God bless the U.S.

[Hauptman]

You are very certain...but how, exactly, can you know what would have happened?



Yes, a "full count" of what were in some cases some pretty questionable ballots...

Is this really the standard you want to erect?



Certainly. His name is Dr. D. O. Logic. ( The D. O. stands for "Dispassionate Objectivity". )

I am VERY certain, because I would not be talking to you about this otherwise.

As for how "questionable" a recount would have been, that's exactly my point!!! Anyone who says that Bush was CLEARLY the winner is nuts. There were far too many unanswered (unanswerable) issues.

And did you say dispassionate objectivity?! I never knew you were such an idealist.... I bet you still believe in Santa Claus too.

[I_luv_saber]

And did you say dispassionate objectivity?! I never knew you were such an idealist.... I bet you still believe in Santa Claus too.

*sniff* *sniff*

... What do you mean?

[migopod]

Eh, just because I'm a trouble-maker, I'm gonna lob another grenade into this firestorm: does anyone else kinda find it a little odd people still have contentious arguments over Florida 2000 and its questions of legality, but not many people mention the whole ACORN scandal from this past election? Granted Florida decided the election, whereas ACORN probably didn't change the outcome of things. The Florida recounts and staying orders where all legal (officially so anyways, in people's opinions, well, that's up to you ), but ACORN was clearly committing illegal acts, but no one talks about that anymore. Feel free to discuss.

The ACORN thing got blown way out of proportion. While some local offices were alleged to have perpetrated voter registration fraud, most of the cases were actually lazy employees abusing their employer. In particular, persons employed by ACORN to register voters door to door were paid by the hour plus bonuses for numbers of registered voters. Unsupervised, the employee hangs around somewhere nice and air-conditioned and fills out voter registration cards and submits them to their employer.

ACORN is at this point legally required to submit all the registration forms, even the ones that they know are bogus. They marked for special attention the ones that were obviously or even likely falsified, fired the employees who "collected" the falsified registration cards and cooperated fully with state and federal investigators.

Additionally voter registration fraud while still criminal, is a lesser issue than actual vote fraud with respect to its impact on the outcome of an election. If I were to go out and "register" a thousand or so Democrats for an upcoming election, it would likely do more to hurt the Democratic candidate than help him/her. They would probably assume, based on registrations, an additional thousand or so votes that wouldn't actually materialize, because they were not actual voters. This would probably change how the candidate campaigned in some areas and make the efforts of their campaign less effective than it might have been.

So most people aren't still talking about ACORN because:
A) ACORN as an organization wasn't doing anything wrong.

B) The fraudulent voter registration forms were mostly identified and correctly processed

C) Since registering Donald Duck doesn't mean that Donald Duck will actually cast a vote, the effect on the outcome of the election was nil.

D) Right wing punditry as a whole are currently busy with other affronts to their patriotism to really care about something that wasn't really even a story when it happened.

[Sins of the Fleche]

I agree with you completely that ACORN nor its wayward employees did nothing to influence this election--Obama clearly had the votes regardless.

What I am saying is that illegal actions were clearly done in the whole ACORN affair, but alot of people just dismiss it as "an inevitable, but lesser evil of the system" whereas people still have knock-down, drag-out arguments over Florida 2000, where nothing illegal has been proven to have occurred. Maybe I'm just over-reading intentions over consequences, but it just seems to me that those are similar and equivalent topics for discussion, but not many equate the two.

[Bayou Bum]

Just a quick note to thank the SC for overturning Obama's racist SC nominee ruling whites cannot be discriminated against. Sometimes the law does prevail.

[Bayou Bum]

The ACORN thing got blown way out of proportion. While some local offices were alleged to have perpetrated voter registration fraud, most of the cases were actually lazy employees abusing their employer. In particular, persons employed by ACORN to register voters door to door were paid by the hour plus bonuses for numbers of registered voters. Unsupervised, the employee hangs around somewhere nice and air-conditioned and fills out voter registration cards and submits them to their employer.

ACORN is at this point legally required to submit all the registration forms, even the ones that they know are bogus. They marked for special attention the ones that were obviously or even likely falsified, fired the employees who "collected" the falsified registration cards and cooperated fully with state and federal investigators.

Additionally voter registration fraud while still criminal, is a lesser issue than actual vote fraud with respect to its impact on the outcome of an election. If I were to go out and "register" a thousand or so Democrats for an upcoming election, it would likely do more to hurt the Democratic candidate than help him/her. They would probably assume, based on registrations, an additional thousand or so votes that wouldn't actually materialize, because they were not actual voters. This would probably change how the candidate campaigned in some areas and make the efforts of their campaign less effective than it might have been.

So most people aren't still talking about ACORN because:
A) ACORN as an organization wasn't doing anything wrong.

B) The fraudulent voter registration forms were mostly identified and correctly processed

C) Since registering Donald Duck doesn't mean that Donald Duck will actually cast a vote, the effect on the outcome of the election was nil.

D) Right wing punditry as a whole are currently busy with other affronts to their patriotism to really care about something that wasn't really even a story when it happened.

No, people aren't talking about ACORN because the Democrats won and squashed any investigation of voter fraud. Why stop what got you elected in the first place. Check out the article in the Washington Times. The spiral downward picks up speed!

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...home_headlines

[migopod]

No, people aren't talking about ACORN because the Democrats won and squashed any investigation of voter fraud. Why stop what got you elected in the first place. Check out the article in the Washington Times. The spiral downward picks up speed!

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...home_headlines

That's unfortunate if it's accurate. I would definitely prefer to see any investigations that were under way completed if there was sufficient cause to pursue them.

ACORN does a lot of good in poor neighbourhoods, and if there's corruption going on it only undermines the positive impact they can have.

I'd also like to see Republican Sec.s of State investigated for alleged voter caging and illegal purging of voter rolls prior to the 2004/2008 elections in several states. Of course it's doubtful that's going to happen either, since appearing bipartisan is more important than "looking backwards" on a host of past trespasses.

[Sins of the Fleche]

Eh, let's face it. Both parties are crooked and dishonest as hell. I'm not saying everyone in both parties is like that, but both have their fair share. It's just something that comes with the territory of having a powerful political party that's very interested in keeping its adherents in power.

[Hauptman]

Eh, let's face it. Both parties are crooked and dishonest as hell. I'm not saying everyone in both parties is like that, but both have their fair share. It's just something that comes with the territory of having a powerful political party that's very interested in keeping its adherents in power.

While I agree with the sentiment, there is a difference between the party being corrupt versus individuals within a party being corrupt.

Certainly there are corrupt individuals of every stripe, but the times when the leadership of a party encourages corruption are more rare. Unfortunately, it does happen though.

This reminds me of a recent post by Jeff pointing out that wackos on both sides of the spectrum have hurled the "fascist" label, but the difference is that I keep hearing "fascist" from the upper levels of the Republican leadership and media, but only hear it from more outlying voices on the Democratic side. To me this is a significant difference.

Am I biased? Yes, I believe that the underlying philosophy, and it's execution, of the "Imperial Presidency" by the Bush/Cheney administration stinks of fascism. I have yet to see any similar actions or philosophy by the Obama administration that comes close.

[I_luv_saber]

This reminds me of a recent post by Jeff pointing out that wackos on both sides of the spectrum have hurled the "fascist" label, but the difference is that I keep hearing "fascist" from the upper levels of the Republican leadership and media, but only hear it from more outlying voices on the Democratic side. To me this is a significant difference.

To play Inq here: evidence, please? I've yet to hear any "upper level Republicans" spread slander that is any worse than what their Democrat colleagues have.

Am I biased? Yes, I believe that the underlying philosophy, and it's execution, of the "Imperial Presidency" by the Bush/Cheney administration stinks of fascism. I have yet to see any similar actions or philosophy by the Obama administration that comes close.

1) Obama has not been in office long. That's a really unfair comparison.

2) I believe the bailout Obama pushed so hard for, to the point of encouraging politicians to throw in their support without thoroughly reading it, will have lasting reprecussions years down the road. Also, if Obama does some of the things he wants to do, I think by the end of his presidency it would be safe to say both the Bush and Obama administrations put more power into the hands of the Presidency than was ever intended.

We've truly yet to see, though.

[Hauptman]

1) Obama has not been in office long. That's a really unfair comparison.

That's exactly my point. Cheney had a long established, clearly defined philosophy of the Imperial Presidency and his administration acted on it. Using the term fascism to describe that may have been extreme, but had some substance.

On the other hand, there have been people calling Obama fascist from day one. There is no underlying philosophy or policy enacted by this administration to justify a fascist label. And so, yes, it is an unfair comparison.

It'll take some time to find the quotes I remember, but it is clear that the Conservative media has been labeling Obama continuously from the start with often outrageous claims. I don't remember the mainstream, supposedly all-Liberal, media doing the same to Bush.

There is a difference between legitimate critique and the overt labeling of the opposition. The RNC even wanted to re-name the Democratic party as the something like the Socialist Democratic party? The absurdity was beyond belief. That is the RNC!! How much more representative of the Republican party can you get? You can't make this stuff up. :P

[Phaeton]

Politics much like the internet suffers from Godwin's law. Bush 43 was not fascist and neither is Obama. Neither really should be compared to Hitler. To do so is politically and intellectualy dishonest and distracts everyone from the issues that are at hand and need to be payed atention to. The definition of fascism is too vague. The connotation too horrible.

Fighting for a strong executive does not a fascist make. Neither do bailouts. The current presidential situation is the culmination of the accumulation of political power for the president (a trend that has existed clearly since Jefferson) and the increased role of government in federally managing the economy (a trend that has existed ever since the Bank of the United States was reestablished. A trend that was definitely reinforced by the secession of the south in the Civil War.)

Can we please start using correct words rather than encouraging people to be lazy?

[erik_blank]

Can we please start using correct words rather than encouraging people to be lazy?

Spoil Sport! How can I uphold my 'Mericanism machismo by actually putting EFFORT into something? How DARE you suggest that I actually put THOUGHT into my beliefs?

[I_luv_saber]

That's exactly my point. Cheney had a long established, clearly defined philosophy of the Imperial Presidency and his administration acted on it. Using the term fascism to describe that may have been extreme, but had some substance.

No, it didn't, and it still doesn't. They did a lot of things that were wrong, but calling it fascism is STILL wrong... just because the one saying it has the tag "Democrat" doesn't make it right.

Neither Obama nor Bush are fascists. Period. No but.

It'll take some time to find the quotes I remember, but it is clear that the Conservative media has been labeling Obama continuously from the start with often outrageous claims. I don't remember the mainstream, supposedly all-Liberal, media doing the same to Bush.

Really? I do.

Granted, I think it's happening more to Obama... but I think it's in part to do with the difference of this election. There seemed to be a lot more vested in this one. Certainly doesn't make it right, but I think that's why this time 'round seems to be a little more venomous than the norm.

There is a difference between legitimate critique and the overt labeling of the opposition. The RNC even wanted to re-name the Democratic party as the something like the Socialist Democratic party? The absurdity was beyond belief. That is the RNC!! How much more representative of the Republican party can you get? You can't make this stuff up. :P

I've posted in another thread Gore's referring to people in the Bush administration as "Digital Brownshirts" as well as other Nazi comparisons...

Both parties take place in the absurdity. Republicans are silly for calling Democrats "Socialists" and Democrats are silly for calling Republicans "Nazis". That's politics. Anyone who can't see that is extremely biased to the point of turning a blind eye.

[Gav]

1) Obama has not been in office long. That's a really unfair comparison.

Yes, and that's one of the [many] reasons I think that the Obama bashing I see here and in your media outlets is so outrageous.

2) I believe the bailout Obama pushed so hard for, to the point of encouraging politicians to throw in their support without thoroughly reading it, will have lasting reprecussions years down the road. Also, if Obama does some of the things he wants to do, I think by the end of his presidency it would be safe to say both the Bush and Obama administrations put more power into the hands of the Presidency than was ever intended.

To give you the perspective from this side of the pond. In comes Brown after Blair. He expects it to be pretty much time spent setting up for his real stint as Prime Minister and then... his world falls apart. The UK establishment is rocked by a series of scandals (some of which taint ALL political parties) and the economy goes down the drain.
In a sense he has reaped the whirlwind sown by Blair. What we see here is what you might see somewhere down the line with Obama. I think in our case Brown thinks he's doing the best job he can. I think Obama will do the same. The real proof will be in whatever set of outcomes we see from your Presidents term. And really it's down to history to judge.

After our current incumbent is kicked out in the next election (a certainty it seems) we will probably see a Conservative governemtn elected as a kneekerk reaction. And we still have no idea how such a government will act...

I think, if Obama's presidency goes the same way [as Brown's] then we could well be having a very similar discussion sometime in the future.

[I_luv_saber]

Yes, and that's one of the [many] reasons I think that the Obama bashing I see here and in your media outlets is so outrageous.

I agree. I don't see it in the media a whole lot yet, aside from a small growth... but I agree bashing Obama so thoroughly this early in is silly. Note in my case there are a few things I disagree with, and some I hope he does not push through... but there are also some cases that I hope he does succeed. For example, I think the one shining achievement from his presidency could be to get Americans to care about their country and government again. That alone, I think, would make up for a lot of other stuff I may disagree with. I think he honestly wants to do this, and I think he has the charisma to do it.

To give you the perspective from this side of the pond. In comes Brown after Blair. He expects it to be pretty much time spent setting up for his real stint as Prime Minister and then... his world falls apart. The UK establishment is rocked by a series of scandals (some of which taint ALL political parties) and the economy goes down the drain.
In a sense he has reaped the whirlwind sown by Blair. What we see here is what you might see somewhere down the line with Obama. I think in our case Brown thinks he's doing the best job he can. I think Obama will do the same. The real proof will be in whatever set of outcomes we see from your Presidents term. And really it's down to history to judge.

I think that's a reasonable assessment. I still don't think the way he went about the bailout was right, but I think that's a separate issue. I also think both he and Bush want more power to the Presidency than there should be. Your observation standing alone is fair enough though, IMO.

After our current incumbent is kicked out in the next election (a certainty it seems) we will probably see a Conservative governemtn elected as a kneekerk reaction. And we still have no idea how such a government will act...

That's generally how it happens. Honestly, I think almost ANY Democrat would've won the last election due to the pendulum effect.

[Hauptman]

I've posted in another thread Gore's referring to people in the Bush administration as "Digital Brownshirts" as well as other Nazi comparisons...

Both parties take place in the absurdity. Republicans are silly for calling Democrats "Socialists" and Democrats are silly for calling Republicans "Nazis". That's politics. Anyone who can't see that is extremely biased to the point of turning a blind eye.

You don't see a difference between a single quote by an EX-politician, and a policy platform position by the RNC?

There will always be idiots of all stripes, but institutional idiocy is another issue.

Can we also make a distiction on usage? For instance, while the term Femi-nazi was found to be offensive, it was recognized as hyperbole and no one thought the feminists were really being called nazis.

However there seem to be quite a few people, like our own Bayou Bum, who seem to really believe we're on the road to fascism when they call Obama a fascist (substitute socialism if you like). See what I mean?

[treehugginfencer]

Sigh, what's wrong with this country? I am ashamed to be an american. It's all because of evil corporations brainwashing people like you with fake news like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy12hvujUzc They probably made all of that up!

[I_luv_saber]

You don't see a difference between a single quote by an EX-politician, and a policy platform position by the RNC?

Don't write it off so easily. Gore is a former VP and still a very influential figure in the Democratic Party.

Again, I'm not suggesting the RNC is not full of BS, just that the Democratic Party is as well.

I'll not go tit-for-tat pulling a Democrat quote for every Republican quote you post and tally the score. We'll be here until we die doing that. If you choose to turn a blind eye to it, then you may, but I think it's pretty obvious that Dems jump in the wring and mudwrestle with the best of them.

[fencerchica]

Don't write it off so easily. Gore is a former VP and still a very influential figure in the Democratic Party.

Again, I'm not suggesting the RNC is not full of BS, just that the Democratic Party is as well.

I'll not go tit-for-tat pulling a Democrat quote for every Republican quote you post and tally the score. We'll be here until we die doing that. If you choose to turn a blind eye to it, then you may, but I think it's pretty obvious that Dems jump in the wring and mudwrestle with the best of them.

I think part of the reason why you think the way you do may be that you're simply counting one instance of a Dem behaving badly to one instance of a Republican behaving badly, unweighted. You're not taking into account the eliminationism and anti-intellectualism that are currently and increasingly endemic to Republican rhetoric. For example, just last week, Joe "the Plumber" delivered an address to a teabagging party wherein he called for the lynching of Senator Dodd. Do you hold this as equivalent to Gore's comment? And despite having previously held public office, Gore has dropped largely out of the political limelight these days and is much less visible as a party spokesperson than are characters like Wurzelbacher.

More than anything else it was this distressing movement towards eliminationist rhetoric that motivated Colin Powell to cross party lines and endorse Obama, because he felt that McCain was tacitly accepting a dangerous transformation in the Republican party.