Front Page » Archives » May 2006 »
" 'Surprising' Number of Ohio Republicans Say No to Ney	"
'Surprising' Number of Ohio Republicans Say No to Ney
Embattled Incumbent, HAVA Author, Loses 32% of Vote to No-Show Primary Opponent
'Congressional Quarterly' Says Numbers Predict Trouble
By Brad Friedman on 5/3/2006, 12:00pm PT
The soon-to-be-indicted lead pusher of the disastrous Help America Vote Act (HAVA), Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) had his primary race in Ohio's 18th District tonight. While most congressmen named in four different criminal indictments and convictions would usually be toast, this is, after all, Ohio.
That said, Justin Rood over at TPM Muckraker, had this to say earlier this afternoon about the outlook for Ney tonight...
...Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) is expected to win his congressional primary, being held today. His competitor, James Broadbelt Harris, is an unknown who hasn't campaigned --- he hasn't even filed with the FEC, which indicates he has raised less than $5,000, [Congressional Quarterly's] Greg Giroux tells me.
I called Giroux to get his take on the election. While he expects Ney to win, he said, he's curious about what kind of "protest vote" Republicans in the district will cast for Harris, reacting to Ney's ethical troubles.
"I'd be surprised if Harris got more than 20 or 25 percent," Giroux told me. "That would be a sign that there is a chunk of the Republican base that's disenchanted with the incumbent."
"If Ney gets in the 80s --- and he very well may --- that'd show that at least Republican voters are behind him, and they weren't willing to look at this alternative candidate," Giroux said.
100% of the results are now in from all but 1 of the 16 counties which make up Ohio's fightin' 18th. (Belmont County's results have been stuck at 25.3% for the last several hours, about which I suspect we'll hear more tomorrow. Trouble with those pricey new op-scan machines, Belmont?)
As of 2:13am ET, these are the results from the Ohio SoS website:
If Giroux is correct, it looks like Ney may be in for a tough ride this fall...If he makes it that far without ending up in the slammer.
UPDATE 5/3/06: 100% of counties now reporting in full. Ney: 68.38% Harris: 31.62%
UPDATE 5/4/06: As expected, the reasons for the delayed reporting out of Belmont was due to all manners of mess in counting votes off of their new machines. Here's a description of the mess..
Article Categories: Ohio, Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff, Election 2006, HAVA, Republicans
« PREVIOUS STORY "DIEBOLD DISASTER: Company Gets 'F' From Election Board Chairman as Machines Fail All Over Cuyahoga County, OH on Primary Day"
"DIEBOLD DISASTER: Cuyahoga County Still Counting as 70 Memory Cards Missing from 200 Precincts" NEXT STORY »
"'Surprising' Number of Ohio Republicans Say No to Ney"
(41 Responses so far...)
... Robert Lockwood Mills said on 5/3/2006 @ 3:15 am PT...
Maybe someday the following people will all end up at the same prison:
Henry Nee--NASA spy, worked for Yang Enterprises
Bob Ney--HAVA maven, corrupt Ohio Congressman
Ken Lay--Enron C.E.O. who knew nothing
Tom DeLay--Disgraced G.O.P. House leader
Tom Noe--Coin dealer/G.O.P. fundraiser-fraudster
Bernadette Noe--Wife of Tom, G.O.P. powerbroker
Michael Wu--Cuyahoga County election official
John Yoo--Law professor who O.K.'d Gitmo torture
The last names make a wonderful lullaby (try it, your grandchild will fall asleep in seconds). Too bad proper names aren't allowed in Scrabble.
... Ricky	said on 5/3/2006 @ 5:37 am PT...
Back to insulting states agin I see.
Ricky, certain states have a propensity for not being able to cleanse their own statehouses. A study of Ohio's history shows a pattern of constant local corruption. The Republican machine there produced a succession of men born in Ohio who, if not personally dishonest, were under the influence of dishonest men.
Ulysses S. Grant: Honest, but a tool of corrupt supporters. Scandal-ridden administration.
Rutherford B. Hayes: Decent man who became president via fraudulent election of 1876.
James A. Garfield: Implicated in Credit Mobilier scandal, yet nominated in back-room political deal.
Benjamin Harrison: Won 1888 election because of election fraud (would have lost without it).
William McKinley: Honest man, but tool of Marcus Hanna, political wheeler-dealer from Cleveland
William Howard Taft: Progenitor of family political clan. Great-grandson, Governor Bob Taft, recently pleaded guility to several misdemeanor counts.
Warren G. Harding: Next to Bush, least qualified man ever to hold presidency. Tool of Daugherty and Fall (Ohio cronies), nominated in famous smoke-filled room political deal in 1920.
Is it an insult to Ohio to point all this out? Is it an insult to Maryland, Louisiana, and Rhode Island to mention that a huge percentage of their political leaders have gone to jail or been forced to resign in disgrace (names on request)? I think it's simply honest reporting of dishonest people.
... KestrelBrighteyes	said on 5/3/2006 @ 6:24 am PT...
It never ceases to amaze me how many people will still vote for a criminal - especially one with as much evidence against him as Ney. But, as you say, this IS Ohio politics - the POSTER CHILD for government corruption.
Am I correct in saying that Zack Space will be Ney's (or his replacement's) opponent in the general election in November?
... Dredd said on 5/3/2006 @ 7:25 am PT...
The 18th District from which Ney springs, gerrymanders its way thru Carroll, Holmes, Knox, Coshocton, Harrison, Belmont, Tuscarawas, Licking, Muskingum, Guernsey, Morgan, Athens, Hocking, Vinton, Ross, and Jackson counties.
Can you imagine a campaigner wanting a recount of his district? As many as sixteen county recounts for only one district?
And one can only wonder about how many different voting systems, electronic or otherwise, must inhabit this murky landscape of "sophisticated democracy".
What a tangled web has been spun ...
... bluebear 2	said on 5/3/2006 @ 8:03 am PT...
Ricky back to meaningless comments agin [sic] I see.
Let me add another name to your list: John Doolittle.
Oh ya - let's not forget his wife Julie
In regards to the Whitehouse Press Conference, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said. �He is the president of the United States, and he deserves some respect.�
He is not, he does not!
... Bluebear2	said on 5/3/2006 @ 8:09 am PT...
I just found another one! Top CIA Official Under Investigation
Steny Hoyer is wrong. An illegitimate president does not deserve respect. A president who flouts the laws he swore an oath to execute is not entitled to respect.
Hoyer confuses the man with the office. It is the office of the presidency that commands respect; the person holding the office must earn it. Bush has not earned it, and if anyone knows this it's Steny Hoyer, the ultimate Washington insider (his district borders D.C., I believe).
... big dan	said on 5/3/2006 @ 10:02 am PT...
Ney is great! (oops, I thought I was Ricky, sorry)...
Were there pre-election polls to compare to the "final count"?
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
... czaragorn	said on 5/3/2006 @ 10:11 am PT...
Well I remember being a soldier. I understood perfectly that my sole obligation was to carry out legal orders. But the word legal was mighty important - for example, a NORAD commander would surely be bound to disobey an order to, say, nuke Iran without provocation - based solely on its merits, or, rather, lack thereof
... or Cheney's "stand down" orders, when the 9/11 jets flew around for HOURS!!!
I could've shot them down myself, they were flying around so long... too bad our trillions of tax money that went into the greatest defense system, "didn't work"...(wink wink)
... Dredd said on 5/3/2006 @ 11:23 am PT...
IT IS THE FAULT
OF THE GREENS
AND INDEPENDENTS
FOR NOT STOPPING THIS
... Josh	said on 5/3/2006 @ 12:08 pm PT...
Dread, regarding your comment #14,
I can't tell from all your childish smilies if you're serious or not but I'll take it that you are.
How many Green Party members are in the US Congress?
Answer: ZERO
How many independents are in the US Congress?
Answer: ONE
Our one party Republicrat system US Congress is *officially* comprised of Repugs and Dems. Not Greens. I'm speaking of the pro-war Dead Democratic Party which you blindly and unconditionally support. And you continue to do so no matter how much they do FOR Bush and FOR the Repugs. Astounding!
It's time that YOU take RESPONSIBILITY for your own damnable dead party's failures and incompetence since 2000. The DEMS are responsibility for their OWN demise. They willingly gave their "powder" to the Repugs in 2000.
OWN IT. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT. Stop blaming Greens and independents who are NOT even in power. The Repugs and Dems are in power. Unfortunately, most of the time since 2000 the Dems have voted FOR Bush and WITH the Repugs and not as a unified block against Bush and the Repugs. By not taking responsibility for your own dead party's incompetence, miserable failures and owning that, you come off as someone so blinded by your own partisan allegiance to this pro-war dead party that you hold little, if any, credibility.
... czaragorn	said on 5/3/2006 @ 12:25 pm PT...
Thanks for the report, Brad. I see this as a very hopeful omen. The election is still, what, six months away, and as the legal nooses tighten around Ney's neck it should be easy for his democratic opponent to make plenty of hay. I just hope the democrats have either the courage or the integrity (whichever it is that they are lacking - it's kind of hard to say for sure) to actually fight this time around. Letting the pigs steal yet another round of elections would bode ill, indeed, for 08. Keep up your great and tenacious work.
... Steve Joos	said on 5/3/2006 @ 12:39 pm PT...
Actually, elected officials facing legal trouble surviving at the ballot box isn't all that unusual. There has to be some other factors involved, I'm sad to say.
I thought about this a lot in 1996 when Bob Dole was asking where the outrage was. Dumping Clinton over what he did when we forgave less ethical officholders wuld have been insulting.
... Dredd said on 5/3/2006 @ 3:58 pm PT...
Josh #15
Sorry, I do not do UFO politics. I do not do kool aid parties. We can't talk.
I can hear the GOP merlimen out in the Rovian distance yelling "Go Josh Go" ...
But I am only interested in hearing my old time bloggers here who know what is happening.
Your trollishness comes and it goes. But I will not hold your reward from you:
... Josh	said on 5/3/2006 @ 4:54 pm PT...
Dread, regarding you comment #17:
Your childishness, immaturity and arrogance aside, your DENIAL will not save you or protect you. Nor will your "tow the party line at any cost" way of thinking. Unfortunately for you, it's doubtful that you will ever realize that.
I do agree with you on one thing though and that is that we can't talk. I prefer to talk with ADULTS who look at things realistically and objectively, rather than through blatant partisan wishful-thinking and delusional goggles.
My disagreement with Dredd can be put in non-UFO terms.
He wants us to purge our anger at Bush and the Republican Mafia by electing Democrats in 2006 and regaining control of Congress...after which we can proceed with investigations of all that has gone on (and not investigated), and also impeachment. He suggests that criticism of Democrats for not challenging the last two elections and for supporting the war (sic) in Iraq is misappropriating blame for rigged elections and wars based on lies...it's the Republicans' fault, period.
If we think of the G.O.P. as a criminal enterprise (like the Mafia), Dredd's logic fails. Sure, it's all their fault...but that isn't the point. Crooks don't reform themselves; someone else has to arrest them. Maybe the Democrats will do this if we elect them in November, but recent history suggests they won't. They aren't tough cops, and that's what we need to handle criminals.
Democrats' failure to attack election fraud, their willingness to abandon ethics oversight, and their deference to Bush on most major issues tells me they just want to become new captains of the Titanic...so they can make their own deals with their own lobbyists. They're like Republicans were in the 1930s, telling voters "We approve of all these New Deal measures, but we think you should elect us to administer them, 'cause we're better."
We need a new party, new captains, and a new ship. Thomas L. Friedman called for that very thing in yesterday's New York Times.
... brooklynite	said on 5/4/2006 @ 10:20 am PT...
33235 Ohio voters cast their vote for a criminal. I am embarrassed to be an American when 30 thousand people decide that a criminal can serve their interest in the US Congress. How dare they.
... Dredd said on 5/4/2006 @ 12:36 pm PT...
RLM #19
Like Josh the troll you do not explain how your holy warriors of your holy party would be morally superior. Or how that holy superior morality will make a difference.
It is a religious notion, not a political one. I do not take a moral religious "we are better than them" position, but rather a tactical recognition of the structure of congress.
I explain how congress works and you ignore how congress works, imagining it to be a mafia. That is a useless imaginary trip to nowhere.
When you do try to explain, I guess, how congress works you only mention "if" we treat the GOP as a criminal enterprise.
Your unidentified reasoning beyond that is nothing more than "trust me", then, because calling the GOP crooks does not explain "my logic".
My logic recognizes what congress is now, and how it works now. How it works really is more relevant than imagining it to be the mafia.
If you can show me how your holy warriors will get a majority in congress and therefore the ability to do something with their new found morality I will listen.
Otherwise I will continue to point out how empty and hopeless your strategy is.
All you do is say "If we think of the G.O.P. as a criminal enterprise (like the Mafia), Dredd's logic fails". Just by thinking something is what you fancy it as being is a premise. It is not a deduction from a premise.
You have not described my logic, you have expressed a straw man (GOP mafia) and said if you just imagine that, it defeats my logic.
My logic is to explain how congress works. You vote out one majority party and replace it with another majority party. No brainer, no more, no less.
There isn't anything else. Empty pie in the sky UFO tactics that are and have been bankrupt since circa 1859 when congress took on its current configuration.
Even if I were a democrat your logic would still be flawed.
Your unbounded imagination is good for many things, but not a discussion require a mature understanding of how congress works.
You think it depends on a particular campaign party when it would work the same if the whigs and tories were the names of those running for office.
My foundational premise is the rules of how congress works in terms of majority and minority party.
There is no such thing as a party line in that premise nor in deductions from it.
You are clueless and continue to qualify for
Well Hello, Robert Lockwood Mills.
Re: Your comment #19
I agree with you. We do need a new truly progressive party. A second party.
I personally do not support the idea of trying to take back the pro-war Dead Democratic Party, as some people have suggested. That's a waste of time, in my opinion. I'm done with them. And frankly, I do not want to be a member of a party or give any support to a party with people like Afghanistan and Iraq war-profiteer Feinstein among its members. Or other Bush Enablers like Barbara Boxer and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton who voted YES to give Bush his USAPATRIOT Act. (Feinstein also voted YES.) These people are traitors to the US Constitution/Bill of Rights.
... Larry Bergan	said on 5/4/2006 @ 5:07 pm PT...
Josh - If I�m not mistaken you say you are a big fan of Mike Malloy. Mike, of course believes that the Democratic party has abandoned him. I totally agree with him! Mike admits it when he makes a mistake and that is why he is so intelligent. I don�t think ANYBODY knows more then he does about REAL politics and he�s never afraid to be politically incorrect! You must have not been listening lately though because he realizes we have to work with what we have. He�s been saying we have to elect even bad Democrats where necessary this time and work from there for the future. I agree.
Remember, most of the democrats voted NOT to give Monkey Man the power to invade Iraq at his whim. I think ALL of them voted to debate Rush Holts bill about the voting machines. There are many other votes where the Democrats are shown to be human beings. The hard fact is, with the media, courts, congress, etc.. controlled by big money, we will have to be patient. There�s nobody more angry then me at the Democrats for not standing up more, but until we control the voting machines (God I wish we could by November) , they need money from the corporations to win. Howard Dean has endorsed instant runoff voting, and has made strong statements against voting machines. All he can do is throw us carrots at present. He seems to be an honest man, and he IS the head of the DNC.
Hello Larry,
Regarding your comment #24:
You wrote this about Mike Malloy:
"He�s been saying we have to elect even bad Democrats where necessary this time and work from there for the future."
Oh yes, Mike Malloy has been saying that as of late---and it drives me up the fuking wall everytime I hear it---and I strongly disagree with him. He's the best we've got on the air, in my opinion, but I still don't agree with him on everything, especially that nonsense. He wasn't saying that until recently I would point out, for what that's worth. I'm not for voting for bad people and pro-war people. Period. Mike also has a disconnect. He brings up the voting machines and then in the next breath he will say how "we need to get the Dems in" (my response: and how are you going to do that considering the voting machines that you just talked about less than 2 minutes ago, Mike?) And then in the next breath he rails about how dead and worthless the Dems are! So, you want to put dead and worthless people back in office? Go figure.
Mike has also said he will not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008, but I bet just as sure as I'm sitting here that he will do just that if she's propped up.
Mike's of the mentality that he will always be a Democrat. Why he holds to that thinking is beyond me. I got over that back in 2000. I want nothing to do with this dead-ass party. I want a second party.
And as for Howard Dean, don't get me started on him. Whenever I've heard him interviewed on Air America, he seemed clueless as to what's going on. He has sounded as though he never visits progressive websites nor really pays very close attention to what is going on. Randi Rhodes asked him about a few news stories and he hadn't heard about them! I heard him say that "yeah, Ohio was probably stolen in 2004 but there's nothing we can do about it." Are you kidding me, Howard Dean? Nothing we can do about it? What kind of leadership is THAT?
I wonder if this head of the DNC is pleased that his dead party handed Bush injustices Roberts and Alito who are on the bench for life?
Also, Larry, I meant to add this to my previous post.
"Remember, most of the democrats voted NOT to give Monkey Man the power to invade Iraq at his whim."
Larry, MOST of the Senate Dems DID vote for it, including Daschle.
In the Senate, the Dems voted:
29 YES
http://archives.cnn.com/...LPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
And NO Dem in a leadership position has called for all the troops to be brought home NOW.
And I won't even go into the Dems who have voted for war by voting YES to send billions to Iraq (pouring money down a hole!), such as worthless Nancy Pelosi.
... Josh	said on 5/5/2006 @ 1:41 am PT...
Re your comment #27
I'm confused by your second paragraph. You said you were talking about the "congress," and that I'm correct about the Senate. Don't you mean the House? The Congress is comprised of two bodies: The House and the Senate. You seem to be implying that the Senate is a separate body from the Congress. It is not.
I would not say that the politicians are in more danger than we are. They are very well protected and isolated from The People. The politicians are not likely to be rounded up and put in the Bush regime's concentration camps which are being built. And I've read or heard nothing about the Dems being opposed to these concentration camps. The Dems have, as usual, been silent.
Also, the politicians CHOOSE their occupation and if they are realistic about this occupation they are well aware of any and all dangers that come with the job in the first place. No one forces anyone to be a politician. It's THEIR choice.
In addition, these politicians are OUR EMPLOYEES so it is one's duty and one's job as a Patriot to either praise these politicians or criticize them. We pay their generous salaries and provide full health coverage to them and they also get a very generous retirement package. War profiteer Feinstein, for example, is worth millions. She and her billionaire husband just bought a new house here in San Francisco for $6.5 million. Not too bad on a senator's salary, eh?
Too many people in this country look at these millionaire bourgeois elite politicians as celebrities and put them up on some pedestal. I don't. Not at all. Most of them are the scum of the earth as far as I'm concerned. I have no respect or regard for most of them. It's interesting because a Republican relative of mine said the exact same thing to me recently. She's been a strong Bush supporter. Her comment included "all" politicians. I say "most" not "all." But one that comes to mind in particular (other than Bush and the Bush Crime Family) is once again war-profiteer Dianne Feinstein. She has war blood all over her hands from the death and destruction as she and her husband are making millions from Iraq and Afghanistan war contracts. Someone like this corporate political pimp and whore is what I consider the scum of the earth. Of course, since she's up for re-election she now claims that Bush "misled" her on the reasons for attacking Iraq. Liar.
A clarification to my comment #28.
"Most of them are the scum of the earth as far as I'm concerned. I have no respect or regard for most of them."
I am referring, in particular, to the politicians of our pro-war, pro-corporate, one-party system in Washington: The Republicrats and Democans.
... mike	said on 5/5/2006 @ 2:52 am PT...
a pretty lively discussion here. i'm in agreement with you.
i listen to malloy and have noticed what you wrote about him. i'm annoyed by it also.
some people that i know have already left the country and some are now making plans to leave the country. not much of a solution for others, i know, but then again people who really should know better seem to only want to go so far. i steal the following from a book that has meant a great deal to me, but it certainly applies:
half measures (have) availed us nothing.
... Larry Bergan	said on 5/5/2006 @ 3:44 am PT...
Josh #28 - You're right, I got the house mixed up with congress.
Why do some "progressives" resist the will of the people like the republican dictatorship does?
Even the republican dictatorship understands that the people want them out and democrats in:
"RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman met with Republican members of Congress this week to impress upon them just how bad the opinion polls are looking for them, and warning that they face a possible catastrophe in November" (link here, bold added).
Click Here and Support Clint Curtis
... Robert Lockwood Mills said on 5/5/2006 @ 10:44 am PT...
Well, Dredd...Lecturing me on how Congress works isn't helpful, either. I know as well as you do how it works, and how it works is most of the problem.
Have you noticed that as low as Bush's ratings are, Congress is even lower? That isn't just Republicans in Congress at 30% or less, it's Democrats as well.
Both parties are seen as tools of corporate money,
in the pockets of lobbyists, willing to subordinate the public interest to their own interests. Both are thought to play the "go along to get along" game. I agree with all of the above.
Lecturing us on "how Congress works" is basically an endorsement of the two-party system. Except the two-party system sucks. It has given us stolen elections (Democrats accepted them), the war in Iraq (Democrats accepted it), and the abandonment of ethics oversight (Democrats have given up, too).
The two-party system isn't cast in stone. It's an anachronism (you date it from 1859---my date is 1856, but we're close enough). Is a failed system worth perpetuating?
What country similar to ours uses only two parties? Not Canada, not England...who? Why are you so eager to protect the status quo, even as you agree with us that the country is in a mess?
If we had a third party worth the name, then Fox Network wouldn't be able to turn a Bush calamity into, "Why are Democrats divided on ______?" As things stand now, every political debate is like a divorce hearing or a Hatfield-McCoy fight: "He said, she said," "I hate you, too," tit for tat, like an argument in a bar or schoolyard. A third party could remain above the fray, and for the first time in years actually represent the public instead of corporations and their lobbyists.
... Larry Bergan	said on 5/5/2006 @ 12:47 pm PT...
Oh dear! The rath of Josh is on ME now!
There are a lot of people on blogs these days who are practically calling for open revolution. But nobody even knows who they are because they have funny or false names. It�s easy for people to judge the politicians, but remember, they are always in more danger then you are. And no matter how you cut it today, the corporations have them by the balls. Just consider that!
I was talking about congress when I mentioned that most of them voted against giving Bush the power. You�re right about the senate. I don�t know all of the figures, but I�ll bet ALL of the republicans voted TO give him power. I hate to admit it, but I�ve always voted a straight Democratic ticket. I�ll bet you anything, that�s what 90% of people in America do. That�s the reality.
Howard Dean has called for the only thing that will change that. Instant runoff voting! That�s a bold thing for a Democrat to say. He also strongly opposed Roberts and Alito. He is frequently attacked by powerful people in his own party. He isn�t just trying, but succeeding at getting more NEW Democrats to run for office then ever before. He actually got his cousin elected to be a mayor in UTAH, (Peter Caroon). Peter is really cleaning up local politics here! Howard is trying to hold the union together by being tough, but practical, and by having politicians ready to fill the void when the time comes. Give him a break!
I just can�t fault Mike Malloy for anything. I know he doesn�t have all the answers (nobody does), but he always tells the truth and could spot a liar from space. I�m not so sure you would survive too long on his show. I did!
Hello Mike, regarding your comment #30:
I would hope that most real, true progressives would clearly understand that supporting the status quo will NOT result in *progress* (as in "progressive"). Some progressives I've talked with clearly understand that. And then there are those people "who don't want to go there" or who are in denial and engage in wishful thinking or "hope." Hope is nice. Gotta have hope. But delusional is, well, just delusional.
Supporting Republicrats and Democans will result in what we already have. Have many times do some people have to support the "lesser of two evils" to understand that it gets us no where. Or as you astutely write: Half measures.
No, this disaster known as the Bush Dictatorship will not be resolved or corrected through our fraudulent voting system. Our fradulent voting system and these damnable e-voting machines are in place precisely in order to keep the Bush Dictatorship and Repugs in power.
At this point, the only way anything is going to change in this country is through nontraditional means (not through this charade we call "elections") and only when The People in mass have truly had enough and are willing to get off their couch. Otherwise one is just spinning their wheels by voting on e-voting machines and supporting our corrupt, status quo, pro-war, one-party system.
... bvac	said on 5/5/2006 @ 3:23 pm PT...
RLM, right on. Even with the current system, the two party structure was not meant to result in a majority party dictatorship. The minority party was meant to be an opposition party. Key word: opposition. Without a bright alternative to counter them, the Republicans have been given carte blanche to run as far right as they want.
We're not talking about a 99-1 majority. There are enough Democrats to mount a powerful opposition, if they had the will. Our current disasterous situation is a bi-partisan matter.
The Republicans and their corporate, pro-war, anti-democratic allies have led us down this road. We would not be in Iraq if there wasn't a concensus. The 2000 and 2004 elections would not have gone uninvestigated if there was not a concensus. Gerrymandering districts into one party rule would not happen. There would not be arcane election laws to make it as hard as possible for third party, independent, non-establishment candidates to get on the ballot, get funding, or get a debate. Environmental laws would not be overturned. I could, unfortunately, go on.
Funny about that first paragraph. I once ran into a former state senator from here when I was walking down the street with my Impeach Bush sign. He told me I was just �living in a bubble�. I asked him if he was concerned about all the money congress was spending. He told me I didn�t know what I was talking about, because it was only one branch of congress that could even spend money. I told him that obviously he would know more about that then me, but I was sure I had heard many Republicans screaming about the �Democratic congress spending all the money for years�. He didn�t refute it.
He amazed me when I brought up the voting machine question. He got real concerned and absolutely agreed that we had to be very careful. We had a real good, long conversation after that. It was around the time Limbaugh got caught with the oxy-contin because I remember him being a bit embarrased about that.
There was a young boy there about 12 years old who I thought was probably his son. I started talking about Michael Moore and the senator said �who�s that�. The boy started laughing and said �you don�t know who Michael Moore is?� I saw my chance and said �I think YOU�RE the one who�s living in the bubble�. He said he had to get back to work and I said thanks for taking the time to talk with me and started to leave. The boy said �good luck with your sign�and smiled.
You would think I could have remembered that congress is comprised of both the house and senate after that, but obviously you have me there Josh! I don�t know how old you are, but you seem to know a lot about politics and I�m sorry if my last message sounded condescending.
Jesus, you�ve got me defending the politicians again, but concerning the generous salaries you cite, I�ll bet they would toss it all for a chance to make what a basketball player makes. I�ve often thought that we should pay them a lot more, so they wouldn�t be jealous! That way they wouldn�t be trying to make all these backroom deals for thousands and costing us billions just so they could run for office.
I still think we have a big problem here with the third party situation and I think most people would agree, seeing as almost everybody dropped their differences to vote for John Kerry last time. At least we have ONE blog that addresses this issue, and it seems to be picking up steam.
Of course after I talked with the senator, I hoped he would run up to congress or wherever and sound the cry for democratic voting. Damn!
I'll concede one point to Dredd. It's easier to vote for a third-party candidate when you live in a state where the outcome is predetermined. I voted for Nader in 2000 because I knew Gore would carry Connecticut no matter what, and while Gore wasn't my cup of tea, I knew Bush was worse (I never guessed how much worse). That's one advantage of the Electoral College...it allows for protest votes.
But that isn't enough. Congress must reform itself from the ground up, and it won't do it under the current rules. Dredd focuses on the power of the majority to head committees and call for investigations; he's right on his facts, but his solution (put Democrats in charge) won't change the system. It will just put a new captain in charge of the Titanic.
There are problems in Congress that transcend majority/minority factors. Who ever invented the dumb seniority system? It puts dinosaurs like Robert Byrd and Ted Stevens in positions of power (Strom Thurmond was actually in the path of presidential succession at the age of 99!), and it marginalizes younger legislators with fresh ideas. Worst of all, the longer someone lasts on Capitol Hill, the more entrenched he becomes in power, because more people owe him favors. Byrd and Stevens would never be the kings of pork that they are without the seniority system. The seniority system should be scrapped, but will it ever happen with Republicans or Democrats in charge? Never.
... bvac	said on 5/6/2006 @ 10:04 am PT...
More disturbing about Dredd's point of view is that he wants Democrats to take power, but doesn't want them to do the things necessary to make that happen. They need to show that they have the will to do what needs to be done - BEFORE the election. Having good faith in the people to see the wrongs of the Republican leadership is not going to work. This is a repeat of failed 2004 John Kerry strategy: Don't offer a clear alternative, take the safest possible position, and let the Republicans self-destruct.
In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt said that he would be either the best president, or the last president. I feel that is exactly what these congressional races are about. I see hardly anyone campaigning on these issues though, instead it's stuff like "i disagree with this administration, but i respect the presidency", "i think the execution of the war was bungled" and "there wasn't enough pre-war planning". Great, so these guys think Bush didn't conspire to plunge us into war ENOUGH?
There's still plenty of time left to put a real strategy into play, but at this point there is no indication that they will. Just like in 2004, the polls are looking good, the public sentiment is against republicans, democrats are sitting back and watching them collapse, and the grassroots are once again taking the "anybody but bush republicans" way of thinking.
Robert wrote that he never guessed how much worse Bush would be than Gore.
You didn't? Oh I did! The night Bush was selected by the Supremes, I told some friends "Expect the worst. If they will steal an election, they will do anything to stay in power and to accomplish their goals, including steal future elections." Shortly after that, I learned about the PNAC document. I even tried to educate that Bush supporter relative I wrote about in a previous post. Before the 2000 selection, I sent her reams of information in e-mails about Bush/Cheney (Cheney in particular and his voting record in Congress) because Governor Bush didn't have much of a record at that time other than for Texas. My friend deleted half of my e-mails to her without even reading them. Sigh.
Yes, Dread is fixated on and obsessed with this majority/minority factor. To hear Dread tell it, the Dems have no choice whatsoever as to how they will vote on any piece of legislation. To hear Dread tell it, the Dems have had their mouths taped shut and they cannot vigilantly voice their opinions in opposition to Bush and the Repugs every single day of the year through the halls of Congress. To hear Dread tell it, the Repugs dictate to the Dems how to vote and the Dems must vote accordingly like little pansies and all this explains why the pro-war Dead Democratic Party has voted FOR Bush and WITH the Repugs most of the time since 2000. WRONG!
My only rhetorical question to Dread would be:
Do you really think ANYTHING would change if the Dems were in the majority based on their insipid Bush enabling behavior since 2000? I don't think a damn thing would change frankly.
Mike Malloy said last night on his show (not a quote):
Get Dems in there and see ****IF**** they will do what they should do about this disaster (Ed. And I would add the disaster that the Dems have been complicit with and enablers of).
As far as I'm concerned, to hell with that! The Dems have had enough chances and they have failed over and over. I don't buy Malloy's thinking in that regard at all.
I see on Raw Story in an article that Nancy Pelosi is saying that she voted against the war. What she conveniently fails to say is that she has repeatedly voted FOR the appropriations to send billions to Iraq. That's pro-war, Nancy Pelosi. Sending billions to Iraq CONTINUES the war, rather than calling for bringing all the troops home NOW. You're supposed to be a *leader" Nancy Pelosi.
For a long time, I've noticed that when I've heard Dems interviewed they seemed to be out-of-touch with The People. Repeatedly I have been left with the impression from hearing many Dems in Congress that they don't visit progressive news websites. They don't know about some important things that they are asked about in various interviews...news stories that I had read about that very day or fairly recently on some progresssive news website. (Have you ever heard the Dems mention the PNAC document which is the blueprint of the illegitimate Bush regime? Why don't they? Why don't they talk about page 51 of the PNAC document which speaks of needing a new "Pearl Harbor" which we conveniently had on September 11th 2001. I've only heard Kucinich mention the PNAC document, but only after he was asked about it!) Then, it all came to light. So recently I saw an article where Nancy Pelosi was instructing the Dems how to blog and telling them what a blog is. (LOL...What fuking rock have these politicians been under?) She instructed them on what a "post" is and how to post. I kid you not. Good lord, people! I really did not know that these worthless politicians were THAT far out-of-touch and out of it that they don't even know what a blog is and how to write a fuking post! I can understand if someone in poverty is not online and cannot use the Internet. But these wealthy politicians of the Washington bourgeois elite? Just Incredible. I guess they've been too busy partying and lobbying with their corporate friends (at the Dems choosing, mind you) to do anything online. I guess they set up their partying by phone. It really said a lot about where they are and where they have been since 2000. Astounding!
I think we can all agree that BOTH major parties have blacked out any talk of the voting machines.
What have any third party candidates said without being asked?
Hello Larry, regarding your comment #40
You asked what have any third party candidates said without being asked about e-voting?
Well, for example: Dr Bob Fitrakis, the Green Party candidate running for Governor in Ohio is absolutely vigilant on this issue. Bob and his running mates were principals in the challenge waged by the Green Party to recount the votes in Ohio after the 2004 "election." Do I think he has a chance of winning? HELL NO.
The SEP have written several articles about the rigged/stolen elections but they are not vigilant on it, unfortunately, and that's one of the problems I have with the SEP. Whenever they write an article about elections, in my opinion, the problems about e-voting should be in there. I wrote to them and gave them many links to bradblog.com to educate them on the approaching e-voting trainwreck. They thanked me and said they would read them.