. Also Democrats, Kerry foremost among them, have generally opposed the kind of expensive, high-tech weapons development that means we can do more with fewer troops.
Bush IS a cowboy, he might get us into more wars. Then again Kerry is on record essentially favoring issuing an empty threat* a position that is perhaps even MORE risky in the long run. It is a dangerous world and even the most dovish President may (regretfully) find us in a war. Giving their different approaches to the military (smaller size & more expensive equipment vs. larger size & less expensive equipment) which approach is more likely to result in a draft?
*Voting FOR an war ultimatum to gain "diplomatic leverage", but then stating he could conceive of "no circumstances" where he would have followed through.
That's not a conservative value. That's a libertarian value. Be careful not to confuse them.
In America it is reasonably safe to confuse them. Conservatism most broadly is about preserving existing values and social structures. In the USA those existing social structures and values often have a generally libertarian cast to them. Meanwhile the progressive impulse in the USA has been egalitarian but also statist, mildly socialist, centralizing power. The result is that the conservative movement in America is a sometimes uneasy mix of traditionalism and libertarianism.
Even the most traditionalist conservatives in America would agree with the statement you describe as exclusively "libertarian". It is not an either/or thing. The sentiment expressed is BOTH libertarian AND conservative.
There is plenty of room to criticize Bush's from a conservative perspective. Of course Kerry's critique is coming from the other side and he would be quite a bit worse from the conservative perspective than Bush is.
You can't fight a war, and remain rigid, because the constructs of war are constantly changing. You have to be flexible and be able to recalculate your plans at every step.... This, in effect, proves that Bush thinks that by remaining firm, not changing his plans, we will "win" this war. That is outright ridiculous.
Be fair to here is what Bush said about this exact issue.
"Of course, we change tactics when need to, but we never change our beliefs, the strategic beliefs that are necessary to protect this country in the world."
It may well be true that Bush is dangerously inflexible, but in this he has a valid point. Large-scale, geo-political strategy decisions can't be changed based on the latest casualty report, New York Times editorial, or opinion poll. The Iraq war HAS been carried out with a great deal of operational and tactical, and even strategic flexibility. The decision of whether or not it was "worth it" has not, nor should it be. At least not by the President that made that decision. The voters can and should consider that question.
I don't have any problem with Senator Kerry's criticism of that initial decision. I don't have a problem with him having a different strategy based on his differing values & judgement. I think we as voters can and should consider and change the geopolitical strategy. What I DO have a problem with is Kerry's apparent inconstancy in his own view of geo-political strategy.
If among the caveats, and conditional clauses that surround his emphatic declarative statements one can discern the consistent policy he now espouses it is a really poor and dangerous one. his recent statements are that he wanted to THREATEN war to gain diplomatic leverage, but that he would NOT CARRY THROUGH on those threats under any conceivable circumstances. Bush's rush to war is extremely dangerous. Making empty threats is almost as dangerous. Publicly declaring a policy of empty threats is perhaps MORE dangerous. Should Kerry win, he will never be able to issue a credible ultimatum. The potential for catastrophic misjudgment is very high.
Sadly between these two candidates I don't think either one is really fit to be President. Bush tends to become fixated upon one view of a situation and one solution to it without properly considering alternative views and solutions. Kerry is so used to senatorial CYA politics that he can't make a decision without throwing in an escape hatch caveat he can pull out later if the initial decision looks bad a few months later. His middle ground is (in this case, and probably many others) MORE dangerous than a simple decision for or against.
You say the audio tapes aren't genuine? I guess you know better than the CIA and the rest of the world's intelligence agencies, because they say he is alive.
No, as a matter of fact they don't. They *believe* the tapes are genuine, but to quote the CIA press release "the poor quality of the tape made it impossible to verify it was bin Laden's voice with 100 percent certainty." Of course finding WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk", so take the CIA's testimony for what it's worth.
Outside voice experts have concluded that it is NOT genuine. However it is an *extremely* poor quality recording so their methods can't conclude for certain that it is a fake. Of course that cuts the other way too. Those that think it's a fake see the extremely poor quality as an argument in their favor... An impostor would intentionally use poor quality to confound accurate analysis.
Without any absolute proof the CIA and the administration are operating under the assumption that he is alive. But the theory that he is in fact dead, and the tapes are fakes while at odds with the official policy has plenty of adherents. The parent poster overstated the case... we KNOW for a certain fact that a significant number of Al Queada escaped from Tora Bora, but on the other hand we know that an even larger number did NOT. The fact that Bin Laden has not shown his face despite the huge benefit it would be to him to prove to the world that he is alive and operating is awfully suggestive.
His last known location was subjected to heavy bombing shortly after his presence there was confirmed (by radio intercepts). On top of that he was a very sick man in very arduous circumstances without access to the medical care his kidney condition required. The only subsequent proof we have of his continued existence is a very poor quality recording whose authenticity is debated by the experts and unprovable either way. It's possible he's still alive, but I tend to think it's more likely that he is dead.
he CIA constantly analyses the videos (and audios) for signs of where they were shot.
Yes they did, there was talk in the media about having geologists analyze the stone/cave backdrop to come up with some clues. Of course the moment that was mentioned on air all subsequent videos from Al Queada have been filmed before a cloth backdrop... Not much to work with. Once again our openness is a tactical weakness, even while it is also our ultimate strategic strength.
Osama never broadcast his videos, they were shot and then hand delivered to Al Jezeera. They probably went through many hands, at some reasonably significant delay in time. There is no reason to think that Bin Laden would still be wherever he was when the video was initially shot. The risk he could be tracked back through the video communication exists, but isn't that high. Any other communication is just as risky.
On the other hand while the risks are not that high, the benefits are significant. The video proof of his existence would be a significant boost to the morale of his loose, far-flung, organization and a blow to ours. Such proof that he continues to live and operate apparently unhindered by our efforts would be well worth the risks. In the absence of significant attacks on the U.S. (something he promised) it would almost seem necessary.
I think it's likely that he IS dead, or perhaps wounded/disfigured or ill to such a degree that showing his face would damage rather than enhance his credibility.
I don't know, Several of their calls look REALLY wrong based on the polling I've seen. They have Washington as a toss-up when polling there consistently has Kerry ahead by by *just* within the MOE if not outside of it... Meanwhile they have Oregon "weak Kerry" when polling there has been consistently much closer... Kerry within the MOE a few ties and even a few with Bush ahead by one or two. Maybe they got the two states confused? They also have New Mexico as "Strong Kerry" when all the polling (except the most recent Zogby) has it well within the MOE and Mason Dixon and Albequerque Journal both have Bush ahead (by 2 and 3 respectively).
They don't seem to be particularly partisan in their weird calls, they just seem weird... States that are consistently going to Kerry aside from a few outliers are toss-ups (WA, ME, NJ), other states that are consistently toss-ups aside from one or two outliers are going to Kerry (NM, OR)... little net effect, just screwy.
Opps weird brain fart I missed on preview. Third paragraph, third sentence should be "Democratic jokes and Republican *jokes*" not "votes".
I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand political campaigns should be serious and about serious issues. Not what candidate is better with photo-ops, or what they did as kids (yes 20 somethings are "kids") 35 years ago.
On the other hand this kind of jocular sniping has always been part of campaigns and is engaged in by both sides. On the other side we have seen Millionaires for Bush, Pleasure Boat Captains for Truth. Think of this as the Republican equivalent to giant paper maché puppets the far left trots out during street protests.
Such humorous jibes CAN be devastatingly effective though. To be effective though there must be a grain of truth and reflect some serious concern to (some) voters. It's sort of interesting that the Democratic jokes and Republican votes are very similar in this case. Pleasure Boat Captains for Truth, Millionaires for Bush and Football Fans for Truth are all saying basically the same thing... The candidate is a rich elitist who isn't like you, he does not share your values, he does not share your concerns. Consequently he will pursue policies that you won't agree with. Both political "practical jokes" also insinuate that the opposing candidate is a poser, a phony who is pretending to be something he is not.
These are not illegitimate arguments, even if they are raised in a humorous way.
Besides it's funny... laugh... if only because that is the ONLY way to defuse the "joke" politically. A candidate that laughs at his opponents jokes about him displays a comforting level of self-knowledge. He displays that he knows his own weaknesses, is willing to admit to his own failures and by implication is likely to address them in some way. A candidate that doesn't "get" a truly funny joke about himself is worrying because it suggests that he is not being dishonest with us, he is being dishonest with himself. It suggests that whatever weakness is being lampooned will not be properly compensated for if he is elected, with potentially disastrous consequences.
The problem isn't that felons can or can't vote. It's that people who are likely to vote for Democrats are getting their voting rights taken away, and that people who are likely to vote for Republicans aren't.
No! Wrong! That is HALF of the problem! The other half is the *reality* of voter fraud.
A little history is required to understand the voter disenfranchisement in 2000. Go back to 1998. In that election cycle there was a mayoral race in Miami. The Democratic party did a spectacular job of getting out the vote and won it for their candidate. Unfortunately they did a little TOO good of a job. They got out not just the convicted felon and illegal alien vote, the even got that traditionally Democratic demographic, the deceased-American vote. There were paid vote-brokers, forged signatures, ballot tampering, the whole nine yards. It was so bad that something VERY rare happened. A court overturned the election and installed the other candidate.
This was not the usual low level voter fraud by a small number of overzealous and ethically challenged individuals. This was widespread, organized classic corrupt machine politics, and subsequent state-wide investigation found it wasn't limited to Miami, and not just to that election. Some people had a better voting record in the years since their death than they had during their life.
It is wrong for legitimate voters to be disenfranchised. Having your vote essentially cancelled out by a dead man voting the other way is just as much disenfranchisement. In some ways it is worse since it is only rarely caught. The living disenfranchised voter will raise a stink, assuming the corpse is properly buried it won't - and the voters whose votes were essentially cancelled out never know.
It's because Zogby was the most accurate poll of 2000
But Zogby did pretty poorly in 2002. He nailed in in 2000, but was that because he really nailed it or because he was the low end of the range for Bush and the last minute DUI issue hadn't had a chance to fully factor into any polls (including his)... Was he smart or was he lucky?
Also, while I think Gallup definitely has had major sampling problems, I think Zogby is too rigid in adjusting his sample to conform to a hard-wired percentage break-down by party identification. People shift their self-identification, not as much as the Gallup polls are suggesting but a lot more than Zogby is willing to concede. There are a lot of people that are major-part/independent. Their self-identification will depend on how they feel about the party in question at that moment. Kerry does something great, and the guy on the fence proudly says "I'm a democrat". Kerry stumbles, flubs a debate, whatever and it's "I'm an independent". The same is true of fence-sitting Republicans..
Take me as an example: In my state an independent can vote in either primary - you affiliate (briefly) with the party whose primary you want to vote in on your way into the poll, you vote, on your way out (if you remember) you disaffiliate. I'm a dyed in the wool Republican, but I'm in a one-party Democratic state where the only election that counts is the Democratic primary - so i remain a registered Independent who half the time registers temporarily as a "Democrat". If I forget to disaffiliate on my way out I'm legally a Democrat (by accident) but I'll identify myself to a pollster as either a Republican or Independent depending on how I feel about the party at any given moment. Zogby's rigid party-counting method doesn't account for me, and I'm far from being alone.
The author of Election Projection is obviously biased. But he created a model and has stuck to it... Over the summer his model had Kerry winning by the same wide margins that Bush is winning now. The problem with his projection is not his bias but that his model overstates the electoral lead of whoever happens to be leading in national polls. So Bush's 4-5 point lead in national polls is switching states to him (according to the model) where actual state polling is showing a much more even race.
I think his model was nice to play with early on when there was only limited polling. But now that we are in to the actual campaign we have much better, and more detailed information which renders his model based on broad generalities moot and reveals it's flaws.