New Yorker's Sy Hersh: Bush Admin Helped Plan Israeli Offensive...

[[email protected]]

See the comments on pages 1 and 2 of the following blog entry:

New Yorker's Sy Hersh: Bush Admin Helped Plan Israeli Offensive...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/08/13/new-yorkers-sy-he_n_27172.html


Here is the tiny url for the above one:

http://tinyurl.com/fzjvg


Seymour Hersh on CNN's 'Wolf Blitzer' right now talking about following
article which mentioned that US (neocons, Pentagon) helped Israel with
attack on Lebanon in order to get attack on Iran going (this would be
right in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' and Bamford 'Rolling
Stone' article posted below in this comments section):

WATCHING LEBANON
Washington's interests in Israel's war.
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact

Why hasn't Huffingtonpost.com made a blog entry for the latest Bamford
article in 'Rolling Stone' about how AIPAC has been pushing (via spying
and similar) for US to attack Iran like it did for Iraq:

Iran: The Next War:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=56761

James Bamford discussed 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda for Iraq,
Syria and Iran on MSNBC's 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann':

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=57581...

"A Clean Break":

What is "A Clean Break?" Author James Bamford explains on MSNBC's Keith
Olbermann's Countdown show:


http://www.corvuswire.com/cleanbreak.htm

Why Do They Want To Kill Us?:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=57806


Irmep - AIPAC Espionage Case Dismissal Gambit Fails:


http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=57878

[Dan[_2_]]

Walt wrote:
> wrote:
>> See the comments on pages 1 and 2 of the following blog entry:
>>
>> New Yorker's Sy Hersh: Bush Admin Helped Plan Israeli Offensive...
>>
>
>
>
> Thanks for sharing. Most of the guys that post on RAM don't want to
> hear that the leaders they put so much trust are criminal incompetents
> -- that's the best inperpretation.
>
> I personally thing Bush and Cheney are actively working to undo
> everything good about this country.
>
> Walt
>

Then there are people like walt who have yet to make positive
suggestions. The closest they get is to tell us we need to get rid of
the Republicans. Despite numerous requests to do so walt has yet to
produce a single idea.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Lawson English]

Dan wrote:
> Walt wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> See the comments on pages 1 and 2 of the following blog entry:
>>>
>>> New Yorker's Sy Hersh: Bush Admin Helped Plan Israeli Offensive...
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for sharing. Most of the guys that post on RAM don't want to
>> hear that the leaders they put so much trust are criminal incompetents
>> -- that's the best inperpretation.
>>
>> I personally thing Bush and Cheney are actively working to undo
>> everything good about this country.
>>
>> Walt
>>
>
> Then there are people like walt who have yet to make positive
> suggestions. The closest they get is to tell us we need to get rid of
> the Republicans. Despite numerous requests to do so walt has yet to
> produce a single idea.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I know a lot of Republicans who think we need to get rid of the
Republicans [in power right now]. Many old-school Republicans don't
think of neocons as Republicans.

[Fred J. McCall]

Lawson English > wrote:

:I know a lot of Republicans who think we need to get rid of the
:Republicans [in power right now]. Many old-school Republicans don't
:think of neocons as Republicans.

Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[La N]

"Lawson English" > wrote in message
...
> Dan wrote:
>> Walt wrote:[i]
>>> wrote:
>>>> See the comments on pages 1 and 2 of the following blog entry:
>>>>
>>>> New Yorker's Sy Hersh: Bush Admin Helped Plan Israeli Offensive...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing. Most of the guys that post on RAM don't want to
>>> hear that the leaders they put so much trust are criminal incompetents
>>> -- that's the best inperpretation.
>>>
>>> I personally thing Bush and Cheney are actively working to undo
>>> everything good about this country.
>>>
>>> Walt
>>>
>>
>> Then there are people like walt who have yet to make positive
>> suggestions. The closest they get is to tell us we need to get rid of the
>> Republicans. Despite numerous requests to do so walt has yet to produce a
>> single idea.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> I know a lot of Republicans who think we need to get rid of the
> Republicans . Many old-school Republicans don't think
> of neocons as Republicans.

I guess we'll see what happens in November. See what cream rises to the
surface, so to speak. It's interesting to note how the Dems and the Repubs
are each spinning the recent UK terrorism story for their own political
benefit.

- nilita

[tomcervo]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Lawson English > wrote:
>
> :I know a lot of Republicans who think we need to get rid of the
> :Republicans [in power right now]. Many old-school Republicans don't
> :think of neocons as Republicans.
>
> Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
> Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.

They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
to the US to decide that.
It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
the top.

[Lawson English]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Lawson English > wrote:
>
> :I know a lot of Republicans who think we need to get rid of the
> :Republicans [in power right now]. Many old-school Republicans don't
> :think of neocons as Republicans.
>
> Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
> Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.
>

So Howard Berkowitz is really a Democrat?

[John P. Mullen]

Lawson English wrote:

> Dan wrote:
>
>> Walt wrote:
>>[i]
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> See the comments on pages 1 and 2 of the following blog entry:
>>>>
>>>> New Yorker's Sy Hersh: Bush Admin Helped Plan Israeli Offensive...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing. Most of the guys that post on RAM don't want to
>>> hear that the leaders they put so much trust are criminal incompetents
>>> -- that's the best inperpretation.
>>>
>>> I personally thing Bush and Cheney are actively working to undo
>>> everything good about this country.
>>>
>>> Walt
>>>
>>
>> Then there are people like walt who have yet to make positive
>> suggestions. The closest they get is to tell us we need to get rid of
>> the Republicans. Despite numerous requests to do so walt has yet to
>> produce a single idea.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> I know a lot of Republicans who think we need to get rid of the
> Republicans . Many old-school Republicans don't
> think of neocons as Republicans.


Nah! The "Neocons" are RHINOs (Republicans in Name Only). They make a
mockery of Republican ideals and deserve to be run out of town on a rail.

I say "Neocons" because some Neocons are saying the birds in power are
not even Neocons.

John Mullen

[John P. Mullen]

La N wrote:

> "Lawson English" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dan wrote:
>>[i]
>>>Walt wrote:
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>See the comments on pages 1 and 2 of the following blog entry:
>>>>>
>>>>>New Yorker's Sy Hersh: Bush Admin Helped Plan Israeli Offensive...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for sharing. Most of the guys that post on RAM don't want to
>>>>hear that the leaders they put so much trust are criminal incompetents
>>>>-- that's the best inperpretation.
>>>>
>>>>I personally thing Bush and Cheney are actively working to undo
>>>>everything good about this country.
>>>>
>>>>Walt
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then there are people like walt who have yet to make positive
>>>suggestions. The closest they get is to tell us we need to get rid of the
>>>Republicans. Despite numerous requests to do so walt has yet to produce a
>>>single idea.
>>>
>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>I know a lot of Republicans who think we need to get rid of the
>>Republicans . Many old-school Republicans don't think
>>of neocons as Republicans.
>
>
> I guess we'll see what happens in November. See what cream rises to the
> surface, so to speak. It's interesting to note how the Dems and the Repubs
> are each spinning the recent UK terrorism story for their own political
> benefit.
>
> - nilita
>
>

Not to mention the fantasies being spun by the "Neocons."

John Mullen

[John P. Mullen]

tomcervo wrote:

> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>>Lawson English > wrote:
>>
>>:I know a lot of Republicans who think we need to get rid of the
>>:Republicans [in power right now]. Many old-school Republicans don't
>>:think of neocons as Republicans.
>>
>>Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
>>Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.
>
>
> They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
> diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
> debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
> the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
> administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
> to the US to decide that.
> It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
> the top.
>


No to mention getting the damn feds out of state's business and fiscal
responsibility (not just a balanced budget, but intelligent use of funds).

We used to say the Democrats like to tax and spend. These birds just
want to spend and spend.

John Mullen

[Fred J. McCall]

"tomcervo" > wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Lawson English > wrote:
:>
:> :I know a lot of Republicans who think we need to get rid of the
:> :Republicans [in power right now]. Many old-school Republicans don't
:> :think of neocons as Republicans.
:>
:> Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
:> Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.
:
:They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
:diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
:debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
:the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
:administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
:to the US to decide that.
:It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
:the top.

And where did you ever get the idea that a political party MUST be
monolithic in ideas, Tom?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

Lawson English > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Lawson English > wrote:
:>
:> :I know a lot of Republicans who think we need to get rid of the
:> :Republicans [in power right now]. Many old-school Republicans don't
:> :think of neocons as Republicans.
:>
:> Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
:> Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.
:
:So Howard Berkowitz is really a Democrat?

You'll find that Howard is well able to speak for himself.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

"John P. Mullen" > wrote:

:Nah! The "Neocons" are RHINOs (Republicans in Name Only).

One more time, you stupid ******* - what does the 'H' in your "RHINO"
stand for? It's RINO! It's also stupid to use it as you do, since
it's something the idiot right-wing uses to describe anyone who isn't
as extreme as they are.

Gods, what an ignorant putz!

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Grey Satterfield]

On 8/14/06 10:21 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
> wrote:
> tomcervo wrote:
>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Lawson English > wrote:
>>> Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
>>> Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.
>>
>> They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
>> diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
>> debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
>> the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
>> administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
>> to the US to decide that.
>>
>> It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
>> the top.
>
> No to mention getting the damn feds out of state's business and fiscal
> responsibility (not just a balanced budget, but intelligent use of funds).
>
> We used to say the Democrats like to tax and spend. These birds just
> want to spend and spend.

John and I can agree on this at least. Federal spending has been
hemorrhaging during the Bush administration. My primary complaint with
George W. Bush has been his unwillingness or inability to control federal
spending. This isn't the Republicanism I thought I knew. That's why I
think Bush's presidency is a failure and, I believe, why his approval
numbers are so low.

Even those of us who agree with Bush on the Iraq War, and his other
initiatives against Islamic fascism, think that he has failed on the home
front. Bush's fundamentalism, most recently evidenced by his veto of the
bill to federally fund stem cell research, is another example of that
failure.

Grey Satterfield

[Charlie Wolf]

On 13 Aug 2006 15:50:43 -0700, "Walt" > wrote:

>
wrote:
>> See the comments on pages 1 and 2 of the following blog entry:
>>
>> New Yorker's Sy Hersh: Bush Admin Helped Plan Israeli Offensive...
>>
>
>
>
>Thanks for sharing. Most of the guys that post on RAM don't want to
>hear that the leaders they put so much trust are criminal incompetents
>-- that's the best inperpretation.
>
>I personally thing Bush and Cheney are actively working to undo
>everything good about this country.
I personally "thing" you're an idiot. So what??
Regards,

>
>Walt

[Fred J. McCall]

Grey Satterfield > wrote:

:On 8/14/06 10:21 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
> wrote:
:> tomcervo wrote:
:>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>>> Lawson English > wrote:
:>>> Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
:>>> Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.
:>>
:>> They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
:>> diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
:>> debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
:>> the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
:>> administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
:>> to the US to decide that.
:>>
:>> It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
:>> the top.
:>
:> No to mention getting the damn feds out of state's business and fiscal
:> responsibility (not just a balanced budget, but intelligent use of funds).
:>
:> We used to say the Democrats like to tax and spend. These birds just
:> want to spend and spend.
:
:John and I can agree on this at least. Federal spending has been
:hemorrhaging during the Bush administration. My primary complaint with
:George W. Bush has been his unwillingness or inability to control federal
:spending. This isn't the Republicanism I thought I knew. That's why I
:think Bush's presidency is a failure and, I believe, why his approval
:numbers are so low.

Yes, but he does have a war on. That tends to wreck any budget. Too
large a percentage of the budget is non-discretionary spending.

:Even those of us who agree with Bush on the Iraq War, and his other
:initiatives against Islamic fascism, think that he has failed on the home
:front. Bush's fundamentalism, most recently evidenced by his veto of the
:bill to federally fund stem cell research, is another example of that
:failure.

This is the real failure, to my mind. There was no good reason to
veto that bill. There is no 'slippery slope' here that suddenly leads
to additional abortions or the death of any embryo not already slated
for the dustbin. On the flip side, there was a large potential that
this would act to the greater good of everyone; both already born and
yet to be born. I seem to recall hearing at some point that a high
percentage of the currently existing cell lines have become
compromised and are thus not very useful or trustworthy.

Having this recorded as his first veto in two terms as President is
simply shameful. Having it upheld by Congress is even more shameful.

--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

[John P. Mullen]

Grey Satterfield wrote:

> On 8/14/06 10:21 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
> > wrote:
>
>>tomcervo wrote:
>>
>>>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>
>>>>Lawson English > wrote:
>>>>Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
>>>>Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.
>>>
>>>They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
>>>diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
>>>debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
>>>the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
>>>administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
>>>to the US to decide that.
>>>
>>>It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
>>>the top.
>>
>>No to mention getting the damn feds out of state's business and fiscal
>>responsibility (not just a balanced budget, but intelligent use of funds).
>>
>>We used to say the Democrats like to tax and spend. These birds just
>>want to spend and spend.
>
>
> John and I can agree on this at least. Federal spending has been
> hemorrhaging during the Bush administration. My primary complaint with
> George W. Bush has been his unwillingness or inability to control federal
> spending. This isn't the Republicanism I thought I knew. That's why I
> think Bush's presidency is a failure and, I believe, why his approval
> numbers are so low.
>
> Even those of us who agree with Bush on the Iraq War, and his other
> initiatives against Islamic fascism, think that he has failed on the home
> front. Bush's fundamentalism, most recently evidenced by his veto of the
> bill to federally fund stem cell research, is another example of that
> failure.
>
> Grey Satterfield
>

Just remember that the Iraqi war and the unbounded spending are
connected. You can't spend a few hundred billion dollars on a war and
not have it affect spending.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

This does not count the cost of having our bright, energetic people over
in Iraq instead of here, contributing to economic growth or that of
young children deprived of a parent early in life.

It will be a very long time before this debt is paid off.

John Mullen

[Bob Matthews]

Walt wrote:

> wrote:
>
>>See the comments on pages 1 and 2 of the following blog entry:
>>
>>New Yorker's Sy Hersh: Bush Admin Helped Plan Israeli Offensive...
>>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for sharing. Most of the guys that post on RAM don't want to
> hear that the leaders they put so much trust are criminal incompetents
> -- that's the best inperpretation.
>
> I personally thing Bush and Cheney are actively working to undo
> everything good about this country.

They're certainly a bigger threat than Al Qaida. Too bad the GOP
mouthbreathers haven't yet figured it out.

==bob

>
> Walt
>

[Grey Satterfield]

On 8/15/06 8:45 PM, in article ,
"Fred J. McCall" > wrote:
> This is the real failure, to my mind. There was no good reason to
> veto that bill. There is no 'slippery slope' here that suddenly leads
> to additional abortions or the death of any embryo not already slated
> for the dustbin. On the flip side, there was a large potential that
> this would act to the greater good of everyone; both already born and
> yet to be born. I seem to recall hearing at some point that a high
> percentage of the currently existing cell lines have become
> compromised and are thus not very useful or trustworthy.
>
> Having this recorded as his first veto in two terms as President is
> simply shameful. Having it upheld by Congress is even more shameful.

Yeah, I disapproved of Bush's failure to exercise leadership to control
spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.

Grey Satterfield

[Grey Satterfield]

On 8/15/06 8:53 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
> wrote:

> Grey Satterfield wrote:
>
>> On 8/14/06 10:21 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> tomcervo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lawson English > wrote:
>>>>> Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
>>>>> Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.
>>>>
>>>> They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
>>>> diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
>>>> debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
>>>> the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
>>>> administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
>>>> to the US to decide that.
>>>>
>>>> It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
>>>> the top.
>>>
>>> No to mention getting the damn feds out of state's business and fiscal
>>> responsibility (not just a balanced budget, but intelligent use of funds).
>>>
>>> We used to say the Democrats like to tax and spend. These birds just
>>> want to spend and spend.
>>
>>
>> John and I can agree on this at least. Federal spending has been
>> hemorrhaging during the Bush administration. My primary complaint with
>> George W. Bush has been his unwillingness or inability to control federal
>> spending. This isn't the Republicanism I thought I knew. That's why I
>> think Bush's presidency is a failure and, I believe, why his approval
>> numbers are so low.
>>
>> Even those of us who agree with Bush on the Iraq War, and his other
>> initiatives against Islamic fascism, think that he has failed on the home
>> front. Bush's fundamentalism, most recently evidenced by his veto of the
>> bill to federally fund stem cell research, is another example of that
>> failure.
>>
>> Grey Satterfield
>>
>
> Just remember that the Iraqi war and the unbounded spending are
> connected. You can't spend a few hundred billion dollars on a war and
> not have it affect spending.
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/
>
> This does not count the cost of having our bright, energetic people over
> in Iraq instead of here, contributing to economic growth or that of
> young children deprived of a parent early in life.
>
> It will be a very long time before this debt is paid off.

Absolutely wrong, it seems to me. The spending on the war and the other
aspects of the fight against Radical Islam has been money well spent. It is
the other spending by a Republican congress the president has not attempted
to control that I disapproved of.

Grey Satterfield

[Fred J. McCall]

"John P. Mullen" > wrote:

:This does not count the cost of having our bright, energetic people over
:in Iraq instead of here, contributing to economic growth

That's a specious argument. Since we don't have a draft, there are no
"bright, energetic people" being sucked out of the economy to send to
Iraq. Those folks are volunteers and would probably be in the
military regardless.

You can try to make this argument with regard to National Guard types,
but then it quickly becomes an argument for having a larger standing
military and a smaller National Guard.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[Fred J. McCall]

Bob Matthews > wrote:

:They're certainly a bigger threat than Al Qaida. Too bad the GOP
:mouthbreathers haven't yet figured it out.

So your position is that you lot keep losing because the voters are
stupid?

Perhaps, but they're smart enough to not vote your you lot. What does
that say about you?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Mark Borgerson]

In article >,
says...
> Bob Matthews > wrote:
>
> :They're certainly a bigger threat than Al Qaida. Too bad the GOP
> :mouthbreathers haven't yet figured it out.
>
> So your position is that you lot keep losing because the voters are
> stupid?

That seems a rather silly statement, considering that Bush received
less than 50% of the votes in the last election.

I suppose its also possible that a majority of the voters voted for
democratic senators in the last elections---but I haven't tallied up
the votes for the big states with democratic senators and compared it
to the totals for the smaller states with republican senators.

For example, California Senator Barbara Boxer won reelection by
2.5 million votes over her republican adversary. Feinstein did
about the same. That margin of victory is about 5 times the
total population of Wyoming, which elected two republican senators
(where the winner might have gotten 25,000 more votes than the
loser).

In any case there's a strong argument that the republicans hold power
due to the oddities of the American electoral system---not because
they had the support of the majority of the voters.
>
> Perhaps, but they're smart enough to not vote your you lot. What does
> that say about you?

A comprehensible sentence would have strengthened your argument! ;-)

Mark Borgerson

[Grey Satterfield]

On 8/16/06 9:54 AM, in article
, "Mark Borgerson"
<mborgerson.at.comcast.net> wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>> Bob Matthews > wrote:
>>
>> :They're certainly a bigger threat than Al Qaida. Too bad the GOP
>> :mouthbreathers haven't yet figured it out.
>>
>> So your position is that you lot keep losing because the voters are
>> stupid?
>
> That seems a rather silly statement, considering that Bush received
> less than 50% of the votes in the last election.

Not to put too fine a point on it, that's absolutely, irremediably,
unarguably wrong. Actually, Bush got 50.7% of the popular vote in 2004 and
was the first president since George H.W. Bush to receive a majority of the
popular vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

I could say something about credibility here if I weren't such a nice guy.
:)

Grey Satterfield

[Bob Matthews]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Bob Matthews > wrote:
>
> :They're certainly a bigger threat than Al Qaida. Too bad the GOP
> :mouthbreathers haven't yet figured it out.
>
> So your position is that you lot keep losing because the voters are
> stupid?

That's "your lot," genius.
>
> Perhaps, but they're smart enough to not vote your you lot.

Maybe you mean "not vote for your lot"?

Lemme guess: you're another neocon with parchment on the wall? Or just
another loser who types with one hand while whacking off with the other?

Am I close?

Cheers

==bob



What does
> that say about you?


>

[[email protected]]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Grey Satterfield > wrote:
>
> :On 8/14/06 10:21 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
> > wrote:
> :> tomcervo wrote:
> :>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :>>> Lawson English > wrote:
> :>>> Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
> :>>> Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.
> :>>
> :>> They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
> :>> diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
> :>> debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
> :>> the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
> :>> administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
> :>> to the US to decide that.
> :>>
> :>> It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
> :>> the top.
> :>
> :> No to mention getting the damn feds out of state's business and fiscal
> :> responsibility (not just a balanced budget, but intelligent use of funds).
> :>
> :> We used to say the Democrats like to tax and spend. These birds just
> :> want to spend and spend.
> :
> :John and I can agree on this at least. Federal spending has been
> :hemorrhaging during the Bush administration. My primary complaint with
> :George W. Bush has been his unwillingness or inability to control federal
> :spending. This isn't the Republicanism I thought I knew. That's why I
> :think Bush's presidency is a failure and, I believe, why his approval
> :numbers are so low.
>
> Yes, but he does have a war on. That tends to wreck any budget. Too
> large a percentage of the budget is non-discretionary spending.
>
>

The budget deficit is three times the size of the war budget.

Even then most of the war budget is being spent in Iraq, where
he chose to go to war despite Iraqi compliance with the inspection
and disarmament program.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Grey Satterfield wrote:
> On 8/15/06 8:45 PM, in article ,
> "Fred J. McCall" > wrote:
> > This is the real failure, to my mind. There was no good reason to
> > veto that bill. ...
> >
> > Having this recorded as his first veto in two terms as President is
> > simply shameful. Having it upheld by Congress is even more shameful.
> > Yeah, I disapproved of Bush's failure to exercise leadership to control
> spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
> vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
> Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
> enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
> affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.

By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
the patients who need the research and their families.

--

FF

[Grey Satterfield]

On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
. com,
" > wrote:

>
> Grey Satterfield wrote:
>> spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
>> vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
>> Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
>> enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
>> affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.
>
> By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
> Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
> them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
> so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
> office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
> to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
> a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
> the patients who need the research and their families.

The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
embarrassment to the Republican Party. The worst part is that Bush clearly
thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
been more wrong.

Grey Satterfield

[Fred J. McCall]

Mark Borgerson <mborgerson.at.comcast.net> wrote:

:In article >,
says...
:> Bob Matthews > wrote:
:>
:> :They're certainly a bigger threat than Al Qaida. Too bad the GOP
:> :mouthbreathers haven't yet figured it out.
:>
:> So your position is that you lot keep losing because the voters are
:> stupid?
:
:That seems a rather silly statement, considering that Bush received
:less than 50% of the votes in the last election.

Wrong. Bush received 51% of the votes in the last election.

:I suppose its also possible that a majority of the voters voted for
:democratic senators in the last elections---but I haven't tallied up
:the votes for the big states with democratic senators and compared it
:to the totals for the smaller states with republican senators.

It's irrelevant. In addition, the Democrats *LOST* four seats in
2004.

:For example, California Senator Barbara Boxer won reelection by
:2.5 million votes over her republican adversary. Feinstein did
:about the same. That margin of victory is about 5 times the
:total population of Wyoming, which elected two republican senators
:(where the winner might have gotten 25,000 more votes than the
:loser).

Wrong again. Wyoming didn't elect any Senators in 2004.

:In any case there's a strong argument that the republicans hold power
:due to the oddities of the American electoral system---not because
:they had the support of the majority of the voters.

No there isn't. There isn't even a weak argument for that. The
Republicans gained strength in the Senate. The Republicans gained
seats in the House. The Republicans got the majority of votes on the
national ticket.

So far all you've demonstrated is that your lot must be too stupid to
understand the basics of how American government works, if your
argument is that you only keep getting beaten because "the voters are
stupid" and "the oddities of the American electoral system" get in
your way.

:> Perhaps, but they're smart enough to not vote your you lot. What does
:> that say about you?
:
:A comprehensible sentence would have strengthened your argument! ;-)

Gee, a typing flame. I'm IMPRESSED.

--
"The odds get even - You blame the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush

[[email protected]]

Grey Satterfield wrote:
> On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
> . com,
> " > wrote:
>
> >
> > Grey Satterfield wrote:
> >> spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
> >> vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
> >> Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
> >> enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
> >> affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.
> >
> > By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
> > Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
> > them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
> > so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
> > office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
> > to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
> > a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
> > the patients who need the research and their families.
>
> The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
> patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
> the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
> politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
> embarrassment to the Republican Party.

It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.

The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
the long term doesn't involve them.

Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
consensus on the issue affect them.

> The worst part is that Bush clearly
> thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
> been more wrong.
>

Doh!

--

FF

[John P. Mullen]

Grey Satterfield wrote:

> On 8/15/06 8:53 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Grey Satterfield wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 8/14/06 10:21 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>tomcervo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Lawson English > wrote:
>>>>>>Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
>>>>>>Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.
>>>>>
>>>>>They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
>>>>>diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
>>>>>debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
>>>>>the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
>>>>>administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
>>>>>to the US to decide that.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
>>>>>the top.
>>>>
>>>>No to mention getting the damn feds out of state's business and fiscal
>>>>responsibility (not just a balanced budget, but intelligent use of funds).
>>>>
>>>>We used to say the Democrats like to tax and spend. These birds just
>>>>want to spend and spend.
>>>
>>>
>>>John and I can agree on this at least. Federal spending has been
>>>hemorrhaging during the Bush administration. My primary complaint with
>>>George W. Bush has been his unwillingness or inability to control federal
>>>spending. This isn't the Republicanism I thought I knew. That's why I
>>>think Bush's presidency is a failure and, I believe, why his approval
>>>numbers are so low.
>>>
>>>Even those of us who agree with Bush on the Iraq War, and his other
>>>initiatives against Islamic fascism, think that he has failed on the home
>>>front. Bush's fundamentalism, most recently evidenced by his veto of the
>>>bill to federally fund stem cell research, is another example of that
>>>failure.
>>>
>>>Grey Satterfield
>>>
>>
>>Just remember that the Iraqi war and the unbounded spending are
>>connected. You can't spend a few hundred billion dollars on a war and
>>not have it affect spending.
>>
>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/
>>
>>This does not count the cost of having our bright, energetic people over
>>in Iraq instead of here, contributing to economic growth or that of
>>young children deprived of a parent early in life.
>>
>>It will be a very long time before this debt is paid off.
>
>
> Absolutely wrong, it seems to me. The spending on the war and the other
> aspects of the fight against Radical Islam has been money well spent. It is
> the other spending by a Republican congress the president has not attempted
> to control that I disapproved of.
>
> Grey Satterfield
>

Grey,

When you are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year, the budget
is chump change.

And, I don't see why creating enemies for the US faster than we can kill
or capture them is a good thing.

Also, just because the US is engaging terrorists in Iraq does not mean
they cannot also attack us at home. The terrorists the US is creating
in Iraq are a different bunch than the ones that attacked the US.

John Mullen

[John P. Mullen]

wrote:

> Grey Satterfield wrote:
>
>>On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
. com,
" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Grey Satterfield wrote:
>>>
>>>>spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
>>>>vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
>>>>Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
>>>>enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
>>>>affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.
>>>
>>>By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
>>>Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
>>>them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
>>>so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
>>>office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
>>>to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
>>>a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
>>>the patients who need the research and their families.
>>
>>The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
>>patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
>>the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
>>politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
>>embarrassment to the Republican Party.
>
>
> It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
> all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.
>
> The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
> they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
> the long term doesn't involve them.
>
> Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
> be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
> choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
> consensus on the issue affect them.
>
>
>>The worst part is that Bush clearly
>>thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
>>been more wrong.
>>
>
>
> Doh!
>

The veto will hurt Bush and the Republican Party.

A very large majority of US voters feel this sort of research is
warranted and that the Federal government should be involved so it can
go forward more quickly. In addition, this bill would give the Federal
government more control over a process that could easily be abused.

The Dems will say, "We need enough lawmakers to vote for this bill to be
able to override an anticipated Bush veto." They can use the coverage
argument, saying that, "Yes Senator Snort did vote for the bill this
time, but he did so because he knew the President would veto it. Make
sure it passes next time by voting for me!"

John Mullen

[John P. Mullen]

wrote:

> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>>Grey Satterfield > wrote:
>>
>>:On 8/14/06 10:21 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
> wrote:
>>:> tomcervo wrote:
>>:>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>:>>> Lawson English > wrote:
>>:>>> Yes, and most of those 'old-school Republicans' are known as
>>:>>> Democrats. Real Republicans want a big tent.
>>:>>
>>:>> They also want a balanced budget, a strong military and intelligent
>>:>> diplomacy. The bunch in now are acting like looters--run up unpayable
>>:>> debts here and abroad, and then retire to a gated community, and let
>>:>> the rabble stew. Now they seem to be saying that they'll let the NEXT
>>:>> administration decide to leave Iraq--they really seem to think it's up
>>:>> to the US to decide that.
>>:>>
>>:>> It's looking like the First Afghan War all over again, especially at
>>:>> the top.
>>:>
>>:> No to mention getting the damn feds out of state's business and fiscal
>>:> responsibility (not just a balanced budget, but intelligent use of funds).
>>:>
>>:> We used to say the Democrats like to tax and spend. These birds just
>>:> want to spend and spend.
>>:
>>:John and I can agree on this at least. Federal spending has been
>>:hemorrhaging during the Bush administration. My primary complaint with
>>:George W. Bush has been his unwillingness or inability to control federal
>>:spending. This isn't the Republicanism I thought I knew. That's why I
>>:think Bush's presidency is a failure and, I believe, why his approval
>>:numbers are so low.
>>
>>Yes, but he does have a war on. That tends to wreck any budget. Too
>>large a percentage of the budget is non-discretionary spending.
>>
>>
>
>
> The budget deficit is three times the size of the war budget.
>
> Even then most of the war budget is being spent in Iraq, where
> he chose to go to war despite Iraqi compliance with the inspection
> and disarmament program.
>

Most of the war expenditures are off budget.

There are also costs associated with the military and the war that are
not clearly identified in the budget.

In addition, a lot of the war cost is being borne by the states.

John Mullen

[Fred J. McCall]

Bob Matthews > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Bob Matthews > wrote:
:>
:> :They're certainly a bigger threat than Al Qaida. Too bad the GOP
:> :mouthbreathers haven't yet figured it out.
:>
:> So your position is that you lot keep losing because the voters are
:> stupid?
:
:That's "your lot," genius.

No, that's "you lot", you grammar-flaming tosser.

:> Perhaps, but they're smart enough to not vote your you lot.
:
:Maybe you mean "not vote for your lot"?

And maybe I mean "not vote for you lot".

:Lemme guess: you're another neocon with parchment on the wall?

Wrong at least once. Does 'parchment on the wall' have something to
do with something?

:Or just
:another loser who types with one hand while whacking off with the other?

No, son. It takes two hands to handle the Whopper...

:Am I close?

<sniff><sniff>

Nope, you apparently aren't close. No odour of stale feces. You must
be well downwind.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

"John P. Mullen" > wrote:

:When you are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year, the budget
:is chump change.

Huh?

:And, I don't see why creating enemies for the US faster than we can kill
:or capture them is a good thing.

I also don't see how putting their boot on our neck and inviting them
to cut off our balls helps us much.

:Also, just because the US is engaging terrorists in Iraq does not mean
:they cannot also attack us at home. The terrorists the US is creating
:in Iraq are a different bunch than the ones that attacked the US.

And what's YOUR proposal, Mr Mullen? Is it something better than
"just give the terrorists everything they ask for"?

--
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has
nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,
and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

[Fred J. McCall]

"John P. Mullen" > wrote:

wrote:
:
:> Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>>
:>>Yes, but he does have a war on. That tends to wreck any budget. Too
:>>large a percentage of the budget is non-discretionary spending.
:>
:> The budget deficit is three times the size of the war budget.
:>
:> Even then most of the war budget is being spent in Iraq, where
:> he chose to go to war despite Iraqi compliance with the inspection
:> and disarmament program.
:
:Most of the war expenditures are off budget.

Pardon? How's that work again?

:There are also costs associated with the military and the war that are
:not clearly identified in the budget.

For some definition of 'clearly identified'.

:In addition, a lot of the war cost is being borne by the states.

Enumerate them.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

[Vince]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "John P. Mullen" > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> :
> :> Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :>>
> :>>Yes, but he does have a war on. That tends to wreck any budget. Too
> :>>large a percentage of the budget is non-discretionary spending.
> :>
> :> The budget deficit is three times the size of the war budget.
> :>
> :> Even then most of the war budget is being spent in Iraq, where
> :> he chose to go to war despite Iraqi compliance with the inspection
> :> and disarmament program.
> :
> :Most of the war expenditures are off budget.
>
> Pardon? How's that work again?
>
> :There are also costs associated with the military and the war that are
> :not clearly identified in the budget.
>
> For some definition of 'clearly identified'.
>
> :In addition, a lot of the war cost is being borne by the states.
>
> Enumerate them.

Actually there are several different kinds of costs.

true "off budget" costs are those which are externalized to the economy
in general. for example deficit spending increases the borrowing costs
for everyone, but the costs are "off budget"

Then there are "deferred costs" cost which don't show up in this years
budget e.g. costs of veterans benefits.

then there is the "using up" of military assets. Since the US is a
cash, not an accrual budget, you can "spend out of capital" without it
appearing on the budget.

Economists differ on how large these cost are for the Iraq war but they
are very large.

Vince

[[email protected]]

John P. Mullen wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Grey Satterfield wrote:
> >
> >>On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
> . com,
> " > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Grey Satterfield wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
> >>>>vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
> >>>>Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
> >>>>enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
> >>>>affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.
> >>>
> >>>By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
> >>>Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
> >>>them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
> >>>so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
> >>>office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
> >>>to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
> >>>a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
> >>>the patients who need the research and their families.
> >>
> >>The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
> >>patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
> >>the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
> >>politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
> >>embarrassment to the Republican Party.
> >
> >
> > It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
> > all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.
> >
> > The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
> > they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
> > the long term doesn't involve them.
> >
> > Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
> > be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
> > choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
> > consensus on the issue affect them.
> >
> >
> >>The worst part is that Bush clearly
> >>thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
> >>been more wrong.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Doh!
> >
>
> The veto will hurt Bush and the Republican Party.

I left the text in above, wherein I pointed out why it will not.
As did you.

>
> A very large majority of US voters feel this sort of research is
> warranted and that the Federal government should be involved so it can
> go forward more quickly. In addition, this bill would give the Federal
> government more control over a process that could easily be abused.
>
> The Dems will say, "We need enough lawmakers to vote for this bill to be
> able to override an anticipated Bush veto." They can use the coverage
> argument, saying that, "Yes Senator Snort did vote for the bill this
> time, but he did so because he knew the President would veto it. Make
> sure it passes next time by voting for me!"
>

Senator Snort will say, quite corrrectly, The Dems don't speak for me.

Only his constituents get to vote for or against him--that's the part
you
don't seem to appreciate about the midterm elections.

--

FF

[John P. Mullen]

wrote:
> John P. Mullen wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Grey Satterfield wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
. com,
" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Grey Satterfield wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
>>>>>>vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
>>>>>>Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
>>>>>>enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
>>>>>>affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.
>>>>>
>>>>>By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
>>>>>Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
>>>>>them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
>>>>>so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
>>>>>office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
>>>>>to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
>>>>>a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
>>>>>the patients who need the research and their families.
>>>>
>>>>The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
>>>>patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
>>>>the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
>>>>politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
>>>>embarrassment to the Republican Party.
>>>
>>>
>>>It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
>>>all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.
>>>
>>>The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
>>>they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
>>>the long term doesn't involve them.
>>>
>>>Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
>>>be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
>>>choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
>>>consensus on the issue affect them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The worst part is that Bush clearly
>>>>thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
>>>>been more wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Doh!
>>>
>>
>>The veto will hurt Bush and the Republican Party.
>
>
> I left the text in above, wherein I pointed out why it will not.
> As did you.
>
>
>>A very large majority of US voters feel this sort of research is
>>warranted and that the Federal government should be involved so it can
>>go forward more quickly. In addition, this bill would give the Federal
>>government more control over a process that could easily be abused.
>>
>>The Dems will say, "We need enough lawmakers to vote for this bill to be
>>able to override an anticipated Bush veto." They can use the coverage
>>argument, saying that, "Yes Senator Snort did vote for the bill this
>>time, but he did so because he knew the President would veto it. Make
>>sure it passes next time by voting for me!"
>>
>
>
> Senator Snort will say, quite corrrectly, The Dems don't speak for me.
>
> Only his constituents get to vote for or against him--that's the part
> you
> don't seem to appreciate about the midterm elections.
>

That is the part *you* don't get. His constituents will understand him
and are likely to not be fooled by so simple a ploy.

John Mullen

[[email protected]]

John P. Mullen wrote:
> wrote:
> > John P. Mullen wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Grey Satterfield wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
> . com,
> " > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Grey Satterfield wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
> >>>>>>vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
> >>>>>>Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
> >>>>>>enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
> >>>>>>affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
> >>>>>Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
> >>>>>them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
> >>>>>so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
> >>>>>office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
> >>>>>to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
> >>>>>a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
> >>>>>the patients who need the research and their families.
> >>>>
> >>>>The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
> >>>>patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
> >>>>the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
> >>>>politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
> >>>>embarrassment to the Republican Party.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
> >>>all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.
> >>>
> >>>The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
> >>>they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
> >>>the long term doesn't involve them.
> >>>
> >>>Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
> >>>be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
> >>>choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
> >>>consensus on the issue affect them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The worst part is that Bush clearly
> >>>>thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
> >>>>been more wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Doh!
> >>>
> >>
> >>The veto will hurt Bush and the Republican Party.
> >
> >
> > I left the text in above, wherein I pointed out why it will not.
> > As did you.
> >
> >
> >>A very large majority of US voters feel this sort of research is
> >>warranted and that the Federal government should be involved so it can
> >>go forward more quickly. In addition, this bill would give the Federal
> >>government more control over a process that could easily be abused.
> >>
> >>The Dems will say, "We need enough lawmakers to vote for this bill to be
> >>able to override an anticipated Bush veto." They can use the coverage
> >>argument, saying that, "Yes Senator Snort did vote for the bill this
> >>time, but he did so because he knew the President would veto it. Make
> >>sure it passes next time by voting for me!"
> >>
> >
> >
> > Senator Snort will say, quite corrrectly, The Dems don't speak for me.
> >
> > Only his constituents get to vote for or against him--that's the part
> > you don't seem to appreciate about the midterm elections.
> >
>
> That is the part *you* don't get. His constituents will understand him
> and are likely to not be fooled by so simple a ploy.
>

Huh? No ploy from him. From you, yes, from him no.

He voted the way a majority of his constituents wanted him to.
Nobody's
fooling anybody, especially you. You're not even from wherever it
is he's from. Nobody there gives a damn about your opinion and
Senator Snort isn't trying to get your vote. Or mine, for that matter.

--

FF

[John P. Mullen]

wrote:

> John P. Mullen wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>John P. Mullen wrote:
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Grey Satterfield wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
. com,
" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Grey Satterfield wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
>>>>>>>>vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
>>>>>>>>Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
>>>>>>>>enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
>>>>>>>>affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
>>>>>>>Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
>>>>>>>them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
>>>>>>>so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
>>>>>>>office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
>>>>>>>to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
>>>>>>>a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
>>>>>>>the patients who need the research and their families.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
>>>>>>patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
>>>>>>the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
>>>>>>politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
>>>>>>embarrassment to the Republican Party.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
>>>>>all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.
>>>>>
>>>>>The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
>>>>>they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
>>>>>the long term doesn't involve them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
>>>>>be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
>>>>>choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
>>>>>consensus on the issue affect them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The worst part is that Bush clearly
>>>>>>thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
>>>>>>been more wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Doh!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The veto will hurt Bush and the Republican Party.
>>>
>>>
>>>I left the text in above, wherein I pointed out why it will not.
>>>As did you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>A very large majority of US voters feel this sort of research is
>>>>warranted and that the Federal government should be involved so it can
>>>>go forward more quickly. In addition, this bill would give the Federal
>>>>government more control over a process that could easily be abused.
>>>>
>>>>The Dems will say, "We need enough lawmakers to vote for this bill to be
>>>>able to override an anticipated Bush veto." They can use the coverage
>>>>argument, saying that, "Yes Senator Snort did vote for the bill this
>>>>time, but he did so because he knew the President would veto it. Make
>>>>sure it passes next time by voting for me!"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Senator Snort will say, quite corrrectly, The Dems don't speak for me.
>>>
>>>Only his constituents get to vote for or against him--that's the part
>>>you don't seem to appreciate about the midterm elections.
>>>
>>
>>That is the part *you* don't get. His constituents will understand him
>>and are likely to not be fooled by so simple a ploy.
>>
>
>
> Huh? No ploy from him. From you, yes, from him no.
>
> He voted the way a majority of his constituents wanted him to.
> Nobody's
> fooling anybody, especially you. You're not even from wherever it
> is he's from. Nobody there gives a damn about your opinion and
> Senator Snort isn't trying to get your vote. Or mine, for that matter.
>


Maybe so, but here in New Mexico, people tend to be less trusting and
more discerning of their public officials. Basically, we tend to treat
them as criminals on parole. For the first ten years or so, at least.

Such a simple trick would not fool any one.

Except maybe those damn newcomers.

:-)

John Mullen

[Grey Satterfield]

On 8/19/06 8:49 AM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
> wrote:
> Maybe so, but here in New Mexico, people tend to be less trusting and
> more discerning of their public officials. Basically, we tend to treat
> them as criminals on parole. For the first ten years or so, at least.

That's a really good idea. I believe that incumbency is a serious problem
and that the old rascals should be thrown out regularly so that the new
group of rascals will have not steal too much during their period of on the
job training.

We have term limits for governors and legislators in Oklahoma and the system
works well, it seems to me. I was sickened when the supreme court on a 5-4
vote held unconstitutional state constitutional provisions that term limited
congressmen and US Senators. I'll never forgive Justice Kennedy for his
vote in that case. It was a BIG mistake, it seems to me.

Grey Satterfield

[John P. Mullen]

Grey Satterfield wrote:

> On 8/19/06 8:49 AM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
> > wrote:
>
>>Maybe so, but here in New Mexico, people tend to be less trusting and
>>more discerning of their public officials. Basically, we tend to treat
>>them as criminals on parole. For the first ten years or so, at least.
>
>
> That's a really good idea. I believe that incumbency is a serious problem
> and that the old rascals should be thrown out regularly so that the new
> group of rascals will have not steal too much during their period of on the
> job training.
>
> We have term limits for governors and legislators in Oklahoma and the system
> works well, it seems to me. I was sickened when the supreme court on a 5-4
> vote held unconstitutional state constitutional provisions that term limited
> congressmen and US Senators. I'll never forgive Justice Kennedy for his
> vote in that case. It was a BIG mistake, it seems to me.
>
> Grey Satterfield
>


Well, I'm a member of the Faculty Senate in my 12th year. We have a
provision that a senator can only serve for two terms of three years
each, then has to stand down for at least one year. However, once a
person is out for at least a year, he or she can run again.

The problem with absolute term limits for legislators is that there are
a few people who really do a great job. Most people in New Mexico are
fans of our two Senators, one from each party. Both have good support
in all parties.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5add0bb3-16e9-4168-be92-8db9a3e3054a

However, limiting the number of consecutive terms does have its merits.
That way, if a person is really a great legislator, he or she will be
able to win the seat after sitting out a term without the incumbent's
advantage and those that don't just won't be able to come back.


John Mullen

[Grey Satterfield]

On 8/19/06 11:09 AM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
> wrote:

> Grey Satterfield wrote:
>
>> On 8/19/06 8:49 AM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe so, but here in New Mexico, people tend to be less trusting and
>>> more discerning of their public officials. Basically, we tend to treat
>>> them as criminals on parole. For the first ten years or so, at least.
>>
>>
>> That's a really good idea. I believe that incumbency is a serious problem
>> and that the old rascals should be thrown out regularly so that the new
>> group of rascals will have not steal too much during their period of on the
>> job training.
>>
>> We have term limits for governors and legislators in Oklahoma and the system
>> works well, it seems to me. I was sickened when the supreme court on a 5-4
>> vote held unconstitutional state constitutional provisions that term limited
>> congressmen and US Senators. I'll never forgive Justice Kennedy for his
>> vote in that case. It was a BIG mistake, it seems to me.
>>
>> Grey Satterfield
>>
>
>
> Well, I'm a member of the Faculty Senate in my 12th year. We have a
> provision that a senator can only serve for two terms of three years
> each, then has to stand down for at least one year. However, once a
> person is out for at least a year, he or she can run again.
>
> The problem with absolute term limits for legislators is that there are
> a few people who really do a great job. Most people in New Mexico are
> fans of our two Senators, one from each party. Both have good support
> in all parties.
>
> http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5add0bb3-16e9-4168-be92-8db9
> a3e3054a
>
> However, limiting the number of consecutive terms does have its merits.
> That way, if a person is really a great legislator, he or she will be
> able to win the seat after sitting out a term without the incumbent's
> advantage and those that don't just won't be able to come back.

I agree that the downside of term limits is that it forces the rare great
elected official from office. But I decided long ago that this was an
acceptable price to pay in order to insure that politicians were citizens
first and politicians second.

Grey Satterfield

[[email protected]]

John P. Mullen wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > John P. Mullen wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>John P. Mullen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Grey Satterfield wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
> . com,
> " > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Grey Satterfield wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
> >>>>>>>>vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
> >>>>>>>>Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
> >>>>>>>>enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
> >>>>>>>>affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
> >>>>>>>Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
> >>>>>>>them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
> >>>>>>>so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
> >>>>>>>office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
> >>>>>>>to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
> >>>>>>>a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
> >>>>>>>the patients who need the research and their families.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
> >>>>>>patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
> >>>>>>the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
> >>>>>>politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
> >>>>>>embarrassment to the Republican Party.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
> >>>>>all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
> >>>>>they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
> >>>>>the long term doesn't involve them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
> >>>>>be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
> >>>>>choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
> >>>>>consensus on the issue affect them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The worst part is that Bush clearly
> >>>>>>thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
> >>>>>>been more wrong.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Doh!
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>The veto will hurt Bush and the Republican Party.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I left the text in above, wherein I pointed out why it will not.
> >>>As did you.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>A very large majority of US voters feel this sort of research is
> >>>>warranted and that the Federal government should be involved so it can
> >>>>go forward more quickly. In addition, this bill would give the Federal
> >>>>government more control over a process that could easily be abused.
> >>>>
> >>>>The Dems will say, "We need enough lawmakers to vote for this bill to be
> >>>>able to override an anticipated Bush veto." They can use the coverage
> >>>>argument, saying that, "Yes Senator Snort did vote for the bill this
> >>>>time, but he did so because he knew the President would veto it. Make
> >>>>sure it passes next time by voting for me!"
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Senator Snort will say, quite corrrectly, The Dems don't speak for me.
> >>>
> >>>Only his constituents get to vote for or against him--that's the part
> >>>you don't seem to appreciate about the midterm elections.
> >>>
> >>
> >>That is the part *you* don't get. His constituents will understand him
> >>and are likely to not be fooled by so simple a ploy.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Huh? No ploy from him. From you, yes, from him no.
> >
> > He voted the way a majority of his constituents wanted him to.
> > Nobody's
> > fooling anybody, especially you. You're not even from wherever it
> > is he's from. Nobody there gives a damn about your opinion and
> > Senator Snort isn't trying to get your vote. Or mine, for that matter.
> >
>
>
> Maybe so, but here in New Mexico, people tend to be less trusting and
> more discerning of their public officials. Basically, we tend to treat
> them as criminals on parole. For the first ten years or so, at least.
>
> Such a simple trick would not fool any one.

Its not a trick. What you suggest, that the Dems coudl claim he'll
change his vote, that's a trick.

--

FF

[John P. Mullen]

Grey Satterfield wrote:

> On 8/19/06 11:09 AM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Grey Satterfield wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 8/19/06 8:49 AM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Maybe so, but here in New Mexico, people tend to be less trusting and
>>>>more discerning of their public officials. Basically, we tend to treat
>>>>them as criminals on parole. For the first ten years or so, at least.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's a really good idea. I believe that incumbency is a serious problem
>>>and that the old rascals should be thrown out regularly so that the new
>>>group of rascals will have not steal too much during their period of on the
>>>job training.
>>>
>>>We have term limits for governors and legislators in Oklahoma and the system
>>>works well, it seems to me. I was sickened when the supreme court on a 5-4
>>>vote held unconstitutional state constitutional provisions that term limited
>>>congressmen and US Senators. I'll never forgive Justice Kennedy for his
>>>vote in that case. It was a BIG mistake, it seems to me.
>>>
>>>Grey Satterfield
>>>
>>
>>
>>Well, I'm a member of the Faculty Senate in my 12th year. We have a
>>provision that a senator can only serve for two terms of three years
>>each, then has to stand down for at least one year. However, once a
>>person is out for at least a year, he or she can run again.
>>
>>The problem with absolute term limits for legislators is that there are
>>a few people who really do a great job. Most people in New Mexico are
>>fans of our two Senators, one from each party. Both have good support
>>in all parties.
>>
>>http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5add0bb3-16e9-4168-be92-8db9
>>a3e3054a
>>
>>However, limiting the number of consecutive terms does have its merits.
>>That way, if a person is really a great legislator, he or she will be
>>able to win the seat after sitting out a term without the incumbent's
>>advantage and those that don't just won't be able to come back.
>
>
> I agree that the downside of term limits is that it forces the rare great
> elected official from office. But I decided long ago that this was an
> acceptable price to pay in order to insure that politicians were citizens
> first and politicians second.
>
> Grey Satterfield
>

True, but as I pointed out above, that need not be the case.

John Mullen

[John P. Mullen]

wrote:

> John P. Mullen wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John P. Mullen wrote:
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>John P. Mullen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Grey Satterfield wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 8/16/06 9:04 PM, in article
. com,
" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Grey Satterfield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>spending but there was nothing visceral about my feelings. But when he
>>>>>>>>>>vetoed the stem cell research bill it was a slap in the face. Not only was
>>>>>>>>>>Bush's veto profoundly misguided, it provided solid evidence to support his
>>>>>>>>>>enemies' claim that his lock-step Christian fundamentalism has detrimentally
>>>>>>>>>>affected his judgment. Alas, it appears to be so.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>By promising in advance that he would veto the bill he freed the
>>>>>>>>>Republicans to vote whichever way they each thought would help
>>>>>>>>>them this Fall. The Democrats, of course, were already free to do
>>>>>>>>>so. The veto doesn't hurt GWB at all, he will never run for Public
>>>>>>>>>office again. Everybody got to claim they were acting according
>>>>>>>>>to conscience without a damn thing changing. Altogether it was
>>>>>>>>>a win-win situation for all of the politicians. The only losers were
>>>>>>>>>the patients who need the research and their families.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The last sentence is all that makes sense: "The only losers were the
>>>>>>>>patients who need the research and their families." The translation is that
>>>>>>>>the president's veto was bad public policy. Making bad policy is always bad
>>>>>>>>politics in the long run and this fiasco should therefore be an
>>>>>>>>embarrassment to the Republican Party.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is terribly naive to suppose they care about the long run, and not
>>>>>>>all that astute to claim this will ocme back ot haunt them later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The typical politician looks no farther than their next election, if
>>>>>>>they set their sights on the long term and lose their next election
>>>>>>>the long term doesn't involve them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Plenty of Republicans voted for the bill so the failure will not
>>>>>>>be laid on their doorstep by their constituents. Only if they
>>>>>>>choose to run for President in 2008 would the national
>>>>>>>consensus on the issue affect them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The worst part is that Bush clearly
>>>>>>>>thought vetoing the bill was the right thing to do but he could not have
>>>>>>>>been more wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Doh!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The veto will hurt Bush and the Republican Party.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I left the text in above, wherein I pointed out why it will not.
>>>>>As did you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>A very large majority of US voters feel this sort of research is
>>>>>>warranted and that the Federal government should be involved so it can
>>>>>>go forward more quickly. In addition, this bill would give the Federal
>>>>>>government more control over a process that could easily be abused.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The Dems will say, "We need enough lawmakers to vote for this bill to be
>>>>>>able to override an anticipated Bush veto." They can use the coverage
>>>>>>argument, saying that, "Yes Senator Snort did vote for the bill this
>>>>>>time, but he did so because he knew the President would veto it. Make
>>>>>>sure it passes next time by voting for me!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Senator Snort will say, quite corrrectly, The Dems don't speak for me.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only his constituents get to vote for or against him--that's the part
>>>>>you don't seem to appreciate about the midterm elections.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That is the part *you* don't get. His constituents will understand him
>>>>and are likely to not be fooled by so simple a ploy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Huh? No ploy from him. From you, yes, from him no.
>>>
>>>He voted the way a majority of his constituents wanted him to.
>>>Nobody's
>>>fooling anybody, especially you. You're not even from wherever it
>>>is he's from. Nobody there gives a damn about your opinion and
>>>Senator Snort isn't trying to get your vote. Or mine, for that matter.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Maybe so, but here in New Mexico, people tend to be less trusting and
>>more discerning of their public officials. Basically, we tend to treat
>>them as criminals on parole. For the first ten years or so, at least.
>>
>>Such a simple trick would not fool any one.
>
>
> Its not a trick. What you suggest, that the Dems coudl claim he'll
> change his vote, that's a trick.
>

People around here make it a point to know more about their
representatives than their voting record. They have established track
records. They all lie like rugs, so what they say is not that
important, but what they do, people notice. If a representative votes a
certain way for coverage, but as a track record of supporting an
opposite position, people are not usually fooled.

What amuses me is the amazing amount of money outsiders pour into the
state in an attempt to influence races. Sometimes, it works, but with
spending ratios of over ten to one. I remember in a recent issue that
we got inundated with all sorts of high-cost glossy pamphlets, automated
telephone calls, and really high-tech ads. The guy on the other side
mailed out a single xeroxed page, stating his position and listing the
funding sources for all the fancy pamphlets, etc. He probably spent
less than 2% per voter than the opposition. He won.

The old-timers in New Mexico get really ****ed off when they think
someone is trying to pull one over on them.

John Mullen