![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php
This does a nice job of boiling down the plans to their essential distinction.
This does a nice job of boiling down the plans to their essential distinction.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick/print
There's a very clear and obvious slant here, which I tried to ignore as I read the article. Many quotes are unsourced, and thus a priori suspect.
But the man damns himself repeatedly with his own words.
And he has no business calling anyone an elitist, as someone whose life has been defined by his membership in various elites.
I want to be able to respect him, and I do respect some of his stances and accomplishments. But I cannot respect the man himself.
I wish that this were an election for which it was hard to decide between the Presidential candidates because they were both eminently suited for the job, albeit with different philosophies and priorities.
It's not.
There's a very clear and obvious slant here, which I tried to ignore as I read the article. Many quotes are unsourced, and thus a priori suspect.
But the man damns himself repeatedly with his own words.
And he has no business calling anyone an elitist, as someone whose life has been defined by his membership in various elites.
I want to be able to respect him, and I do respect some of his stances and accomplishments. But I cannot respect the man himself.
I wish that this were an election for which it was hard to decide between the Presidential candidates because they were both eminently suited for the job, albeit with different philosophies and priorities.
It's not.
I'm looking to have some conversations about the upcoming elections. (The US Presidential elections, primarily, although if there's anyone that wants to talk about WA Congressional or state-level elections, that's fine too.)
( The reason why I'm putting this out there: )
Let's talk.
( The reason why I'm putting this out there: )
Let's talk.
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010593.html
It's a longish post, so I shall include a few paraphrased highlights, but you should go read it. I don't agree with everything said, and parts of it are definitely, shall we say, not shrinking from drawing negative conclusions about certain (vice-)presidential aspirants...but the parts about Palin, especially, paint an alarming picture.
(1) It is speculated, based on scattered evidence, that McCain is quite likely (2 in 3?) to have further recurrence of serious melanoma during the next four years. If this were true (and assuming that he knows it) that puts a very different complexion on his selection of Palin.
(2) A deconstruction of all the myriad reasons that Palin or her supporters have put forth for her conduct in Troopergate. It includes the following gem:
The scary thing is how well that fits, based on what I've read and seen of her so far. :P
It's a longish post, so I shall include a few paraphrased highlights, but you should go read it. I don't agree with everything said, and parts of it are definitely, shall we say, not shrinking from drawing negative conclusions about certain (vice-)presidential aspirants...but the parts about Palin, especially, paint an alarming picture.
(1) It is speculated, based on scattered evidence, that McCain is quite likely (2 in 3?) to have further recurrence of serious melanoma during the next four years. If this were true (and assuming that he knows it) that puts a very different complexion on his selection of Palin.
(2) A deconstruction of all the myriad reasons that Palin or her supporters have put forth for her conduct in Troopergate. It includes the following gem:
"Every time I try to imagine Sarah Palin at work, what comes out of her mouth is Glory’s dialogue from Season Five of Buffy."
The scary thing is how well that fits, based on what I've read and seen of her so far. :P
http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote
The URL pretty much captures it: the Michigan GOP plans to challenge voters' eligibility at the polls on the basis of home foreclosure records.
(Despite the fact that, among other things, a foreclosure notice does not necessarily entail that one is no longer living at the specified address.)
I say "part 1" in the subject line because I expect that this is not going to be the last such item that I'll be posting about for this election. (I volunteered for Election Protection in 2004 as LA-local tech support, and was in a position to see their entire database of reports of voter intimidation, machine malfunctions, polling place _absence_ fer gossake, etc. ad nauseam. I may do so again.)
If you're a McCain supporter, please contact his campaign and ask him to repudiate this policy. You might also point out to him that allowing his party to make plans to intimidate those that may have lost their homes is not the way to go about winning their trust and support.
The URL pretty much captures it: the Michigan GOP plans to challenge voters' eligibility at the polls on the basis of home foreclosure records.
(Despite the fact that, among other things, a foreclosure notice does not necessarily entail that one is no longer living at the specified address.)
I say "part 1" in the subject line because I expect that this is not going to be the last such item that I'll be posting about for this election. (I volunteered for Election Protection in 2004 as LA-local tech support, and was in a position to see their entire database of reports of voter intimidation, machine malfunctions, polling place _absence_ fer gossake, etc. ad nauseam. I may do so again.)
If you're a McCain supporter, please contact his campaign and ask him to repudiate this policy. You might also point out to him that allowing his party to make plans to intimidate those that may have lost their homes is not the way to go about winning their trust and support.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/sometimes-honor-is-wrong-_b_94524.html
Of interest both because of the subject matter and because of the author's background:
Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of "Crazy for God: How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back"
I'm not sure that I agree with all of it, but it's worth reading.
Of interest both because of the subject matter and because of the author's background:
Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of "Crazy for God: How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back"
I'm not sure that I agree with all of it, but it's worth reading.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/12/81339/4516/40/474909
Hmm. The gist of the argument appears to be that
(a) Republicans started voting in the Democratic primaries in much larger numbers after McCain secured the R nomination
(b) Rush Limbaugh has exhorted his audience to support Clinton (as a weaker opponent to McCain)
(c) exit polls suggest that Republicans voting for Clinton actually don't like her.
Now, I'd like to see stats on how much Republicans that voted for Clinton liked _Obama_...but this does seem to add up to shenanigans.
I feel as though this is all technically within the rules, but it does rather leave a bad taste in one's mouth.
Not sure how to fix this in a way that doesn't induce more problems, though. (Disallowing people from switching parties between the primary and the general election might be an interesting dodge, but there's a can of worms there, too.)
Hmm. The gist of the argument appears to be that
(a) Republicans started voting in the Democratic primaries in much larger numbers after McCain secured the R nomination
(b) Rush Limbaugh has exhorted his audience to support Clinton (as a weaker opponent to McCain)
(c) exit polls suggest that Republicans voting for Clinton actually don't like her.
Now, I'd like to see stats on how much Republicans that voted for Clinton liked _Obama_...but this does seem to add up to shenanigans.
I feel as though this is all technically within the rules, but it does rather leave a bad taste in one's mouth.
Not sure how to fix this in a way that doesn't induce more problems, though. (Disallowing people from switching parties between the primary and the general election might be an interesting dodge, but there's a can of worms there, too.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/washington/08cnd-policy.html?ex=1362718800&en=8f3ee954c2c17b14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Not so much, any more.
(This isn't really news. But it's a nice, concise, recent example.)
Senator John McCain, now the Republican presidential nominee, has been an outspoken opponent of torture from his own experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. In this case, however, he supported the administration’s position, arguing as Mr. Bush did on Saturday that legislation would have limited the C.I.A.’s ability to gather intelligence.
Not so much, any more.
(This isn't really news. But it's a nice, concise, recent example.)
