[LY]

YOUR VOTE DOESN'T MATTER: IT'S THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE THAT PICKS THE
PRESIDENT
For Most Progressives, a Vote for Nader Is Free

By Steve Cobble

There has been a big debate among progressives over whether or
not to vote for Ralph Nader. In recent weeks, however, the
debate has begun to turn a bit nasty, and before it gets
downright mean, allow me to make one basic point: due to the
way the Electoral College works, almost every progressive
voter, or liberal, or "radiclib" (to revive Spiro Agnew's
favorite epithet) is free to vote his or her conscience.

Except for a very small number of states, progressives have a
free vote. They can vote their conscience for Ralph Nader, and
help him get the 5 percent he needs to build a new fourth party
to do battle with the corporate wing of the Democratic Party --
without "spoiling" the election for Al Gore.

In at least two-thirds of the country, and perhaps as many as
nine states out of ten, a vote for Ralph Nader is not a vote
for George Bush. It's really a vote for Ralph Nader.

Here's why: The president is not elected by the popular vote,
but by a majority (270) of the 538 electoral votes. These
electoral votes are cast by state, and it's winner-take-all
within each state. Thus, a Nader vote has no chance of
"spoiling" the outcome for Al Gore unless it potentially
changes the outcome within each state.

The truth is, for 90 percent of the states (including the
biggest ones), that's not going to happen. [I'm making the
assumption here that the Commission on Presidential Debates
will continue its Microsoft-type tactics, and refuse to allow
Nader to debate, which will keep him from maximizing his
potential support.)


THE IVINS RULE

Which brings us to the "Ivins Rule," invoked by writer Molly
Ivins: if Bush or Gore is way ahead in your state, vote for
Nader; if it's close in your state, then consider voting for
Gore, to keep Bush away from the Supreme Court.

In about twenty states, the election is already decided, and
George W. Bush is going to win their electoral votes. A
progressive voter could vote for Ralph without affecting one
electoral vote in these states. An African American voter in
South Carolina or Virginia can vote for Nader without worrying
about the Supreme Court.

In another ten to fifteen states, mostly big ones, Al Gore is
so far ahead of Bush that even a huge fourth party vote for
Nader would not cost Gore a single electoral vote. A liberal
Democrat in Boston or New York is free to vote for Ralph.

The Gore and Bush campaigns understand both of these truths,
which is why they only campaign in a small number of swing
states, day after day.


CAMPAIGN SPENDING

Here's one way to prove my point: just last week, the Gore
campaign went up with a new ad on education, the #1 issue among
the voters. The ad, however, ran in only seventeen states; in
thirty-three states and D.C., the campaign is running no ads.
Then the Bush campaign did almost exactly the same thing, in
almost exactly the same seventeen states. (The Bush campaign
picked Maryland, New Hampshire, and West Virginia, but left out
Delaware, Illinois, and Georgia.)

So, if you live in Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,
Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia, or Wisconsin, perhaps
you have a reason to worry about spoiling, at least initially.
(And frankly, Bush is kidding himself in Maryland and probably
West Virginia, and is about to give up on Illinois.)

If you live in the other three-fifths of the country, forget it
-- even the major campaigns, with their millions of dollars in
soft money, aren't trying to influence your vote.


HISTORY

A better way to look at the so-called "spoiler" question is to
look at history. There are sixteen states -- a third of the
country -- which both Bush '92 and Dole '96 carried, winning
all their electoral votes: Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Indiana,
Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
and Wyoming.

In these sixteen states, clearly the most wasted vote of all is
a vote for Gore. A progressive vote for Nader, on the other
hand, breaks up the two-party monopoly without changing a
single electoral vote.

Five other states, switched sides between 1992 and 1996.
Arizona and Florida voted for Bush in 1992, but Clinton in
1996; while Colorado, Georgia, and Montana voted for Clinton in
1992, but Dole in 1996. None of these states are required for
a Gore victory, and as short as a month ago, none of them were
expected to vote for him.

In the twenty-nine states plus D.C. that voted for Bill Clinton
both times, at least half of them start out so biased against
Bush (or Texans) that if Gore runs anywhere close to Clinton's
total, he will win them easily.

Here's a list of fourteen more states where the outcome is
already assured (and if not, then the overall election will be
won by Bush easily, regardless of Nader): California,
Connecticut, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, and Vermont. (The fact is, I would include
Delaware, Iowa, and Pennsylvania on this list, but the
campaigns are still fighting over them, so I won't push it
here.)


POLLING

We could also do what the media does every day -- except when
they are calling Nader a "spoiler" -- and look at the polls.

The American Research Group just finished its fifty-state
presidential poll, which they have done every year since 1980.
Between September 5th and September 20th, they polled 600
likely voters in each state, for a margin of error of 4 percent
in each individual state, and 1 percent overall.

Their overall results: Gore at 45 percent; Bush at 41 percent;
Nader at 3 percent; Buchanan at 1 percent. (We should keep in
mind that with $12 million to spend, Buchanan's totals are
likely to rise some, and if he keeps spending it on Christian
radio, mostly at Bush's expense.)

In sixteen states with 124 electoral votes, Bush has a lead
beyond the margin of error (even while he trails overall):
Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

In eight more states, with seventy-eight electoral votes, Bush
also leads, but within the margin of error -- but in only one
of those states (Colorado, with eight electoral votes, a state
that Clinton blames Nader for costing him even in 1996) does
Nader's percentage exceed the margin of Bush's advantage. In
other words, in only one state right now is Ralph Nader clearly
"spoiling" Gore's election. In three other states (Arizona,
Arkansas, and Nevada), Nader's total equals Bush's lead, but
does not exceed it. So, if you gave Al Gore every single one
of Ralph Nader's votes, you would tie. Though even Barney
Frank doesn't accuse Ralph of winning only Democrats -- one of
Nader's best categories, after all, is Independents -- we could
also include these three other states with their combined
eighteen electoral votes, as possibly "spoiled" by Nader.

Bush leads in the poll in twenty-four states, with 202
electoral votes. Of these, one state with eight electoral
votes, up to four states with twenty-six electoral votes, are
due to Nader "spoilage."

In fourteen states with 186 electoral votes, including most of
Nader's highest-polling states, Gore's lead is beyond the
margin of error. These states include: California,
Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
and Vermont. In these fourteen states, most of them big
electoral vote states, and states with large numbers of
progressive voters, Nader could double his percentages tomorrow
without endangering Gore's electoral college vote one bit!

In another thirteen states, totaling 150 electoral votes, Gore
leads, but within the margin of error. According to this poll,
if Nader tripled his vote in each state tomorrow, the following
five states would still cast their electoral votes for Gore:
Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, and West Virginia. (Based
on history, by the way, I would take that Kentucky poll with a
grain of salt.)

If Nader only doubled his vote, then Florida, Minnesota, New
Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington would still go for
Gore, while Missouri would be a tie, and Wisconsin's eleven
electoral votes would then go to Bush.


CATEGORIES

Using this poll, combined with some electoral history, let me
break these numbers into five categories:

(1) Safe for Bush (17 states): Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Indiana,
Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, Wyoming.

In these states, every progressive can vote for Nader knowing
that they are not endangering the Supreme Court in any way.
Indeed, in these states, those FDR New Dealers, McGovern
liberals, trade union members, environmentalists, and African
Americans that would support Gore over Bush, but believe that
the Democrats have moved too far to the corporate side in
recent decades, should vote for Nader to build up his "hammer,"
by helping him get his 5 percent to form a fourth party, a
"watchdog" party.

(2) Leaning toward Bush (7 states): Arizona, Arkansas,
Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire.

Same basic rule -- in these states, progressives can vote for
Ralph safe in the knowledge that none of these states are
absolutely necessary to build a winning electoral coalition for
Gore. If this still makes you nervous, and you live in one of
these states, then follow the Ivins Rule -- watch the polls as
we approach election day, and if the race (in your state) looks
very, very close, only then make your decision.

(3) Safe for Gore (15 states): California, Connecticut, D.C.,
Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, West Virginia,
Vermont.

In these states, progressives can not only vote safely for
Nader, they can each recruit one or two other friends to vote
for Ralph, secure in the knowledge that George Bush has given
up (or will give up in early October) on winning these
electoral votes.

(4) Leaning toward Gore (7 states): Delaware, Iowa, Michigan,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin.

These states are likely to end up in Gore's column, unless he
badly blows the debates. If they do maintain his current lead,
then progressives are secure in voting for Nader.

(5) Toss-up (5 states): Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, New
Mexico, Ohio.

In these five swing states, the Ivins Rule applies most
strongly -- check the state polls right before election day,
then make your judgment. There are some knowledgeable analysts
who would move Michigan and Oregon into the toss-up column;
indeed, some would insist on invoking the Ivins Rule for every
state in categories #2, #4, and #5. But even if you follow
that advice, that still leaves two-thirds of the country
"spoilage-free."

Or if you don't trust me, other analysts suggest that the
race is down to only eight "battleground" states: Delaware,
Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin.


THE MOORE RULE

Then there is the Michael Moore rule, which always applies: if
you didn't vote at all in 1996, then you are free to vote for
Ralph Nader no matter where you live. You are part of the
party of non-voters, the biggest party of all, and you should
come to the polls to help build a fourth party that can offer
you more choices in future elections.


CONCLUSION

When I wrote the first draft of this piece, Al Gore had the
small lead in the polls mentioned above. In the few days since
then, Bush kissed Oprah, and the pundits now suggest he has a 2
percent lead. As a result, I moved Louisiana from leaning Gore
to toss-up, while Kentucky went from toss-up to leaning Bush.
The point is, for almost everyone reading this, that change in
the polls makes no difference in their vote's chances to change
the electoral college! Most voters have no more influence
right now than they do when New Hampshire is hogging all the
primary glory!

Al Gore still has the lead in the electoral college; he has a
vice presidential nominee adored by both the establishment and
the media; his opponent is a lightweight who is clearly not up
to the job, with a vice presidential nominee who is in hock to
the oil companies in a time of oil price gouging; both
Republicans are from very conservative states with political
norms that are well outside the boundaries set by most other
states; the issues that the public cares about all favor the
Democrats; and the campaign is being held in a time of peace
and prosperity.

If Al Gore can't win with these advantages, it somehow seems
unfair to blame Ralph Nader for Gore's "choke."

But if that prospect worries you, just follow these rules.
Then, even if Al Gore blows the debates and loses the election,
and even if George Bush does every horrible thing that Barney
Frank claims (which he might!), your conscience will still be
clear -- because you will know that it was not your vote that
spoiled the election, because your vote did not change any
electoral college votes.

Instead, it was the foolishness of the electoral college, and
the lack of proportional representation and instant runoff
voting that spoiled the election -- but that's another topic.

I am trying to be specific about states in the hopes that it
will keep us focused on the question of how to build our
movement back up, and away from our usual attack mode of
debate. I offer these rules as a safety net, in the hopes that
those who agree with me that Ralph Nader offers us a real
choice in 2000 will not be deterred by spurious electoral math.

If it bothers you that you might be a "spoiler," then follow
these rules and you won't risk it. If it doesn't bother you,
then let's spend the next six weeks identifying and turning out
the 5 percent we need to build an alternative (while taking
back the House from the remaining Gingrich crowd at the same
time, and maybe even the Senate from Helms and Hatch).

I support Ralph Nader because he is a geniune American hero, a
leader of unquestioned integrity, and a lifelong progressive.
He is campaigning on the issues that I believe will most affect
the earth in the next few decades -- the impact of
globalization on working people and the environment, the rising
inequality in wealth, and the increasing corporate domination
of democracy.

I take my cue from Dr. King, who, in his last Sunday sermon at
the National Cathedral on March 31, 1968, told this story about
coming out against the War in Vietnam:

"One day a newsman came to me and said, 'Dr. King, don't you
think you're going to have to stop, now, opposing the war and
move more in line with the administration's policy? As I
understand it, it has hurt the budget of your organization, and
people who once respected you have lost respect for you. Don't
you feel that you've really got to change your position?' "

"I looked at him and I had to say, 'Sir, I'm sorry but you don't
know me. I'm not a consensus leader. I do not determine what
is right and wrong by looking at the budget of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference. I've not taken a sort of
Gallup Poll of the majority opinion. Ultimately a geniune
leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of
consensus.' On some positions, cowardice asks the question, is
it expedient? And then expedience comes along and asks the
question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it
popular? Conscience asks the question, is it right?"

-------------------------

Steve Cobble is an advisor to Ralph Nader's presidential campaign.

Copyright 1999-2000 The Florence Fund

---
Visualize a Revolution of Consciousness
Visualize Ralph Nader in the White House
Visualize Medea Susan Benjamin in the U.S. Senate

[witulski]

I sincerely believe that if everyone had voted for whom they really wanted to vote, eight years ago Perot would have been elected president. I think we're seeing something similar this year. It's like nobody wants to admit what they really want unless they feel they're not alone, but no one else is admitting it either for the same reason. Kinda like how nobody thought anybody ever masturbated until Masters & Johnson discovered the truth and made us feel less afraid and ashamed to admit it.

Well, I'm not ashamed to admit it. This year, when Election Day rolls around, you can guess what I'll be doing in that voter booth.

...er, that's voting for Nader...

[wlonh]

ditto

Vote for Nader, he is the future.


Just kidding there. I find it interesting that there are very few Republicans, which I am, that use Macs. Any thoughts on this - and try to keep it civil.

LY forgot to credit the source for Steve Cobbles excellant article
It is from Tom Paine http://www.TomPaine.com/ 09/29/00
The article does miss an important point about a couple of the states. Two states Nebraska and (I believe it's) Maine actually proportion their votes in the electoral college according to the percentage of the popular vote that each candidate receives. In such a situation a vote for Nader can easily turn into a vote for Bush.

On an unrelated but interisting note, Tom Paine published on 09/27 an in depth study of whatBush actually did during those years he was supposed to be avoiding the draft in the Texas national guard.


-Grendel, were Nixon alive I feel sure that he at least would have posessed the sense of vision needed to use a Macintosh ! Odd phenomenon, isn't it !

[witulski]

I just HATE this. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. Pure and simple. Why does this always happen?

Heh, well Nixon was usually hopped up on mood altering drugs so he would have loved the pretty colors of an imac.

In regards to that article on Bush's National Guard record, neither of the candidates had a great war record. Gore was a journalist that had a body guard assigned to him the whole time. I'm really not entusiastic about any candidate but I hate paying taxes so I'll vote for Bush.

Vote Nader.

[bood69]

Grendel,

I am a card-carrying member of the GOP and I have used Macs my whole life. What makes you so sure that so few Republicans use Macs? There are several in these forums alone...

[wlonh]

too damned many, i might add...

"...forgive them Lord, they know not what they do..."

[This message has been edited by wlonh (edited 10-10-2000).]

[blizaine]

I find it interesting that there are very few Republicans, which I am, that use Macs. Any thoughts on this - and try to keep it civil

That's funny; almost every intelligent Mac user I've ever met has been a Republican. In fact I associate the too very closely. And When I here the term �Democrat�, I associate it with "PC User". (Just like Al Gore is - remember the quote, "I would never use a Mac, because there is not enough scientific software for them" - Al Gore")

"...forgive them Lord, they know not what they do..."

Interesting quote wholn... since it was taken from the Christian Bible. The VAST majority of Christians are conservative republicans, that MORE than likely will vote for Bush, because he has the same beliefs and morals as they do.

BTW: In that quote Jesus was asking God (While he was hanging on the cross) to forgive the people who crucified him, because they didn�t know what they were doing.

Later


[This message has been edited by blizaine (edited 10-10-2000).]

[jaguarandi]

Originally posted by blizaine:
That's funny; almost every intelligent Mac user I've ever met has been a Republican. In fact I associate the too very closely.

Mac users come in all shapes and sizes. I know ones who are hardcore conservative (likely Bush supporters this year), all the way to tree-hugging free radicals (like my inlaws) who will likely punch that Nader box this November. Some are more hardcore than others in their beliefs, but I feel I can safely say that ever 'Mac user' I know has a different political preference, and there is no skew in any direction.

Of course, I live on the west coast, which is a bit, ehm, different than the rest of the country....

And When I here the term �Democrat�, I associate it with "PC User". (Just like Al Gore is - remember the quote, "I would never use a Mac, because there is not enough scientific software for them" - Al Gore")

So Gore said that. And I'm sure you've seen the Time photo with GW Bush and a PowerBook. So what? Does a party's 'leader' automatically speak to what all, or even a majority of, their constituents believe in? Or what OS they use?

At least Gore can tell you what drugs he took in the 70's....

/e/

"I could have passed the [FBI] background check on the standards applied on the most stringent conditions when my dad was president of the United States - a 15-year period." - George W. Bush

[blizaine]

true

[wlonh]

i am a confirmed atheist because i was raised in a very religious family, i went to church EVERY Sunday for the first 15 years of my life and i know my Bible (having read every bit of it) far better than most self-professed 'Christians'

i quoted Jesus for a very good reason, because voting for the Shrubby boy will crucify this country... that man is an abomination among abominations... a paid-off corporate lackey, a mouthpiece for any corporate concern that comes his way...

and in my mind i associate the term 'Mac user' with something VERY un-Republican, and un-Democrat as well i might add


this country (and the world) is well and truly overpopulated with fools and madmen, just look at the success of MS



[This message has been edited by wlonh (edited 10-11-2000).]

[MacOS761]

More evidence that the amount of intelligence in the universe is constant... fortunately Mac users are the ones on the high end of the scale.
What was the topic again?
[edit] Hm.. for such a sweeping and somewhat prideful statement, you'd think I could spell better. At least I caught my mistake. Heh.
------------------
We're supposed to sing about piraty things!

[This message has been edited by MacOS761 (edited 10-11-2000).]

[MDA]

Originally posted by Grendel:
Vote for Nader, he is the future.


Just kidding there. I find it interesting that there are very few Republicans, which I am, that use Macs. Any thoughts on this - and try to keep it civil.

Probably because Mac users tend to be more open minded and progressive as do Democrats.

MDA

[jholmes]

Just for my info - why would a person vote for Nader? Because Pat Paulson finally died?

Is it his experience in governing?
His proven leadership abilities?
Perhaps his outstanding track record of legislative success?
What has the man done to qualify him to be President of the United States?
To my knowledge he's never been head of any organization except the one he started. When you make up your own rules it's easy to look successful.

I realize that neither Gore nor Bush present the greatest choice since Jefferson but if being a successful class action lawyer is grounds for President, then Canada sounds better every day.

As for the GOP Mac contingent I notice my keyboard has USB ports on the left and the right. It's an equal opportunity machine.

And finally a request - Please, Please, PLEASE! Stop quoting Molly Ivins just because she's lives in Texas. She is a fine writer but she can degrade, corrupt and mangle the facts of a situation to make whatever point she wishes.
Her recent article on the fact that Supreme Court Justices are elected in Texas rather than apointed by the Governor completely omitted the point that Governor Bush did indeed appoint quality Supremes to fill vacancies as mandated by the State Constitution. And they didn't vote in lockstep with his policies or direction, so far they've made good, solid decisions based on interpreting the law - not rewriting it. Just because Molly writes it does not make it true.

[wlonh]

Molly Ivins is dead on target, 99% of the time... the same can be said of James Hightower, another TRUE son of Texas

quite unlike the usurper/pretender we know as Dubya

[jholmes]

Former State Ag Commish Jim Hightower was run out elected office on a rail, after all but destroying the ag economy in Texas.
I've yet to meet a rancher, horseman, or farmer who has a good thing to say about the man.
His sole abilities seem to be self promotion and pawning himelf off as a later day Will Rogers wannabee by skewering corporations and profit oriented organizations without regard to the facts.

[wlonh]

http://www.georgebush2000.com/ read it and weep

<A HREF="http://www.webactive.com/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/cspin/cspin990618.ra&start="8:35.7"&proto=pnm" TARGET=_blank>and listen up</A>

Another Reason To Despise GW Bush: Dirty Tricks On Jim Hightower from which i quote:
"Hightower was such an outstanding ag commissioner that he became a national figure -- a leader in the family farm defense of the 1980s, a battler for safe food, and one of the few statewide officials in the country to back Jesse Jackson for president. A big part of Hightower's appeal was his ability to cut through the ''morning in America'' fog of the Reagan era and get to the essence of the issues. Campaigning for Garvey's 1986 Senate run in Wisconsin, Hightower described Reagan's plan for farmers: ''a seven-course dinner: a dead possum and a six-pack.''
Texas voters loved Hightower. They re-elected him in 1986, and he appeared to be headed for a bright political future. Until the Bush family intervened. When Hightower sought re-election in 1990, President George Bush was determined to destroy Hightower's political future -- as it posed a genuine threat to the advancement of his son, George W.
The Bush camp used federal agencies to launch a dirty tricks campaign against the ag commissioner, and they dispatched their chief mudslinger, Karl Rove, to coordinate the ''Get Hightower'' initiative."

read this available from this site

even more facts

so, you spout anecdotal evidence which is nothing short of meaningless... reactionary drivel

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blizaine:
[B] That's funny; almost every intelligent Mac user I've ever met has been a Republican. In fact I associate the too very closely. And When I here the term �Democrat�, I associate it with "PC User". (Just like Al Gore is - remember the quote, "I would never use a Mac, because there is not enough scientific software for them" - Al Gore")


Well yes, because the only intelligent Mac users are Republican. Hahaha, I just couldn't stop myself - it was too easy.

I think a big part of the Mac user / Democrat connection are that Macs are prevelant in schools and in creative design. Both these fields tend to draw liberals to them.

Of course with the high price of Macs I would think that only us rich Republicans could afford them.

Food for thought.....

[wlonh]

i always associate the words 'avarice' and 'selfish' and 'heartless' and 'shortsighted' and 'internecine', et cetera, with Republicans... but the Democrats do try their best to be equally obnoxious.

[jholmes]

How is to you're so able to tell me how terrible life is in Texas from where? Just outside Queens?
I have to admit your collection of websites is very impressive. Lots of folks writing lots of things. But this is what I know.

One. My family has been in Texas since just before the Alamo fell in 1836 and my Dad still has the family farm homesteaded by his great granddad. My brother has his Masters in Ag Science from Texas A&M and worked for the Ag Extention service under Hightower. I might have a slightly closer to the source view of Texas agriculture than the columnists in the People's Republic of Madison or even Molly in her condo in Austin.

Two. Hightower didn't become a national figure because he was such a good Ag commissioner - it was because he was a lone voice in the wilderness supporting Jesse Jackson for President. Too far left for even my family of yellow dog Democrats. He was noticed because he was loud and different. Not because he was good.

Three. Hightower's reelection had a lot more to do with Ann Richards coattails than his own abilities. All this and a Bush family conspiracy theory as well? Contrary to popular belief the Bush family has never been a big power in Texas politics. We thought they lived in Maine.

Four. Boy those statistics on Texas under Bush look bad. In fact it stinks here. Hell, if Texas was harder to spell we might be Mississippi. Y'all stay put and quit moving down here okay? Let's not have Houston, Austin, San Antonio and Dallas growing at double digit annual rates. Even Amarillo is booming. Yep, it's a rotten place to live. Our kids are stoopid, the economy sucks and the air is unfit to support human life.
And it's all Shrubby-boy's fault.

As for anecdotal reactionary drivel. I just trust what I know and see rather than what I read in the papers. But if I need somebody to tell me where to go for websites that can tell me how bad off Texas really is, I'm sure the first person I'll ask is a pontificating Yankee atheist.
Do me a favor amigo, since you're so good at pasting URLs into your posts - find something out of the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Post or for that matter the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal that says who's doing what here. Notice I didn't say the Texas Observer which is so far left it tips over the birdcages you line with it.

[bood69]

Jim Hightower, Molly Ivins, jeez.....this is like the parade of the Texans who are more popular outside of Texas than they ever have been in Texas.....throw Ann Richards on the heap while you're at it....

Ah, I see jholmes already did!

Nice post, by the way...

[This message has been edited by bood69 (edited 10-11-2000).]

[blizaine]

jholmes,

Finally someone makes an intelligent post.

nice job...

[wlonh]

Republican candidates and intelligence? a contradiction in terms!

and how many times have i mentioned that i hate Gore nearly as much ad i hate Dubya? not enough, at least not recently... but i have mentioned it repeatedly here in the Lounge and i find them both reprehensible, just that the Shrub is the worst of the two...

"while Gore was hammered for three alleged big fibs last week, here are three that came from Bush during the same debate, of generally much larger consequence, that have gone largely unnoticed:

1. The Bush tax cut will consume only one-fourth of the projected budget surplus.

Not true. As the New York Times' Paul Krugman has pointed out time and time again -- $1.6 trillion is much closer to a third of the $4.6 trillion surplus than a fourth. (On the stump, Bush goes so far as to illustrate this with four dollar bills.) This is not an inconsequential lie. Bush is deceiving the public about the size of his tax cut, in which the bulk of the money is targeted toward the nation's richest. It is a question of being honest with the American people.

Sen. Everett Dirksen used to say, "A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon it runs into real money." Same goes, I think, for a trillion.

2. Gore's claim that Bush's tax cut favors the wealthy is "fuzzy math."

It's a cute ploy, but the morning after the debate, questioned by Charlie Gibson on ABC's "Good Morning America," Bush admitted that Gore's claim was correct.

"I want to raise a point that I was puzzled you didn't attack," Gibson said. "Specifically, the vice president said maybe half a dozen times that you would give to the top 1 percent in a tax cut more than you would spend on education, healthcare, prescription drugs and national defense combined. He said it over and over again ... is he incorrect in saying that you would give to the top 1 percent of income earners in this country in tax relief more than you would spend on healthcare, prescription drugs, education and national defense combined?"

"No," Bush said. "I think what people have got to understand is, wealthy people pay a lot of taxes today, and if everybody gets tax relief, wealthy people are going to get tax relief."

We'll see if he's as, um, forthcoming with Jim Lehrer on Wednesday night.

3. Bush's privatization plan for Social Security won't rely on either cutting benefits or major funding.

"There's a third way," Bush said during the debate. "And that is to get a better rate of return on the Social Security monies" through privatization. But as the Wall Street Journal pointed out Tuesday, most experts believe that either a cut in benefits or a multitrillion-dollar infusion -- or a combination of both -- will be necessary to keep the program afloat for such a transition. When pressed by the Journal, Bush's economic advisor, Lawrence Lindsey, said Bush would consider taking out a "bridge loan" worth hundreds of billions of dollars if the market underperforms, so that benefits would not be cut.

Whether Bush falls back on his misleading rhetoric on any of these issues will be one thing. Whether anybody calls him on it will be another."
http://www.salon.com/politics/featur...ush/index.html

i note that none of you Bushwhackerslackerz post any URLs whatsoever, nothing but anecdotal junk... no facts, no articles... nothing... hmm, wonder why?

[bood69]

wlonh, maybe we aren't posting any fancy rhetoric and goofy spin because everything's already on the table for us! I just don't understand why there are so many undecided voters, although there will be fewer after tonight.

On this whole issue of tax cuts, why is it so shocking that the greatest percentage of the cuts goes to the wealthiest bracket of people? In an across-the-board tax cut of a progressive system of taxation, of course the wealthy are going to see the biggest cuts....they pay the most already!!! Everytime I see Gore he brings up these same yawn-inducing statistics, and no one really seems moved.

Meanwhile, Gore touts his "targeted" tax cuts for people with children in daycare, an aged or disabled relative living with them, etc. People who don't fit into his narrow qualifications get zero tax relief, while accountants and tax lawyers sharpen up there pencils ready to make a killing off the rest (wow there sure are a lot of people with aged or disabled relatives all of the sudden!)

We don't need a bunch of b.s. articles....we already have a candidate who tells us everything we need to know.

[wlonh]

right! you kiddies are being spoon-fed your yummy pabulum from daddy Dubya... head in the sand, blind as hell...

y'all make me want to ralph (Nader)

[This message has been edited by wlonh (edited 10-12-2000).]

[blizaine]

Wow wlonh, your posts are almost as boring as Al Gore! lol

I don't think it's that you don't like GWB, it's that you can't stand people who are honest, have true peace in their heart, a genuine love for life, good morals, and a love for God.
This is most likely because deep down you are jealous of these qualities and the only way you can find even slight redemption is to scour the net looking for every article you can that was written by some left-wing, ultra-liberal, tree-hugging, fool.


Pretty pathetic... nobody is buying your feeble attempts at slamming GWB. And the people who are, are probably just as pathetic as you. Any half-wit can find a flaw in someone else's plan. Gores problem is he tries to put a major twist on everything. ie. Bush says, "We should NOT pick and choose who we gives tax cuts too, everyone should pay the same percent." This seems a fare, and yes by nature this is a bigger tax cut for rich people, but Gore puts his little "Al-Twist" on it and rambles, "the top 1% will get all these tax cuts, bla bla bla...zzzzz"

Go a head and vote for (make me) Ralf... better him than waist your vote on Gore. Won�t it be nice to know that when Bush wins, you will have contributed to his victory!

[DBursey]

As an outsider observing this debate, I'm nontheless compelled to register my disappointment in reading such a petty personal attack as this. Name calling and mud-flinging is childish and does nothing to establish your debating credentials. I'm sure you can do better ...

"We don't need a bunch of b.s. articles....we already have a candidate who tells us everything we need to know."

I find comments such as this to be scary. What does it say about the thinking abilities of those who espouse such views? Who needs data when we can be told what to think?

After last week's debate, Bush got lots of political capital by accusing Gore of using "fuzzy numbers." That says more about Bush's ability to grasp facts than anything else. If those numbers are "fuzzy" to him, how is he going to be able to deal with real-world budgets?

And then, on the stump, crowds of Bush supports yelled out, "No fuzzy numbers!", bleating like mindless sheep, not understanding the math themselves. Such anti-intellectualism is scary, for it attacks those who actually understand the issues, those who wish to learn. It's a reprise of the 50's Eisenhower-era anti-intellectualism that came to an abrupt end when Russia launched Sputnik. Then it became suddenly fasionable to study science, and learn as much as possible, in order to catch up.

Where will the anti-intellecualism being encouraged by Bush lead us in the future? How far behind will be go, before suddenly realizing the rest of the world actually values independent thought, and study, and facts, and even, yes, numbers.

We live in a technological world. The Age of Information. To have a presidential candidate encourage ignorance is shameful. To see his followers bleating about how wonderful it is to have someone do their thinking for them is scary.

PrivateCitizen

P.S. Bush followers, spare me your knee-jerk reaction: I find Gore deeply disappointing as well.

[jholmes]

Anybody who takes a candidate's word as gospel is asking for it. Fortunately there are plenty of resources that will tell you to the penny when and where those facts are fiction. To that end wlonh is right. Bush's numbers don't add up. And it'll take a great economy for a long time to do everything he says he wants to do. I'm not counting on it.

At the same time I'm not willing to fork over 30% of my income to Al Gore to dispense as he sees fit. Class envy and not giving someone a tax cut because they don't live the way the government says they should doesn't fit with my picture of a free country. I pay higher taxes because I got married? I don't get a tax cut because I don't have a kid? Or an energy efficient house? Social engineering through tax policy isn't a good idea no mattter who's behind it.


[This message has been edited by jholmes (edited 10-12-2000).]

[Don Pickett]

Just so's ya know, the law now states that the electoral college must follow the popular vote in each state. The electoral college is a holdover from our Founding Fathers, one of the checks and balances. They didn't think much of the populace back then, so they put the electoral college in case We The People elected someone they didn't like.

I don't know if there has ever been a disagreement between the two - there is a tickling in the back of my memory saying "something like this happened in the 1800s," but I'm at work and don't have my bookshelves in front of me.

Obviously this wouldn't fly now - this being a democratic republic and all - and the law was changed quite a while ago. So a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader, period.

Don

I think both major-party candidates are being irresponsible in their approach to finances. As you say, jholmes, who knows how the economy will be two years from now, or five? To count on non-stop good times is short sighted.

So when either candidate panders to the voters about "giving the people their money back", I cringe. All that will lead to is tax increases in the near future, as their surplus plunges into a deficit. They have a surplus? Great! Start repairing the crumbling infrastructure of the country that got neglected during the deficit years. Isn't there any politician who can see beyond the next six months?!

They are also both being dishonest about Social Security, since it is doomed unless they act decisively, and soon, instead of pretending all is sunshine and brightness. And as far as Bush letting us invest "our" Social Security money, it isn't ours to begin with. We pay SS money now to support those who already retired, just as those persons paid to support the previous group of retirees. After all, when the program started in the 30s, those who retired then were being supported by those still working, not getting money they themselves paid, since they never paid a thing. And so it has gone, decade by decade, as each group supports the one that came before.

So if Bush lets us play with "our" money, he is really letting us invest someone else's money. "Our" money will come from those behind us in the system.

That's precisely why, of course, there will be a major disaster as the Boomers retire. They ain't getting their own money back, but the money of those who come after them, a group much smaller in number. That kind of math, though obvious, is disastrous, and being totally ignored by the politicians.

Oh sorry, I must be guilty of that intellectual crime of "fuzzy numbers." Go back to sleep, America. It will all be OK. Really it will...

[bood69]

Quit twisting my words around, PrivateCitizen! Desperate leftist spin meant to smear the other side is not "data," but opinion. No one tells me what to think.....I support the candidate who I relate to most, and whose ideology most closely resembles my own. That is George W. Bush.

I do read quite a bit, I am quite the news junkie. I don't post a lot of links, because I think it's up to people to make up their own minds.

I'm with the 90% of voters who want either the Republican or Democrat to be President.....if we're all "sheep," well, whatever, for all we know they could have been saying the same things in the days of Construction. It beats being an arrogant conspiracy theorist.

[This message has been edited by bood69 (edited 10-12-2000).]

"Quit twisting my words around, PrivateCitizen! Desparate leftist spin meant to smear the other side is not "data," but opinion. No one tells me what to think"

I'm relieved to hear it. Your words indicated otherwise, but I'll accept that I merely misinterpreted them, and I stand corrected in your case.

As for leftist spin using smear tactics, care to point out where in my message that occurred?

".....I support the candidate who I relate to most, and whose ideology most closely resembles my own. That is George W. Bush."

More power to you. I have no problem with people having opinions that differ from my own.

"I'm with the 90% of voters who want either the Republican or Democrat to be President....."

Since only about 35% of voters actually vote, how do you know what the rest want? Perhaps by not voting, they are indicating they don't want either candidate.

"if we're all "sheep," well, whatever, for all we know they could have been saying the same things in the days of Construction. It beats being an arrogant conspiracy theorist."

Masses of humanity not caring to spend time thinking have been around as long as man has had the capacity to think. That is their right. But when politicians start attacking those who think, I will point out my objections. That is my right.

[bood69]

The "leftist spin" comes in the form of articles that tout "fuzzy" political science like the "Ivins Rule," but I realize you didn't bring this in.

I think we're even.

[wlonh]

to those of you 'childish' enough to remember a certain movie...

"pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, i am the Great and Powerful Oz"

problem is, you fools can't even see the man behind the curtain and your doors of perception are closed...

[EqualTime]

George Dubya

say it again

over and over

he's your new president

thankfully the Nader supporters came out in force so they could be counted.

I think there was 6 of you guys.

LOL

If you see things differently than 99.99% of the population - then you're prolly just wrong in your thinking.

[elzinat]

&lt;wondering why anyone would bother digging this out of the ruins of our political system&gt;


EDIT: in response to the post below, "touch�." But you see now I am editting, not posting a new reply. Which means that probably nobody will ever read what I am writing now. oh well.

------------------
be happy!
-mac freak

[This message has been edited by elzinat (edited 01-09-2001).]

[Gregg]

...or add a post to keep it alive.