So, I'll start

i think its lame and blatently obvious that both the Repubs and Dems are worried about precious Senate and House seats. I don't know enough about the campaign in NJ to notice if this was a strategic ploy on the Dems parts but its clear its political jockeying no matter how you look at it. Whats troubling is each side threatening to run to the Supreme Court in these matters, clouding the matter and making a general mockery of the entire system. You wonder if a nasty dirty precedent wasnt set in Dec 2000. i see no problem with a canidate dropping out at any time and the party putting another on board in his place.

"You wonder if a nasty dirty precedent wasnt set in Dec 2000." Fuck patrick, please use your memory. Gore ran to the courts to reverse the Electoral college votes in Florida, please do not revise it. This sickest lie is that Bush stole the 2000 election. I did mention this, but I have been largely ignored as of late. The "Torch" was loosing, so he was asked to withdraw. His replacement's name was submitted to the NJ Supreme Court on Sunday. Come on, don't be so gullable. Which is the same as conceeding. He lost.

WHERE WHERE WHERE in my statement spunk do you see ANY indication of bias to one side or the other? WHERE? I have repeatedly said on this board that i do not think Bush "stole" the election as much as the ultra right wing Supreme Court gave it to him and that Gore himself lost it. Would you PLEASE pay attention to what Im saying! The elections havent happened in NJ yet you facist. A canidate is free to drop out, winning or loosing in the polls right up until election day and the party has a right to appoint a runner up. No one has lost because no one has voted. Aren't you forgetting the voice of the voters by declaring him a looser.

Spunk, did you read the link?

No, I did not. OK. Your right. FORGET THE LAW. I am a facist because I demand a law be followed. New Jersey state law permits a political party to select a replacement candidate when a vacancy occurs on the ballot 51 days before an election. What would happen if in every election, they switched canidates because the current one is losing? And, he dropped out because his poles showed he was losing. He quit. He lost. Come on.

"i see no problem with a canidate dropping out at any time and the party putting another on board in his place." That is what I take issue to. It is not ok. According to the law you cannot switch parties with in 51 days of the election. It has been on the books since 1969.

laws have expiration dates. laws are made to be over turned. but thats beside the point because to over turn a law requires more than just a court ruling the other way. but i've learned more about this since yesterday and I understand the concern for the rule of law, really i do, and i respect it. i wasnt fully aware of the NJ law on the books. but you know repubs are only screaming rule of law because it stands to their advantage. current GOP leadership has no regard for rule of law, national and international at the highest level so don't give me this shit about rule of law taking precidence. But you know, this is a slimey action on behalf of the Dems too. Its pretty undignified to just drop out because you are loosing, and it does set a dangerous precident. Republicans only scream rule of law when it serves them. Ashcroft has been shredding the rule of Constitutional law since the day he took office and moreover since 9/11. If repubs were so concerned about rule of law, we wouldnt be rushing to war, violating civil rights, and breaking international law with prisoners of war. the hypocrisy is too thick here.

Yes, this is just a scramble for control of the senate. that is all it amounts to. The Dems are really looking like they may loose it this time around, and the republicans smell blood in the water.

Spunk, you claim to be able to research shit and you can't read one link? You disappoint me.

One word: Salon

So? You copy and paste from speculative right wing sites all the time. And the article in the link uses FACTS to back up it's arguments. You do love them FACTS, don't ye, spunk? But, considering you didn't even read it, I wouldn't be suprised that you didn't know that. That's why you disappoint me, trace. I was thinking for a while that you were open minded, but you're just another partisan hack.

Hmm? OK.... If it makes you feel any better, I refuse to read Ann Coulter. I have found that Salon is more of a sounding board for liberals to trash conservatives. I have viewed it as the polar opposite of rushlimbaugh.com You find opinion more then fact.

Have you read the link yet?

"New Jersey's crybaby Republicans should try to campaign on the issues." Fair, balanced reporting. If it does help, I clicked on the link, and the mere headline made me think "OK, the Democrats somehow convinced a Democrat Governor, and his appointed New Jersey Supreme Court to igonore a 33 year old law (expiration date? I did not realize that a law like that would expire? when does the law against theft expire?)and allow a canidate to withdraw and the sponsoring party select another nominee in his/her place, and the headline calls republicans Crybabies? I don't think that that will be very informative.

OK, again I eat my words...Dammit Not a good week for me. 6 out of 7 justices appointed by republican governors.... Does not mean they are conservative judges anyway. Conservatives, at least in theory and the ones that are true to the values rather then 98% of them in washington today, tend to stick to the letter of the law. As I tell my 8 year old, actions speak louder then words. Oh, and as a lesson in US Government: 3 Branches: Legislative: Creates Laws Judicial: Interprets the Laws Executive: Enforces the Laws But it appears in New Jersey, Excutive: Avoids the laws Judicial: Ignores the Laws The whole thing is a sham anyway. Torcelli DID NOT WANT TO RESIGN. Period. They forced him to. MGreedy mouthed the words of Torceli's speech to him.

By the way, I was trying to admit I was wrong.

There's an unwritten rule for appointing judges to the NJ supreme court: Always replace a judge with one of the same party. (I heard it on Fox news, and Sean Hannity didn't say it, so it MUST be true.) So, just because a judge was appointed by a republican doesn't mean they're republican. Anyway, my take on the whole thing is it's an opportunity to get the supreme court involved in the election process during this election cycle. That way all of the voters are reminded (and incensed) like they were after november 2000. It may be an effective way to generate voter turnout, which is commonly low during midterm elections. Also, higher voter turnout tends to favor the democrats. (Strange, ain't it? Tends to make one think that the majority of the country are apathetic liberals...) Also, this will keep the 2000 election fresh in the minds when 2004 comes around again. Nothing helps memory like repetition. And the slick thing is, no matter how things tur out, the democrats win. If the NJ supreme court is overturned by the fed supremes it'll incense democratic voters, possibly nationwide. If the supremes uphold NJ, the democrats have a better chance of keeping the senate. If it wasn't planned that way, it was definately fortuitous. And that's my impartial analysis, you fuckwit.

laws are overturned all the time spunk. no law is infinite. thats what i mean by "expiration". courts rule against laws all the time, especially Supreme Courts, state and federal. the NJ Court is ruling in the best interest of the people by allowing the democrats to appoint a runner up. Or so they think. After some consideration, i think the republicans need to stop their whining about "the disenfranchisment of the military and oversees votes". Shaddyup. Ballots can easily be reprinted and sent out. Thats a no good excuse to seek Supreme Court intervention. However, I think the Dems fucked themselves by pulling a canidate out so late. Its chickenshit, desperate and just downright sleezy. Compromise. No new Democrate will be added to the ballot, however, a write in will be accepted. Launch the write-in campaign of the replacement canidate and pray to god your party doesnt suffer from this fucked up ploy. Hopefully this will sway either party from doing this shit in the future. This way rule of law is observed, and voters are not disenfranchised.

but then again, as antigone speculates, we are being toyed with more and more by politicians and government officials so perhaps its best to assume the Dems have a strategy for all outcomes and the republicans are just bummed they didnt think of it first.

Some research fer ya, spunkster: NJ Supreme court decision (pdf) The statute in question. An article on the decision. An interesting leaked Republican memo

And, a blatant cut 'n' paste from Salon: (Joe Conason's journal) "Bush and Cheney should have forfeited the electoral votes of Texas, since Cheney surely wasn't an 'inhabitant' of Wyoming as required by the Constitution's 12th amendment; and Mitt Romney ought to have been thrown off the Massachusetts ballot, since he obviously hasn't lived there for all of the past seven years, as required by that state's constitution; and Katherine Harris should have been bounced from the Florida ballot, since she admittedly backdated her 'resignation' to run for Congress. "

Salon did well today

it's too bad we spend so much time (i'm guilty, too) arguing about this shit. this is exactly what they all want us to do. the less we focus on the issues the better it is for the ass holes.

Ted Rall had a good opinion piece this week, i think. It is becoming more increasingly obvious that no matter the election results, the only losers are the voters.

so don't vote.

Better yet-vote for the fringe folks, like the natural law party.

sem, could you please point me to the ted rall piece? i was one of the first folks who were able to vote while less than 21 years of age (i voted for mc govern in 1972 when i was only 18). this was a very important issue for me when i was young. to this day, i feel that voting is the most important thing the average "joe" can do to participate in our democracy. when i see a man who has lost the popular vote assume the office of president, i get angry. anyway, i'd appreciate the reference.

I hear you Joe,my parents brought me up to appreciate the fact that I had the right to vote. It's even worse on local issues out here,the tax payers voted against our taxes paying for Bank One Ball Park,they fucked us in the ass and we are paying for it,and who is making the profit from it? Jerry Colangelo, can we say mafia? We voted to have medicinal marijuanna and do we have it? Hell no,not only that if it supposedly does get passed this time,you'll have to your weed at the DPS and how sick is that? "Oh officer here is my RX might I have some weed please?" Puffffff

Natural Law? Those canidates are usually more wack than Ted Kaczynski on meth!

I can see the legalization of mary jane coming. I do not use it, but do not object to anyone using it for either medicinal or recreational use.

whaddya know?

They should not have taken it. The Supreme Court should stay out of election issues.

"The Supreme Court should stay out of election issues." nonsense there are times when state and federal election officials are rendered completely useless due to partisian politics. Moreover if the Supreme Court had stayed out of election issues many people, possibly women and minorities would not be allowed to vote.

You are circumventing the election process in the long run. It might work this particular instance (still shitty and cheap). "Moreover if the Supreme Court had stayed out of election issues many people, possibly women and minorities would not be allowed to vote." Now who's repeating the political pundit horseshit?

"You are circumventing the election process in the long run." you should elaborate on that. What exactly is being circumvented? if someone has said that spunk, its coincidence. really. im not as news/pundit obsessed as you might think I am. regardless of who has said it, its not entirely without foundation. the Supreme Court has its place in all matters relating to American civic and social life, its just a matter of when. To say they "have no place in elections" is ignorant of history and lacking in understanding of the Courts role to begin with.

Patrick, I agree with you. But your example about women is dead wrong. The Supreme Court had nothing to do with Suffrage and AT THAT TIME, in fact, hindered it. 1874 In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court descides that citizenship does not give women the right to vote and that women's political rights are under the jurisdiction of each individual state. 1919 The Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution granting women the vote is adopted by a joint resolution of Congress and sent to the states for ratification. 1920 Henry Burn casts the deciding vote that makes Tennessee the thirty-sixth, and final state, to ratify the Nineteenth Amendment. August 26: The Nineteenth Amendment is adopted and the women of the United States are finally enfranchised.

which is why i use the word "possibly". if i had exact fact at hand i would have been more direct but i didnt feel like looking it up.

Watcher should read this. Kazoo just demonstrated the usefulness of a degree in Women's Studies. :)

not that i have ever sided with watcher, nor am I starting now but where exactly is the usefulness tiggy? playing devil's advocate...she rattled off a couple of significant dates in a fairly mundane conversation.

Yessuh, ah fail t'see how this hyar smarts will secure employment fo' me in one of th' respeckable trades.

Yeah, but patty, she knew that you were wrong within 13 minutes of your post. (less, really, since she had to type it up and possibly look up the exact dates and descriptions of the supreme court decisions) She used two things you're not too familiar with: knowledge and a brain that can wield it.

Damn. Listen, I had this huge post prepared and it did not post, but here is the gist. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. What do we talk about a lot around here? Precedence. What is to keep this from being repeated every time a canidate feels he is loosing? Torcelli's issues did not just show up in late September or early October. 1,700 abstentee ballots that have been received are now bunk. There is not enough time to print new ones and print them out in time. The rebuplican canidate is out millions of dollars for his campaign that was working. His opponent was loosing, so he cut and ran at the last minute. Next time it might be 30 days before the election, and then 25 days, etc etc. And no, this did not belong in the hands of the courts. And if it did, the job of the court is not to decide wether a law is right or not, but to decide wether it is applicable to individual cases. And it clearly was in this case. Like I said in November of 2000. Go by the law, you do not like it, get congress to change it, but go with the law as it is written. Otherwise, the democratic election system will fail. They had a much more important job here. Protect the process. Instead they made a mockery of it, and weakened it. And this had nothing to do with minorities or women. They have constitutional rights to vote.

"And no, this did not belong in the hands of the courts. And if it did, the job of the court is not to decide wether a law is right or not, but to decide wether it is applicable to individual cases." Actually, the role of the Supreme court is to invalidate legislation or executive actions which conflict with the constitution. It can be related to applicablity, but still, it's right if it's constitutional and wrong if it's not. The example about minorities and women was not related directly to this specific issue, but about whether or not the Supreme Court ever has a place in elections. Now, here's some more stuff from my brain: The Supreme Court has intervened on in instances when voting laws violated people's constitutional rights rights, even if they did not specify race or gender or class. In Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), the Supreme Court held Virginia's poll tax to be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

But that was dealing with unfair taxation. Yes, they would need to step in in cases of discrimination, but this was not the case.

heh. that's goddamn funny. and slavery was about soul food.

What? So you think that the decision made by the NJ Supreme Court was about discrimination???

Spunkem, What are you talking about? No one is saying that the case in New Jersey had anything to do with discrimination. And from what I can tell, no one is even arguing that the Supreme Court should have even bothered this case. It evolved into a discussion about whether or not the court should stay out of election issues at all. You made a broad statement, "The Supreme Court should stay out of election issues" and we took up the larger issue. Just because it's not directly related doesn't mean it's not relevant. It doesn't have to be only discrimination. If this proved to be an instance like discrimination where the tenets of the constitution were not being upheld, the court's involvement would be appropriate. The larger argument stands, even if it's not applicable in this specific instance.

ahhh such a classic tiggster low blow. the timing of her post is coincidental and im sure you know that. I admitted i didnt have knowledge to back up my claim, so your typical pussy of a post is A)irrelavent B) childish in yielding someone else's intellectual 'victory' (as if she and i had an arugment to begin with) as your own gain by adding insult So, I may have been wrong, admittedly from the get go, but your post stands to show your shit-stained pantaloons to all the world. Pussy.

spunk: "What is to keep this from being repeated every time a canidate feels he is loosing?" Effective laws usually do that. The NJ law was plainly not meant to prevent what you think it was mean to, or if it was it's form was innefective. The NJ supreme court unanimously interpreted the democratic party's actions to be lawful and the US supreme court has decided not to hear the case. Seems like a pretty definitive interpretation of the law to me. What you should be pushing for is nationwide election reform so that the events of 12 years in Minnesota, 2 years ago in Florida, and a week ago in New Jersey don't happen again.

Here it is: 19:13-19. Nomination of successor If the candidate vacating the nomination was nominated directly by petition his successor shall be nominated in the same manner by direct petition, which new petition of nomination must be filed with the Secretary of State or county clerk, as the case may require, not later than 54 days before the day of election whereat such candidate is to be voted for. Amended by L. 1942, c. 50, p. 278, s. 3; L. 1985, c. 92, s. 13, eff. March 26, 1985. 19:13-20. Vacancy procedure 19:13-20. In the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused, among candidates nominated at primaries, which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election, or in the event of inability to select a candidate because of a tie vote at such primary, a candidate shall be selected in the following manner: The rest that follows applies to a tie in the primary. I am sorry, but I do not see much "wiggle" room here.

Let's hope the NJ voters set this right.

d00d, there's tons of wiggle room there: "as the case may require" Seems to imply some leeway in mandating a petition less than 54 days before the election. "which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election" This does not imply to me that nothing can be done of a vacancy happens less than 51 days before the election. If anything, it implies that the law applies to vacancies happening more than 51 days from the election and says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what to do less than 51 days out. Of course, I ain't a lawyer, and I doubt that's how the NJ supreme court interpreted it, but there's some wiggle room for ya. Why don't you read the NJ supreme court decision and see how they wiggled?

"Let's hope the NJ voters set this right." At least the voters are getting a chance to set it right.

OK. What is the purpose of this law? Why does it exist? Why has it been on the books for 40 plus years? Is there a need for it? Is it even constitutional? Oh, that's right, it might be needed when a Republican canidate withdraws 35 days from the election....

you fucks would be doing the spunky dance if tables were turned. for supposed thinkin people you sure run down the party line a lot.

No, I would be PISSED OFF if the Republicans tried it. Actually, I expected nothing else of the Dems. I am pissed at the worthless judicial system we have in place.

For christ's sake, you utter babies. This is so completely irrelevant compared with the rape and pillage of what is left of the constitutional balance of powers thankfully being filibustered (at least, that is what I have been promised by the media) by someone who gets what it means to be a representative in a republic -- yay parliamentary procedure. who care whether the dems or the republicans have a majority in the house when -- if push comes to shove -- they all line up behind the executive? i'm really glad i'm NOT a democrat -- it's so humiliating. they can't even be 7-up, they've just got to be pepsi.

spunk the law was enacted, i read recently, when a canidate died about 20 or so days before the election. It hasnt been on the books for 40 years. Its been on the bookes for 15 or so years in its current form, being modified in the late 80s, as I recall, to extend the time from 30 days to 51 or something like that. The extension was to give a replacement canidate proper time to get a campaign going. The law was created for dead canidates. It is perfectly Constitutional as is the courts ruling. The courts overruled a law in the best interest of the people. They interpreted the law. Thats their job. The people's voice will in no way be stifled because of their action. If people find the democrats action so reprehensible they will demonstrate it on election day. get it on Byrd. For once i welcome filafuckwitbustering to the umpteenth degree.

This is a very interesting website http://www.whatreallyhappened.com

Oh give me a break, what a load of shit Patrick. The damn thing was written in 1942, and was amended in 1985 for the dead canidate. It specifically says "If the candidate vacating the nomination was nominated directly by petition his successor shall be nominated in the same manner by direct petition, which new petition of nomination must be filed with the Secretary of State or county clerk, as the case may require, not later than 54 days before the day of election whereat such candidate is to be voted for." Now, did you read it this time? Do you see what I am saying? It has been in existence for 60 YEARS. And it says VACATE the nomination. Which is what Toricelli did. He voluntarily vacated his nomination 35 days prior to the election.

J, That is a good source of "alternative" news, but very biased. But it does provide links to the actual stuff they are quoting, so it can be backed up. Kind of. Some of it comes from rense.com, and that is just a guy like me with a website, so I am not sure how reliable his stuff is.

yes i read it. no i dont see what you are saying. you're running a fools errand, chasing your tail. Here's some perspective spunkster: "It's up to Forrester to try to tap voter outrage [over the Democrats' switch] if there is any," said Stuart Rothenberg, an independent political analyst. "The numbers tell me there is still a race there." "What the court was saying by not buying the Republican argument was that the letter of the law notwithstanding, there is a higher interest: Giving the voters a choice between two real candidates and not a candidate [who is] a phantom, which is what Torricelli would have been." -Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University

so, which is scarier Mass Delusions or UAV carrying a WMD? more PROOF

I am sorry, i take the damn thing at face value. Continue to refuse to that if you wish, but know that you are wrong. That is what is wrong with this fucking country today. To many god damned lawyers spliting hairs rather then taking laws as they are written. There is nothing in the wording of that statue that legalizes what happened in NJ. You have to start "reading into it" to get anything else out of it. It does further degrade the integrity of democratic elections. You should never be allowed to wait this late in the game to switch canidates. That is the purpose of the law. I do not approach a law with the thought of "how do I get around it?"

spunky, please. it perhaps throws a kink in our election process. an unforseen problem but the courts have ruled in the best interest of the people. they have done the job that is required of them. move the fuck on! you fail to see the bottom line in this. and no, i dont know im wrong. i only know you say im wrong, which has little to no value to me. no one is approaching the law with "how I get around it". what the fuck are you talking about? no. wait. I know the answer to that. Please. dont answer it. this is a dead topic.

so are laws and election processes.

Time is an Idea Whose Time has Come ! A proposal for a bold new initiative generated at the Simplicity Forum’s leadership meeting in Kalamazoo, Michigan, on March 10, 2002. The issue: IT’S TIME, For a Change. Come hear JOHN DE GRAAF, Co-Chair, Public Policy Committee, the Simplicity Forum film-maker, producer of “Affluenza” , "Hot Potatoes", and “Green Plans” on Tuesday 15 October at noon. Americans are working too much—way too much. It’s hurting our health, our families, our friendships, our communities, our creativity, and the environment. In 1999, the United States passed Japan as the country with the longest annual working hours in the industrial world. Medieval peasants worked less than we do. On average, as former Labor Secretary Robert Reich points out, we Americans work 350 hours—nine weeks—more each year than do western Europeans. Put another way, we work nearly one year more every five years. Thus, during an average work life, western Europeans enjoy nearly ten years more free time than do their American counterparts. In Europe and in Australia, workers receive an average six weeks of paid vacation. We Americans average two. A stronger America would share existing work rather than creating a polarization between those who have too much work and those who have too little. Unemployment and overwork are two sides of the same coin. Every environmentalist knows that on a finite planet, unlimited economic growth is unsustainable. Already, scientists say that if the rest of the world were to suddenly duplicate the American lifestyle, we’d need three more planets. Beyond a certain point, increases in our material standard of living produce minimal or even negative increases in pleasure. We can’t grow on like this. We can change America for the better. Please join us now because there’s no present like the time. Presented by your fellow employees who are member-leaders of the WPEA Don't Whine, Organize !

And all this time I thought it was YOU that made my ass itch!

Am I right, that the laws in this country only seem to apply to people other than democrats? Or, have I misinterpreted what the definition of "is" is?

no the Bush administration is perfectly content to break Constitutional and International law, repeatedly.

Then again I don't really care for pollitians of any party.

thank you, sem, for not responding to me. pity that none of you could respond to "margret". does anyone think it is possible for the united states to have a leader who is not dependent upon a staff of experts to make all of the decisions? we could use another fdr.

dont get me started on him again

"does anyone think it is possible for the united states to have a leader who is not dependent upon a staff of experts to make all of the decisions?" are you suggesting that there is someone who single-handedly possesses the knowledge needed to run an entire country? ALL leaders rely on a staff of experts to make decisions. VOTE FOR J

well, maybe not ALL of them.

I think all should have someone to bounce ideas off of, and look at things from another angle, and suggest alternatives.

i think all leaders should have tools like Ari Fleisher who is clearly more of an eloquent speaker than dipshit but a tool nonetheless in which to bitch and slap around like a red headed step child. One of these days, you expect him to break down and start crying.... "look i dont *sob* support my boss OKAY!!!! I did it for the money and my resume....*sob* i never believed in unilateral war, tax breaks, ANWAR drilling or halting stem cell research or any of it!!*sob*"

You just can't stand any conservative, can you? And you can never bring yourself to admit that not all conservatives are as stupid as you think they are, correct? No matter how many times someone presents you with facts that fly in the face of liberal ideals, you just say "Huh? What the fuck are you talking about? I can't understand what you are saying. Your not making any sense"

haha, ari flescher went to middlebury and is speaking here on sunday (and receiving an "alumni achievement award" from the college). so of course students and townspeople are staging a peace protest in front of the building where he is talking. should be interesting.

(sorry bout the misspelling, i'm kinda frazzled at the moment)

spunky, most of the time you dont make sense. its not just me. most people who come across your words here have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. what your post has to do with my crack on ari, again, is impossible to decipher.

I understand Spunky,I have a tool,well it's not really mine but I can borrow it whenever I want to.

So, you could not understand from my post that I think that no matter what, you have no tollerence for any idea that comes from a conservative mouth? That you act like if an opinion does line up with your "enlightened" thought process, you think it is bunk?

"you have no tollerence (sic) for any idea that comes from a conservative mouth?" see, this is where your reading comprehension fails you man and why i usually dismisss any criticism you have for my opinions. i don't care WHERE an idea comes from...right or left. You play the republican/conservative/right/left/liberal card more than anyone around here. you are the one who sees it so black and white. As I grow older (and hopefully wiser) i don't automatically look left. Im a registered independent voter and have been since I've been voting. Im just as critical of the left as i am of the right. My personal ideologies tend to lean more left than right, but thats doesnt say anything about who i support in the political realm. My support for governor in CA this year (before the primary) was for a republican canidate. Im totally critical of my Democratic mayor, council members, US Senators, my democratic House Rep and most of allthe dickhead of a Governor. I have stated this position numerous times. It just so happens right wing agendas are more in the forefront in recent years so the picking is prime. The current administration is full of left over Bush Sr/Reagan-ites that are sitting ducks for condemnation.

BINGO spunk. wanna know who i emailed early this morning, once i read the headlines? Daschle. You know what i said? "Pussy" An act of futility, for sure.

"The current administration is full of left over Bush Sr/Reagan-ites that are sitting ducks for condemnation. " Aww, are you still sad that the Berlin Wall fell, and the great stalin experiment failed? Hate to tell you this, but I will always feel that Reagan was one of the best Presidents ever. Bush Sr should have learned a lot more then he did. Bush Jr is so far left of Reagan it is not even funny. Back to the original idea of this thread, I am really impressed. The same thing that the Dem's did in NJ was repeated by a Republican in Montana. The difference is that the Montana State Democratic Party ran an ad that potrayed State Senator Taylor as a gay hair dresser. For some reason after that ad started running, Taylor's numbers dropped to nearly 0. This is what honestly impressed me: State Sen. Ken Toole (how's that for irony), D-Helena, and program director for the Montana Human Rights Network, said Thursday morning the ad "is an overt and obvious appeal to the homophobic (voter) that is playing to that stereotypic imagery." Toole, who has fought for homosexual rights for years in the Montana Legislature, said he had complained to the state Democratic Party. Toole said the Democratic response was that the image was not intended to imply that Taylor was gay. "It is hard to believe their advertising firm did not see it," Toole said. "Bottom line is it is obvious and it ought to be pulled. I am just going to have to watch this. Incedently, all Democrats are NOT liberal leftists. Just like not all Republicans are Right Wing Radicals.

WHo was it that said "While it is true that not all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives"? Just wondering. Joe, excuse me. Ever hear of a web search? IF that's too much, try yahoo. That's where I read him. Incidentaly, his piece this week is particularly good, where he points out how the supreme court probably violated the Constitution when they stepped in to the voting mess in Florida in 2000, and so the Bush Presidencyis an unconstitutional regime.

nice semi. all around.

It could be worse. Sometimes it helps if i keep telling myself that.

ok sem, you're absolutely correct and i'm sorry. i would just like to see a president who isn't OBVIOUSLY relying on a staff of experts to make his decisions. why can't we have a smart guy in office instead of a figurehead?

because smart guys don't want the job. weren't you paying attention in school? good grief.

oh,...i know, they all go in with black hair and come out with gray. perhaps he right guy would pay that price and we would benefit.