Thank you - that's the most optimistic thing I've read in weeks. I hope it comes true. If we could all just vote absentee and keep copies of our ballots, would'nt that make it more hard to steal elections? At least we could come forward (thousands of us) with ballots that show who we voted for and maybe,when the numbers don't add up,
that would be some sort of proof that the numbers are rigged. Just a thought.
I thought the same thing the other day, probably some reason its not a good idea, but id be interested to know why.
Posted by uvadem at May 20, 2005 01:44 PMDianne -- that's actually a pretty darn good idea.
Posted by Tammy at May 20, 2005 01:44 PMI dunno -- reading that Senator Warner may be the key to the Nuclear Option gives me that old sinking feeling.
The problem is, polls mean nothing -- politics is hand to hand combat, one teeny tiny battle after another.
The big picture didn't matter in 2004 -- it came down to gay marriage initiatives, Swift Boat Liars for Bush, and windsurfing John Kerry equivocating his way to defeat.
Posted by ck at May 20, 2005 01:49 PMThe problem is, polls mean nothing -- politics is hand to hand combat, one teeny tiny battle after another.
Polls embolden or intimidate politicians as they consider how far to go when they fight those battles.
Posted by Matt Davis at May 20, 2005 02:05 PMWhat makes you think that Bush's veto of the stem cell bill will be "politically fatal?" This issue was a total dud at the Democratic convention. It moved no voters then, and it's not going to move any voters now.
What percentage of the American electorate can tell you, in less than two minutes, what stem cells are? What percentage of the people who are not opposed to it on religious grounds really care one way or the other?
Posted by James E. Powell at May 20, 2005 02:30 PMGreat post Steve. May I add that the tremendous loss of the crises based unity post-911 will puzzle the historians who study it. Think of it, 80% approval ratings that could have been channeled for all kinds of international and domestic challenges. The opportunities lost are truly staggering from this Pearl Harbor type input having a Vietnam like output. One point Steve, I believe that it will be President John Edwards packing the courts. America has had enough of dynasties for about 100 years.
Matt is right in that as the slow erosion of Willie Lowman's (oops I mean Bush's) numbers continues the politicians will more and more think about their own futures rather than pleasing a politico with no future.
The idea of voting absentee and creating our own paper trail is one that should be discussed more.
Posted by rlprather at May 20, 2005 02:52 PMJames, the stem-cell veto is just another reminder to the middle that Bush is a warrior from the fringe.
Posted by Steve Soto at May 20, 2005 03:08 PMunfortunately, i would bet anything as they leave power after the Nov 2006 , the Repubs are going to change back the rules to reinstate the judicial filibutser.
Posted by mje at May 20, 2005 03:30 PMunfortunately, i would bet anything as they leave power after the Nov 2006 , the Repubs are going to change back the rules to reinstate the judicial filibutser.
Whatever. We'll just change it right back when our new senators are sworn in. What'll the GOP say? That it's wrong? Even our pathetic media has a memory that long.
Frankly, I'd be in favor of just changing the rule for a year, then changing it back. But it's important that they be forced, if only for a little while, to reap what they have sown.
Posted by Matt Davis at May 20, 2005 03:51 PMThis is a moment that feels more like a "I just purchased a lottery ticket" time , dreamig of what we will do when we win. I sure hope our number come up in 06.
Posted by ED Beckmann at May 20, 2005 04:06 PMEd, I can't imagine a set of circumstances that could arise from modern GOP policies that would make things better for America than they are right now.
Indeed, things are likely to be substantially worse: The ever-so-kick-ass economic "recovery" has lost whatever meager steam it had, Iraq continues to degenerate, and non-fundie right-leaning centrists are getting a little weary of all the Schiavo-style Big Government moral bullying.
So we may be counting our chickens before they hatch, but the GOP has ensured that the incubator is keeping the eggs nice and warm.
Posted by Matt Davis at May 20, 2005 04:13 PMI can tell all of you that, yes, the moderates are paying attention. And they don't like what they see. We've got a good chance in 06. It's become a strange balancing act for our elected Dems. But if they can pull it off we're on easy street. But can they do it? Pray to the God of your choice that they can.
Posted by Babba at May 20, 2005 05:12 PMOregon is entirely vote-by-mail, so they're probably best equipped to handle such a large influx of mailed ballots.
How often on election night do you see something say "Senator Foo has 58% of the votes with 80% of precincts reporting and 20,000 uncounted absentee ballots"....so for Dianne's plan to work, we're all going to need to volunteer for whatever vote counting/absentee ballot checking positions we can.
D's would have to (re)gain a lot of ground in these two elections to allow a Democrat 44th President (no names here) to pack the courts. I don't have enough faith in the politically-amnesiac American public's grasp of elections as a referendum to count those chickens until the election is over.
I know 60% of people in one poll said the US is ready for a female president but I don't believe it. My 12 years experience as a designer in automotive engineering tells me sexism is alive and well, there aren't that many females in congress or the senate or in CEO-land, and the latest female/male wage discrepancy study shows females are losing ground even as more females graduate from college than males. It's discouraging but that's what I think when Hillary's name comes up.
Posted by Sharon at May 20, 2005 07:43 PMThis time, Steve, you've gone way too far. Fuller Brush makes a quality product.
Posted by ploeg at May 20, 2005 08:19 PM...send a fax or email to the GOP Senators telling them how much you'll be looking forward to Hillary Clinton stacking the courts in 2009, with the GOP being unable to mount any filibuster against them.
Actually, you can go one better: send them a fax or email telling them how much you appreciate their setting things up for the Democrats to retake Congress, so that, according to the policies that Delay and company have applied to K Street, they will have no cushy lobbying jobs left when they leave Congress, and will have to return home to the people that they screwed over with "bankruptcy reform", "Medicare reform", and private accounts.
Posted by ploeg at May 20, 2005 08:27 PMHillary running for President bothers me. This could be a Republican wet dream. Can't you just see the ads against Hillary from the Right? Their hatred for Bill Clinton will be revived and Hillary will be crucified. Before it would be over, Hillary would be a "lesbo", who also had sex with Monica.
Posted by Judith at May 20, 2005 09:02 PMPloeg, you are correct.
Posted by Steve Soto at May 20, 2005 09:07 PMHillary running for President bothers me.
Hillary is tougher than Bill, but still republican-light.
Posted by phidipides at May 20, 2005 10:17 PMThanks Steve. It felt like somebody opened a window.
Posted by Daryl at May 21, 2005 07:28 AMHillary as the Dem nominee would be a disaster, I think. She could sway no Reps to vote for her and even within the Dem party there are many Hillary-haters. Talk about a dirty campaign - I agree with Judith, a Hillary campaign would be slung with more dirt, filth and lies than anything we've seen before. And yet, I doubt anyone would see it as offensive or even bad politics.
Posted by ann at May 21, 2005 10:02 AMHillary would be a horrible candidate. Someone else, please.
Posted by bushsucks at May 21, 2005 08:02 PMBack to the stem cell issue...
I read this quote from President Bush: "I made it very clear to the Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers' money to promote science which destroys life in order to save life is — I'm against that. And therefore, if the bill does that, I will veto it."
Destroys life in order to save life? I suppose that war is perfectly fine, right along with the death penalty. The logic applied here is not one I am familiar with.
Posted by Andy at May 22, 2005 03:13 AM"...and to ride herd on the media relentlessly for their GOP bias, double-standards, and laziness." Say what? Look at the New York Times and CNN and NPR and ABC and ... I rest my case.
On a another subject: PLEEEAASSEEE run Hillary in '08 and a real lightning rod for veep. Howard Dean would be just fine. You guys are right. A Hillary candidacy would be a right winger's wet dream. Bwaaahahaha.