Nader Off FL Ballot Again
Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 08:20:59 PM PDT
AP reporting:
Ralph Nader is again off Florida's presidential ballot, at least for now. Circuit Judge P. Kevin Davey on Wednesday ordered that Nader's name be removed from the November ballot, finding that the Reform Party -- which nominated Nader -- isn't a legitimate party under state law. Davey also ordered that four counties that have already mailed absentee ballots listing Nader send out amended ballots without his name....
Isn't this all bizarrely reminiscent of November 2000? The FL Supreme Court will no doubt side with Judge Davey... will W and Jeb then go to the Supremes for succor again?
Meanwhile, has anyone been tracking the Bush-Kerry spread with and without Nader? Could Nader be right, this time, that he is drawing equally from both candidates?
"By their deeds shall you know them" (new website)
Sun Sep 12, 2004 at 07:52:46 PM PDT
I came across an excellent new website,
www.howbushoperates.info, that documents the ethical misdeeds, secrecy, conflicts of interest, and outright lies of the Bush administration.
I've included a short excerpt below. Please spread this URL around!
I am concerned with the administration's:
1. Lack of honesty, which has brought about lack of trust.
2. Manipulation of information to further its goals.
3. Secrecy, which has kept the American public and Congress from making sound judgements.
4. Conflict of interest.
5. Lack of respect for others.
6. Lack of reasoning and compromise --the administration's way of responding to differing views seems to be to ridicule rather than reason.
7. Belligerent and arrogant attitude and mode of operation, which has cost our country the respect and compassion of the rest of the world.
I do want an administration that is forceful and strong. But that strong administration has to be:
1. Honest, trustworthy, ethical.
2. Respectful of all people and all nations.
3. Able to engage in dialogue and make decisions based on reason.
4. Without conflict of interest.
5. A Uniting force, rather than one that divides.
Everyone -- Democrat, Republican, Green, independent, etc. -- should be alarmed at what this administration has done and what it may do in the future, if re-elected. A resounding defeat in November is the only way to let the world know that the United States people do not tolerate such an administration.
hilarious Internet pop-up ad from DNC
Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 06:25:21 PM PDT
For some reason my browser was allowing pop-ups this evening, so I was treated to this DNC ad while surfing at washingtonpost.com:
It was so good I had to cough up yet another donation for them....
Ron Reagan's Esquire piece
Thu Aug 12, 2004 at 07:21:53 AM PDT
Ron Reagan's article in the current Esquire makes a very effective, eloquent case against Bush. In fact, I plan to print many copies and hand them out to undecided voters; I suggest you do the same!
Excerpt:
This was not what the American electorate opted for when, in 2000, by a slim but decisive margin of more than half a million votes, they chose . . . the other guy. Bush has never had a mandate. Surveys indicate broad public dissatisfaction with his domestic priorities. How many people would have voted for Mr. Bush in the first place had they understood his eagerness to pass on crushing debt to our children or seen his true colors regarding global warming and the environment? Even after 9/11, were people really looking to be dragged into an optional war under false pretenses?
If ever there was a time for uniting and not dividing, this is it. Instead, Mr. Bush governs as if by divine right, seeming to actually believe that a wise God wants him in the White House and that by constantly evoking the horrible memory of September 11, 2001, he can keep public anxiety stirred up enough to carry him to another term.
Apologies if this has been diaried before; I hadn't seen it.
Excellent NYT 'Op-Chart' on Bush's anti-terrorism priorities
Sun Aug 08, 2004 at 05:02:52 AM PDT
This graphic, from today's
NYT op-ed page, deserves to be widely circulated.
The political points it scores are secondary to the tragic truth it represents: we are blowing our nation's hard-earned wealth on the Iraq quagmire while deep threats to our long-term security are growing unchecked.
Read the extended entry to view the graphic (400K):
Why Kerry Is the Right Nominee For 2004: Not Electability but Acceptability
Wed Feb 18, 2004 at 12:16:23 AM PDT
I understand well how Dean, Clark, and Edwards all have a personal appeal that exceeds Kerry's, which has made them the favorites among Kos readers for the past year. But here's why John Kerry is the right nominee for the Democrats in 2004:
The election of 2004 is a referendum on George Bush. It's not particularly an election about new programs, new ideas, sweeping change, or reform. The question on the ballot in November is: do you like the direction George Bush is taking America, or not.
In this light, the best candidate to put on the Democratic side is not the flashiest candidate with the most exciting ideas; rather, it's the most conservative candidate - not in the political sense but in the style sense. Someone who the average American simply views as a plausible steward of the economy and our national security. In other words, the candidate who the great majority of Americans would find acceptable as President.
Kerry has consistently polled highly on the question of acceptability. Unlike Clark and Edwards, no one questions whether his experience qualifies him for the job; unlike Dean, no one questions (no matter how unfairly) whether his temperament qualifies him for the job.
Yes, he's a have-it-both-ways career politician, and more boring on the stump than his Democratic opponents. But in the end, that's less important than simply being viewed as an acceptable fallback when voters go into the booth in November and vote "NO" on George W. Bush.
The Magic Word That Will Win the Election
Thu Jan 22, 2004 at 12:11:34 PM PDT
Clintonomics.
The first candidate to wrap himself in that word will win the nomination and the election.
What are they waiting for?
Winning Independents in November
Wed Jan 14, 2004 at 12:44:54 AM PDT
Democrats are angry and motivated in 2004. Our values -- multilateralism, environmental stewardship, fiscal responsibility, civil liberty, and open government -- have been frontally assaulted for the past three years. We're sick of it, and like Dr. Dean says, we want our country back.
But Democrats, like Republicans, are only 40% of the country. To win in November, our nominee will have to appeal to the middle 20% -- the Independents. And the arguments that Independents find persuasive aren't the same ones that work for a partisan.
Here are three themes that I think will be effective on Independents come November:
- Restore balance between the parties. Right now, the GOP controls the White House, nearly the entire judiciary, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and a majority of the governorships. Independents are allergic to one-party rule. The Democrats should emphasize that a Democratic President is necessary to counter the excesses of the Republicans in Congress. This strategy (in reverse) was part of Reagan's message in 1980.
- Bush is all image and no substance, all plastic turkey and "Mission Accomplished", a puppet to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, a blind man in a room full of deaf people. Hammer this unflattering portrait of Bush over and over, because it rings completely true. Independents are more likely to be swayed by issues of personality and perceived competence than of ideology and policy.
- It's still the economy, stupid. The recovery is still jobless, despite our hard-earned surplus being squandered and turned into a sea of debt. Bring out the Ross Perot style charts, and we'll win the Ross Perot style voters.
The Gubernatorial Blue State Blues
Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 09:58:54 AM PDT
If there's any safe territory for the Democratic nominee next year, it should be in such blue-state bastions as California, Massachusetts, Maryland, Hawaii, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Minnesota.
So can anyone explain why all of these states have Republican governors? Is it simply that all politics is local? Or are Democrats systematically failing to articulate a vision, or attract candidates, that can appeal even to their own most faithful voters?
Meanwhile, Democrats govern the blood-red GOP strangleholds of Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Virginia and Wyoming. Those who see a stark red-blue cultural divide in America have some explaining to do.
