From an email I recieved

Friends,

Look what the world thinks of GWB's mad power grab for the White House in what the WORLD sees as his usurpation of powers that do NOT belong to him!

And no wonder when the reporter asked Karen Hughes if ANY World Leaders had called to congratulate Dumbyass that she referred the question elsewhere -

THERE ARE NO CONGRATULATIONS AND THERE NEVER WILL BE genuinely forthcoming!!!!!!!!!!!!

The way Baker is doing things GWB will NEVER be recognized or respected by anyone on the planet, no one will EVER ACCEPT him as the President.

Even if he prevails he will be the target of ridicule and scorn. Who on earth will be frightened of his whiny, chickenhawk, deserting, stupid ass? He is the LAUGHINGSTOCK of the entire world and he's too damn dumb-ass to know it!!!!!!!!!!

That's why I call him Dumbyass! The way Baker has conducted himself with this scorched earth policy has all but caused an economic crisis and some brave financial analysts are now beginning to point an accusing finger at the GWB camp for the wildly swinging stock market. Baker, a fitting name for his scorched earth policies, is causing massive destabilization of our economic boom times. This is just a tiny sample of the way things would be under GWB as President.

Those of us in Texas must denounce him the loudest as he is bringing shame upon our great state with his Texas Mafia Lawyers willing to do anything to win including trash the country, the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the process.

GWB is merely a caricature of everything Texan and I for one, being a real fifth generation native on both sides of my family, feel sick of watching it every day.

He can't handle anything and all his previous business failures are coming home to roost as the financial world gives him a vote of no-confidence as exhibited by the stock market swings. When the big money shirts get tired of his playing havoc with their profit margins, they will kindly escort him to the door because I believe even they will ultimately see the so-called special tax breaks aren't worth the risk of losing everything in the process while he attempts to seize the grand prize.

Example: look what the Europeans are saying about GWB and the disparaging ways they regard him already. And this idiot thinks he can garner enough respect to lead the world????

NOT!!!!!!!!!!!

Gore is right to fight In the US, a constitutional crisis looms

Special report: the US elections

Leader

Tuesday November 28, 2000

The Guardian

Al Gore is right to reject the Republican fix in Florida. The decision by the state's top election official and keen Dubya fan, Katherine Harris, to cancel Palm Beach county's revised returns, ignore numerous other irregularities, and declare the election for George W Bush is only the latest in a series of malign machinations. The Texas governor's hard-faced cheerleaders have challenged the Democrats' attempts to secure an accurate tally every step of the way. The Bush camp precipitated this crisis by being the first to go to law, then escalated by moving the dispute into federal court. But when court rulings on hand recounts went against them, they resorted to appeals, delay, abuse and pressure on local officials.

Intimidation may have been a factor in the sudden decision of Miami-Dade supervisors to abandon the county's crucial hand recount. The Republicans disenfranchised thousands of people there by insisting on excluding ballot papers where, thanks to outdated equipment, the voter's intention was unclear in a machine count. They have cynically profited elsewhere from "butterfly" ballots and "dimpled chads" that led yet more thousands of Gore supporters to misdirect or spoil their votes. More sinister abuses, such as "lost" ballot boxes and discriminatory practices in ethnic minority areas, have in effect been allowed to stand by Ms Harris's decision. Even as they attempt to celebrate this sullied, unsafe "victory", the Bushmen remain intent on drawing in the nation's highest judicial authority, the US Supreme Court, to buttress their bogus, anti-democratic tactics. Mr Gore is right to fight on because, simply put, he almost certainly won Florida on November 7 and a fair and accurate return would confirm that view.

All the same, Americans, until now for the most part wallowing serenely in a sea of complacency, must finally be awakening to the prospect of a full-blown constitutional crisis. How else to describe a situation in which the election is over, in theory, but the outcome, in practice, is fundamentally disputed?

For consider: the popular vote went to one candidate, the electoral college (possibly) to another. Congress, like the country, is almost exactly split, politically, ideologically, and geographically. The executive branch is impotent, the transition is paralysed, and an inauguration boycott is threatened. Absurdly, Mr Gore or Mr Bush's running mate, Dick Cheney (if he is well enough), could cast a deciding vote in the Senate if the electoral college returns are disputed and, perhaps, deliberately manipulated for partisan reasons. In Florida, the courts and legislature are at each other's throats as Republican election officials and politicians accuse Democratic judges of bias. In Washington, a Supreme Court staffed by political appointees whose conservative-dominated outlook was itself a contentious campaign issue is now asked to decide whether the Florida vote was fair. Each day, the antagonists' language grows more divisive and rebarbative. And still there is no finishing line.

So much for the separation of powers, for all those famous checks and balances. Even if Mr Bush wanted to do the decent thing, if a final, reliable Florida tally went against him, the Reagan era retreads around him, and business and defence interests beyond, simply would not let him. After eight years, the GOP wants the White House too badly to let go. Outraged by the Republican fixers, Mr Gore is now far more determined to fight than he was on election night. Despite the uncharted, scary ramifications, he can do no other. If this does not all add up to a constitutional crisis, what on earth does?

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian

Newspapers Limited 2000

-- Anonymous, December 02, 2000

Answers

The URL to the original article, if anyone's interested:

Gore is right to fight

-- Anonymous, December 02, 2000

We were in London from November 4-11th. If anyone on this board thinks that the British are happy with the prospect of Shrubya as President, you're dreaming. They are VERY unhappy, and voiced that displeasure in the media every day we were there. (I saw an article shortly after we returned home about how the British were "laughing at the USA" over the elections; that wasn't our experience at all. We were, frankly, amazed at the depth of knowledge of those we met of our government, and how willing they were to discuss their ideas about the USA elections.)

The British are very concerned that the strong relationship between the USA and their country will be compromised with George W. Bush in the White House. Considering the fact that George W. Bush evidently did something to insult and outrage Queen Elizabeth II during a state dinner while his father was still President, he's already off on the wrong foot.

-- Anonymous, December 02, 2000

Any idea what the insult(s) were?

having been priviledged to have been in the presence of "The Queen" my self, if only for a few fleeting minutes, And having been instructed in the decorim involved, I can immagine this man, who made who see's nothiong wrong with making jokes about the woman he refused to parden, mimicking her begging for her life (which she did not do) joking about her begging and pleading for his help, I can just immagine what he did to insult the Queen of England. He has already pissed of the russians, how long do we expect to wait for an all out world war caused by his ignorant, immature words and behavior?

Did the repubs really think he would make it this far or was this just a sham to give them time to find someone, anyone the country would even consider putting in the white house.

I have also worked with, trained and been in the company of many dignitaries and royal family member from around the world. I even found a prince a spot with my babysitter when his father came for flight training.

The only time I did something "wrong" was when we were training Iranians, whom I had a special dislike for, and went in and ordered them around a bit. *grin*

It was not very long before I was restricted from being in their presence. They have definate negitive attitude about women and their roles in the world.

-- Anonymous, December 02, 2000

Cherri, you make excellent points. No matter who we get in the WHouse we are doomed. Bush is clueless and tactless, he would be an embarassment to this country. Gore on the other hand has problems perceiving the truth, which along with his penchant for a nervous laugh, would make it very difficult for foreign leaders to work or trust him. One is an imbecile the other is a nut. We are stuck in the middle.

-- Anonymous, December 02, 2000

Cherri is a closet Red who loves the idea of a Chinee government here in the US!

I always wondered if you were as stupid as you sounded, now I KNOW!!!

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2000

the unchangeable spiritual LAW of GOD! _>WE REAP WHAT WE SOW,

has america stuck there finger in GODS EYE 1 too many times??

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2000

I have to spend the week in "Bush Country". I bought a few bags of glass beads and some shiney metal pieces. They like this stuff to spiff-up their womenfolks.

Hell, who knows? With this stuff I might be able to buy a few acres.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2000

Looks like the dredgings of another gore -septic-tank cleaner. Lucky for me I have a bad nose. Cherri, why don't you find something creative like e-coli or sunspots?

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2000

John, it may amaze you to discover that those very words can be applied to GWB. It seems that more than half the people who voted nationwide didn't cast their vote for GWB.

[Of course, no one knows what really happened in Florida.....well, many of us have a pretty good idea, but it seems the Republican Spin Machine is considerably better-oiled than that of the Democrats ;-)]

Z, I think it's the shine that mesmerizes them. It's quite amusing to watch -- the eyes glaze over, the stare kind of follows the path of the shiny object....

The sad part is that while typing that, I just had a vision of Junior sitting there, eyes glazed over, staring at the shiny object, his bordering-on-psychotic gaze following its every movement.....

{{{{{shudder}}}}}

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2000

Patricia:

I think you missed John's point here. We had a statistical tie between two candidates neither of whom is considered particularly attractive or exciting by almost anybody. Their platforms are similar, their abilities to implement these platforms equally inhibited by a balanced Congress.

Yet Cherri needs only to see the word "Bush" and she collapses in a paroxysm of blind personal hatred embarrassing to witness. It really doesn't relate to anything particular Bush actually said or did, but rather to all the evil stupidity Cherri can muster up to ascribe to him, straight from the depths of her imagination. She's as predictable as KoFE is when you mention taxes.

I think John is as embarrassed as I am (and you *ought* to be), and is requesting that she change the mindless recording she plays every time you press the button. Of course, if the "substance" (pardon the expression) of your opposition is that you have "visions" of Bush being "psychotic", it's no surprise you can't see any of this.

Your view of the Republican spin machine being better oiled is a hoot. What you are *really* witnessing is the inherent weakness of the Democratic position the media are parroting. If you'd like a comparison, go read Fineman's description of what the media would be saying if the situation were reversed. And Fineman is NOT a conservative.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2000

"Looks like the dredgings of another gore -septic-tank cleaner."

I don't know HOW on earth I could EVER have misunderstood that line. For shame :-)

The entire point of my post was that over half the people who voted, DIDN'T vote for GWB. That's it, Flint; that's all I was talking about.

I don't need to read Fineman or anyone else. My comment stands; what YOU are "seeing" is that well-oiled machine. If you can't see beyond the "promise of a tax cut", then I have to doubt that I'm the one who needs to expand my reading universe. Might I suggest Mother Jones? They went strictly for Nader ;-) Can't get any more balanced coverage on the two "major" candidates than that.

I really try not to comment on anyone in a derogatory manner -- you haven't seen me attack "Ain't" personally, have you? No, just some of the words he's cut-n-pasted. Funny, but I don't remember you voicing any "embarrassment" over those. Oh, sorry; do you agree with the stuff he's posted?

Lastly, when I read what Z had written, I had an instant picture in my mind of Junior sitting on the floor, completely mesmerized by the shiny object in front of his face. Maybe I should have used one of those little smiley-things so you would have understood my meaning.

The picture wasn't hard to conjure; calming down the laughter that ensued is another story..... :-) (<---note "smiley-thing" here)

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2000

Patricia:

I can't find any central point to your post, so I'll try to give you feedback one idea at a time...

[The entire point of my post was that over half the people who voted, DIDN'T vote for GWB. That's it, Flint; that's all I was talking about.]

But this describes *every* candidate, since nobody got as much as 50% of the popular vote. Why single out Bush?

[I don't need to read Fineman or anyone else.]

No, nobody "needs" to read anything. But if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

[My comment stands; what YOU are "seeing" is that well-oiled machine.]

Uh, right. What we ALL are seeing is that Gore's case is so weak that the media's ability to present the usual one-sided picture is limited. Which to a liberal looks like a well-oiled Republican PR machine. Read Fineman, and come back with some perspective.

[If you can't see beyond the "promise of a tax cut", then I have to doubt that I'm the one who needs to expand my reading universe.]

Where did that come from? You ascribe a motivation I have not claimed as my SOLE motivation, then knocked me for it. How would you feel if I suggested you couldn't see beyond Gore's good looks? I'd have *equal* justification for such a fabrication, you know.

[Might I suggest Mother Jones? They went strictly for Nader ;-) Can't get any more balanced coverage on the two "major" candidates than that.]

Fer shure. As proof, we have Brian McLaughlin's objective commentary.

[I really try not to comment on anyone in a derogatory manner -- you haven't seen me attack "Ain't" personally, have you? No, just some of the words he's cut-n-pasted.]

Ain't is like a cheerleader, his partisanship matching his understanding of the game's details. Attacking "Ain't" is being a bully.

[Funny, but I don't remember you voicing any "embarrassment" over those. Oh, sorry; do you agree with the stuff he's posted?]

Not always. But nor have I defended anything he's posted. But "Ain't" is kind of like Syd except not as bright. He's positively *for* someone, not foaming with outright hatred of the opponent. I've seen a lot of dislike here, for both candidates, but only Cherri takes that to the point of glazed-eyes mental vacancy. [Lastly, when I read what Z had written, I had an instant picture in my mind of Junior sitting on the floor, completely mesmerized by the shiny object in front of his face. Maybe I should have used one of those little smiley-things so you would have understood my meaning.]

This vision may have amused you, in which case I'm glad you enjoyed it. Maybe others should join in with their visions, might make an interesting thread, certainly more enlightening than saying that Gore "will NEVER be recognized or respected by anyone on the planet, no one will EVER ACCEPT him as the President. Even if he prevails he will be the target of ridicule and scorn. Who on earth will be frightened of his whiny, chickenhawk, deserting, stupid ass? He is the LAUGHINGSTOCK of the entire world and he's too damn dumb-ass to know it!!!!!!!!!! "

Now, THERE is enlightened commentary.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2000

Flint, what part of "Letter from a Texan" and "From an email I recieved" did you not understand? I did not write it, I just copied and pasted it.

Not that I necessarily dissagree with it though....

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

I can't find any central point to your post, so I'll try to give you feedback one idea at a time...

Can you post just once without some personal slam in there?

The entire point of my post was that over half the people who voted, DIDN'T vote for GWB. That's it, Flint; that's all I was talking about.

Did you Get It that time?

But this describes *every* candidate, since nobody got as much as 50% of the popular vote. Why single out Bush?

No, it does NOT describe every candidate; because...**of all the people who voted** (<---very important qualifier alert), OVER HALF DIDN'T VOTE FOR BUSH.

No, nobody "needs" to read anything. But if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Heh -- you've been reading the shopping bags from The Body Shop. And did I detect yet another slam in there? You're on a par for a non-Y2K record here.

Uh, right. What we ALL are seeing is that Gore's case is so weak that the media's ability to present the usual one-sided picture is limited. Which to a liberal looks like a well-oiled Republican PR machine. Read Fineman, and come back with some perspective.

ROTF... when one has no defense, resort to the cry of "liberal". Funny thing there, Flint; I'm not a "liberal", but because I'm to the "left" of YOU, of course you'd view me as a "liberal".

Once again, *I'm* not the one who needs to expand my reading universe.

Where did that come from? You ascribe a motivation I have not claimed as my SOLE motivation, then knocked me for it. How would you feel if I suggested you couldn't see beyond Gore's good looks? I'd have *equal* justification for such a fabrication, you know.

If I thought the guy was good-looking, you might have a justification. Bzzzt. I don't. Perhaps I should have added, "as an example"; I didn't necessarily mean that was YOUR motivation, but it is one I've heard time and time again from so-called Bush "supporters".

Fer shure. As proof, we have Brian McLaughlin's objective commentary.

Wow; two slams for the price of one. Once again, you've avoided the point I was trying to make.....they don't like EITHER "major" candidate; therefore, the coverage is considerably more "balanced" than any of the stuff that's been posted here.

But what makes you think *your* "commentary" is "objective"? Hint: It isn't. Bonus Hint: No one's is.

Ain't is like a cheerleader, his partisanship matching his understanding of the game's details. Attacking "Ain't" is being a bully.

Do you take everything that's written literally? Attacking ANYONE personally is "being a bully". And that's three so far in one post.

Not always. But nor have I defended anything he's posted. But "Ain't" is kind of like Syd except not as bright. He's positively *for* someone, not foaming with outright hatred of the opponent. I've seen a lot of dislike here, for both candidates, but only Cherri takes that to the point of glazed-eyes mental vacancy.

Why this need to belittle someone else? I would think that is beneath you. I've seen you make damn good arguments without resorting to this tactic. You should be embarrassed, Flint; but not for the reasons you initially stated. Stick with arguments regarding the points being made; it does wonders for credibility.

BTW, you're wrong about "Ain't"; the last time I saw someone "foam" like that with hatred of an opponent was during the Daze of Y2K.

This vision may have amused you, in which case I'm glad you enjoyed it. Maybe others should join in with their visions, might make an interesting thread, certainly more enlightening than saying that Gore "will NEVER be recognized or respected by anyone on the planet, no one will EVER ACCEPT him as the President. Even if he prevails he will be the target of ridicule and scorn. Who on earth will be frightened of his whiny, chickenhawk, deserting, stupid ass? He is the LAUGHINGSTOCK of the entire world and he's too damn dumb-ass to know it!!!!!!!!!! "

Now, THERE is enlightened commentary.

What I wrote wasn't "commentary" Flint; it was a "joke". I'll label them as such in the future so there will be no doubt.

THIS is "commentary":

You see Flint, the President of the United States has to at least give the impression of "intelligence". Poor Little Junior isn't allowed to speak without the benefit of his "advisors" and a prepared speech/teleprompter. How do you suppose that's going to work when he has to meet with foreign dignitaries or when he has to give press conferences? Are they going to have a teleprompter in every room of the WH for him? A little microphone in his ear? Or will a designated Advisor-of-the-Day follow him around everywhere?

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Patricia:

[I can't find any central point to your post, so I'll try to give you feedback one idea at a time...

Can you post just once without some personal slam in there?]

??? I neither intended, nor do I see, any personal slam in there at all. I genuinely didn't see any central point. I didn't want to risk ignoring what you might consider most important, so I decided to answer each idea individually. I'll do it again here.

[No, it does NOT describe every candidate; because...**of all the people who voted** (<---very important qualifier alert), OVER HALF DIDN'T VOTE FOR BUSH.]

Again, this applies to EVERY candidate, because NO candidate got as much as 50% of the ACTUAL VOTE. This means OVER HALF DID NOT VOTE FOR EVERY CANDIDATE! Nationwide, 51% did NOT vote for Gore. That's more than half. 52% did NOT vote for BUSh. That's more than half. 97% did NOT vote for Nader. That's more than half. How can I make this clearer? NOW, why do you single out Bush? You will notice I'm talking about *all the people who voted*.

[Heh -- you've been reading the shopping bags from The Body Shop. And did I detect yet another slam in there? You're on a par for a non-Y2K record here.]

Rather than attack me for these "slams" and continue to congratulate yourself for the breadth of your other reading, you might actually ponder what Fineman said. Fineman is a newsman commenting on the presentation of the news. He is not a conservative. Or are you saying that when your doctor gives you a professional opinion, you ignore it in favor of what you prefer to believe and keep claiming you know all you need to know?

I'll agree we have very different views of how the press slants things, and that we can't easily see a slant in anything we agree with. But we can try. Refusing to read something that disagrees with your opinion doesn't count as trying.

[Once again, *I'm* not the one who needs to expand my reading universe.]

And this is your justification for NOT reading what you don't want to hear?

[If I thought the guy was good-looking, you might have a justification. Bzzzt. I don't. Perhaps I should have added, "as an example"; I didn't necessarily mean that was YOUR motivation, but it is one I've heard time and time again from so-called Bush "supporters".]

I didn't say you thought he was good looking and that's exactly my point. I'm not going to criticize you for something you never said. Nor am I going to criticize you because someone else said it, and I decided to associate it with you too because it served my purposes.

In any case, saying "so-called" (why?) Bush supporters ONLY want to reduce taxes is like saying Gore supporters ONLY want to raise taxes. Of course, you know better about Democrats -- their raising taxes is nothing more than a necessary means toward important goals. But when it comes to Republicans, you pretend they have NO such goals. You ought to know better.

[Fer shure. As proof, we have Brian McLaughlin's objective commentary.

Wow; two slams for the price of one. Once again, you've avoided the point I was trying to make.....they don't like EITHER "major" candidate; therefore, the coverage is considerably more "balanced" than any of the stuff that's been posted here.]

No, I spoke directly to the point you were trying to make. Why do you suppose Brian has nothing good to say about Bush and nothing bad to say about Gore? Coincidence? Republicans would in general like to see less government. Democrats in general want government to "solve" more of our problems, which means more government. Nader and the Greens are like "super Democrats", who think government is the answer to ALL our problems. So their view is hardly balanced.

Buchanan's reform party (those reactionary troglodytes) support Bush in all this just as strongly as the Greens support Gore. But neither Bush nor Gore is their candidate. Would you argue that the Reform Party's view is therefore "balanced"? If not, your claim for the Greens just collapsed. I tried to skip this long explanation and simply point to Brian as an example, but you refused to see it and thought I was dodging your point.

[But what makes you think *your* "commentary" is "objective"? Hint: It isn't. Bonus Hint: No one's is.]

But you just said the Greens are "balanced". You might want to reconsider, and decide that the Greens' bias just happens to match yours.

[Ain't is like a cheerleader, his partisanship matching his understanding of the game's details. Attacking "Ain't" is being a bully.

Do you take everything that's written literally? Attacking ANYONE personally is "being a bully". And that's three so far in one post.]

OK, I guess I won't take this "three so far" literally. But I can only wonder what it might mean un-literally.

[BTW, you're wrong about "Ain't"; the last time I saw someone "foam" like that with hatred of an opponent was during the Daze of Y2K.]

Well, I quoted from Cherri's post. Did you read it? Should I leave it in so you can read it again, or can you scroll up to either instance yourself? Patricia, what you are reading there is foaming hatred. "Ain't" hasn't produced hatred of Gore that I've seen. If I have missed it, can you quote me some?

[What I wrote wasn't "commentary" Flint; it was a "joke". I'll label them as such in the future so there will be no doubt.]

Maybe that would help. My comments aren't all intended to be taken seriously either.

[THIS is "commentary":

You see Flint, the President of the United States has to at least give the impression of "intelligence". Poor Little Junior isn't allowed to speak without the benefit of his "advisors" and a prepared speech/teleprompter. How do you suppose that's going to work when he has to meet with foreign dignitaries or when he has to give press conferences? Are they going to have a teleprompter in every room of the WH for him? A little microphone in his ear? Or will a designated Advisor-of-the-Day follow him around everywhere?]

And have you met him personally? Have you any direct knowledge of ANY of this? The closest I've seen has been the debates. The conservative press felt Bush won all of them, and the liberal press (even Slate) felt Bush won two out of three, and came across as FAR more aware and intelligent than the press had painted him. Indeed, there was some commentary in the press that they'd depicted Bush as so abysmally stupid that ANY glimmer of sapience was unexpected, and THAT must be how Bush won the debates!

Otherwise, your SUM TOTAL KNOWLEDGE comes from what you have read in the "balanced" media, since your wide reading explicitly does NOT include a willingness to read any opinion to the contrary. Where did the "poor little junior" come from? There have been some pretty extensive articles about how Gore is a result of HIS father's ambition, so why isn't Gore "poor little junior" as well? Could it be that the press doesn't emphasize this?

And you will notice that EVERY county in Texas voted for Gore, even minority counties in the big cities. Gee, do you suppose he wandered around Texas with a teleprompter in front of him telling him what to think? Do you have ANY evidence for this? Do you ever wonder why the media downplayed his ability to govern, as demonstrated by his success in Texas?

Patricia, your commentary is spouting the absurd, demonstrably false *image* that the press (whose bias you cannot or will not see) has spoon-fed you. No, the media have not been kind to Gore either, depicting Gore as both mean and dishonest. As I wrote elsewhere, if we were facing the prospect of being governed by these carefully crafted media impressions, we'd be in deep shit. But fortunately, both Bush and Gore are capable people with similar platforms. Your buying into the liberal media's projection of Bush as a drooling idiot says "sucker" louder than any words I can write. If you did some thinking for yourself, you could go back to your commentary and see that it consists of nothing but gratuitous pejoratives, false statements, and unsupported speculations. It's a description that could not possibly describe anyone not permanently institutionalized, much less a successful governor of a large state. Please THINK about this.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Flint:

successful governor of a large state.

Texas is a state wherein the government only meets 4 months of the year, and the position of governor is, essentially, a do-nothing position. You may want to look into the status of Texas and what Bush has done to further this success before you give him credit for success.

Personally, I'll be curious to see how Texas moves once Bush is relieved of power, if it moves at all. I can't see how the second in command or even NO ONE in command will result in differences.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

OK, after I posted I saw that we would diddle over the word "half". But I really do think you knew what I meant. If not, I apologize.

First of all, where did I say I hadn't read the Fineman piece? I never indicated one way or the other. Near as I can tell, Fineman commented on what the news **might be** if the situation were reversed. How is this all that important? Did I miss something there?

I didn't say the Greens were balanced; what I said was that the coverage of Bush and Gore in Mother Jones was MORE BALANCED than what we're seeing posted here.

I HAVE thought about all of this, Flint. I went from not caring one way or the other to "we're in deep shit when GWB takes office" **because of all the familiar faces behind him**. And knowing the way these things work, I'd be genuinely surprised if it didn't worry even YOU a bit.

I have no need for you or Fineman or anyone telling me what I should read, how to balance my views, where I should get my information, etc.

How do you know where my SUM TOTAL KNOWLEDGE comes from? Have I stated anywhere just where I got my SUM TOTAL KNOWLEDGE?

Perhaps you should ask me where I get my information before giving me a lecture, Flint. You see, my philosophy is to read as much of "both sides" as I can because I figure that somewhere in the middle, lies the truth. I wonder if you can say the same thing.

What, no homework?

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Anita:

Were you downplaying the Texas governor's role when Ann Richards was in? Was she also a do-nothing in a figurehead position? Molly Ivins doesn't seem to think so. Bush must have done *something* right to be popular in every county in the state.

Patricia:

OK, where do your opinions come from if NOT from the media? If you know GWB personally, can you get his autograph for me?

I really think we are seeing what actually comes of negative campaigning here. We have three wimmin who come across as HATING Bush, and some nutballs like Uncle Bob and Ain't who come across as hating Gore. So I guess it's no wonder negative ads have more bang for the buck than any other kind - people find it *easier* to hate, and it's easier to believe mud than to find accomplishments (which Anita is quick to belittle even when you do).

Patricia, do you really mean to suggest Gore is going to make all of his decisions without asking anyone's advice? Who do you think he will ask. His own partisan advisors, perhaps? Don't you see evil puppet masters there as well? Hell, it's a mirror image.

I believe these are BOTH decent, capable people, and our country will be in good hands under either one. Better under Bush, I think, but not significantly. These "Saints versus Demons" battles are a crock, and The Guardian speaks for "the British" about as much as the American Spectator speaks for "the Americans". Give me a break.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Flint:

We just moved here when Ann Richards was the governor. We didn't have the opportunity to watch and learn as we did with W. I DO wish you'd get your facts straight, however, on the 254 counties ALL going for Bush. You must click on county by county in this link, and then click again on Presidential/Vice Presidential election, but PLEASE stop saying that W. won every county in Texas. He did NOT.

2000 Election in Texas

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Anita:

I stand corrected. Bush was overwhelmingly popular in Texas, but failed to win every county, winning only 92% of the counties. Still very impressive, especially compared to Gore's results in Tennessee.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

By the way, the beads and metal pieces comment was a joke. I must admit that I don’t totally understand all of the animosity raised by this election. You know that Northwestern Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma has some mighty pretty country. Beautiful weather the last few days. Also has some nice people. I have been talking to them. We don’t agree on all things political, but we enjoy each other's company. Travelling around the country, I get the feeling that many people spend too much time in little enclaves. They feel that they can know the country by flying from New York to Chicago to Denver to LA. I haven’t found that to be true. You have to leave your computer and go see the people in the country. Most people would be surprised by a little piece of paradise in NE Alabama. No names, don’t want too many tourists.

I am off to East Texas. Neat place and neat people.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Still very impressive, especially compared to Gore's results in Tennessee.

I must have missed something. Was Gore governor of Tennessee?

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Z:

No surprise to me. I *live* in NE Alabama.

Anita:

Not to my knowledge. But before he was VP, he represented Tennessee. Do you suppose the people there have forgotten him? It does seem fairly unusual for a Presidential candidate to fail to carry his home state. IF Gore had been governor of Tennessee and carried 92% of the counties, while VP Bush had lost Texas, I'd probably have voted Gore. Home results mean something to me, much as you try to pretend nobody actually governs Texas at all. But I lived in Austin for 26 years, and had a very different impression.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

I believe these are BOTH decent, capable people, and our country will be in good hands under either one.

And therein lies the difference, Flint. I DON'T believe GWB is "capable" (he probably is "decent" in many ways; though his apparent record on executions would tend to belie at least some of that) and I DON'T think our country will be in "good hands" under him. Because I DON'T believe it will BE "under him".

I don't "hate" the guy and I never said that he was some kind of "demon" (his "advisors" are another story entirely). I simply think he's incompetent (he certainly gives that impression when he speaks) and I honestly think he gives Gore a (serious) run for the money in the "arrogance" department (and I think many, if not most people who exhibit such "arrogance" -- and this includes Gore -- are compensating for some other failing in their lives; in many instances it's incompetency that's being "hidden"). I DEFINITELY don't trust the people around him -- the people who I believe will REALLY be "running things".

FWIW, I believe GWB is naive; I think he trusts too many of the *wrong* people; and this probably stems from so many years of having Daddy and Daddy's friends "take care of" things for him. I further agree with the "bile" and "speculation" of the article in The Guardian that indicated it wasn't GWB's idea to run for President in the first place. I had had that "feeling" all along; and I'll take it a step further and state that he initially didn't WANT to run for President.

You see, Flint, that's what it all comes down to -- A Difference of Opinion between us. As I said on another thread (or was it this one?) -- the Truth probably lies somewhere in the Middle. No great, earth-shattering newsflash there; kind of the way it is and the way it probably always will be.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

I don't trust the people who really would be running things under a Gore administration. Dashell, Gephardt, The Florida Supreme Court, Jesse Jackson, Joe Lieberman, and perhaps Al Sharpton.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000