GOP's Shameful Vote Strategy

[New2u]

Washington Post column by Harold Meyerson

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A707-2004Oct26.html

With Election Day almost upon us, it's not clear whether President Bush is running a campaign or plotting a coup d'etat. By all accounts, Republicans are spending these last precious days devoting nearly as much energy to suppressing the Democratic vote as they are to mobilizing their own.

Time was when Republicans were at least embarrassed by their efforts to keep African Americans from the polls. Republican consultant Ed Rollins was all but drummed out of the profession after his efforts to pay black ministers to keep their congregants from voting in 1993...

The old Republican habits are with us again.

As Meyerson says, "...As the campaign ends, Bush is playing to the right and Kerry to the center."

[venray]

:rolleyes:

[Mitchell]

This is disgraceful. Then again, after what the Republicans did in 2000, how they berated Clinton by shutting the government down, investigating him for sex, and impeaching him because he lied about sex, nothing surprises me. George Bush will do anything to win the election.
As we know, the election is still very close. I know venray doesnt believe in polls, but the latest ones I've heard claim a consistent Kerry lead in Ohio, a tie to a swing toward a Kerry lead in my state of PA, and a decent sized Bush lead in Florida. I was watching respected political commentator Bill Schneider on CNN this morning, and he claimed that whoever wins two of the three states, wins the election. Bush is clearly freaked out over PA, as he has been here 42 times, and has more visits planned before the election. Kerry needs to keep PA and win Ohio, because it would seem that Fl is his least likely pickup state. If he keeps both, it will probably be bye bye Bush on Tuesday. If not, Bush probably wins. Considering that those three swing states are 70 to 75 electoral votes, and the other big ones are probably either solid Bush, or for the most part, as in the case of the biggest states, NY and CA, solid Kerry, these states will decide things. It will be a nailbiting four days, and hopefully things will work out okay with a Kerry win on Tuesday.

Mitch

[venray]

No..It's Kerry that will do anything to win an election..even getting Sprinsteen to play whilst he dons a Redsox cap........:rolleyes:

Or perhaps by pushing for provisional ballots in all swing states, allowing people to vote who may not be eligible, and having lawyers standing by to assure that these invalid votes are counted....

Pretty much the only way he will win anything....just in the same manner that Gore tried to win...in 2000.

And why must Clinton be brought up in every thread when he has nothing to do with any of this. He was a liar, an adulterer, and impeached as he should have been for disgracing the oval office...


http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/9908073.htm

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1096363888102440.xml



Ven

[Mitchell]

ray, I strongly disagree with you, and I bring up Clinton because of the ridiculousness of why he was impeached. What Clinton lied about was a matter of sex, pure, and simple. His "lie" did not result in a war where 1100 soldiers are dead. (I know you hate for me to bring up the reality, but it is the truth) Clinton's lie and problems were not the American people's business, and had nothing to do with his official title as president. Bush misled about WMD's, and has destroyed our credibility in the world. Iraq is a mess, it gets worse every day, and isnt going to get better unless a new president is in there. John Kerry can bring our allies to the table.
The bottom line is that if Bush gets it again, we will have four more years of a mess in Iraq, with no aid from foreign nations, and continued casualities. Bottom line: Most people are worse off than they were four years ago, and when that happens, a president should lose his job. Bush 41 just had a bad economy, and he lost the election. He didnt have the Iraq fiasco as well. I have heard Iraqis on TV say that things over there are so screwed up, that some of them wish Saddam was still in power. Bush is a miserable failure, plain and simple, on the economy, jobs, the war, and everything. I would sooner have a president where the country is doing well like Clinton who lies about sex, then one like Bush who creates this mess. God, I hope Bush loses on Tuesday, because I shudder to think about what Iraq and our country will look like with 4 more years of him.

Mitch
Oh, and one more thing, as long as you brought up how Gore "tried" to win. Gore was the rightful winner of that election, plain and simple. I wasnt going to bring that up, but as long as you did, then I will. Being president because the Surpreme Court stopped counting of votes in Florida is a pretty sorry way to get into office. I was going to forgive Bush for that, and wanted to try and give him a chance, but the way he has conducted this war is just absolutely pitiful, so I cant support him.

[venray]

Mich..the fact is that Clinton was proven a liar..with facts not inuendo. If you want to support an adulterer and hold himus as a hero...good for you. That is your right..I dare say that the majority of American people will not feel the same.

And of course if Kerry gets in the boys will all be home by next Christmas and peace will reign throughout the world? Not a chance. There wont even be peace here in the US when the American people find out that he cannot possibly put many of his "plans" in action without taxing us all to death.

Been there done that Mitch..over and over. Time will tell. Less than a week in fact before we find out just what the majority of Americans really think. Only the nuts like us are vocal about things political. The majority have always been and will always remain silent....they will let their votes do the talking.


Gore was not the rightful winner for many reasons, but first and formost he did not get enough electoral votes.

[Mitchell]

Ray, you are wrong about that. I know you dont believe in polls, but Clinton had a 60% approval rating upon leaving office, showing that many people didnt give a rat's butt about what he did in his sex life, and focused in on his offical oath and duties as President of the United States.
Also, think about what would have happened in 2000 if the election had been the other way around. If Bush had been the one disputing it instead of Gore, he, his daddy, Cheney, and James Baker would have sent lawyers galore to fight for his cause, and he would have had every right to. Gore's actions in 2000 were completely correct. The fact is that the Supreme Court stopped those counts, and gave the election to Bush because they were partisan. Also, and this is my argument in favor of getting rid of the Electoral College, Bush's presidency was not the will of the people, as Gore won by 500,000 votes. I have heard stories on TV that in this election, the opposite that happened in 2000 could happen this year, where Bush may well win the popular vote, and lose the electoral college if Kerry hangs on to states like PA and Ohio. That would be poetic justice if you ask me, then we'll see how many of you Republicans will be screaming to get rid of the electoral college.
As for me supporting a "liar and adulterer" as you called Clinton, yes, I did think he was a good president in his official capacity, certainly a hell of a lot better than Bush. That is my right and perspective, just as it is your right to support a president who causes a war by misleading about WMD's. That is America, we have freedom to support our candidates, and we dont have to agree. I see that we are living in the most divided country in history, since the Civil War, and no matter who is president and wins this election, 50% of the people arent going to like it.

Mitch

[New2u]

venray1 said, "..the fact is that Clinton was proven a liar..with facts not inuendo. If you want to support an adulterer and hold himus as a hero..."

Mitchell, there is a video out now called, "The Hunting of the President" which exposed a scheme(s) by Republicans and Clinton enemies from Arkansas to destroy Clinton and his Presidency. I'm not saying that Clinton didn't deserve some of the stuff thrown at him on Monica Lewinksy but Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, hired by the Republicans should have been indicted himself for his attempt to inimidate witnesses and his continual "fishing" expeditions to find something on Clinton. The Special prosecutor law, enacted by the watergate scandle was politically used by the Republicans in a criminal fashion to "get" Clinton at any cost.

oops, sorry Ray, I forgot, Republicans aren't "adulterers" they are always the "good" guys trying to save America...from "them" (pick whoever the GOP doesn't like at that time) But one question, if you can answer it, what did Monica Lewinsky have to do with the "Whitewater" investigation?

Mitch, Let's wish Kerry all the luck in the world that after November 2nd, we'll be refering to him as "President Elect" John Kerry.

[venray]

Never said adultery was a partisan thing...just said I dont support it. To each their own.......

I dont support anyone who would disgrace the office....Nixon comes to mind....Didnt vote for him.....didnt trust his record...

Difference between Bush and Gore in 2000 Mitch, is that Bush would NOT have used lawyers to try and win. He would have accepted the loss.

As for winning by 500,000 popular votes? The numbers I have seen quoted are around 150,000...be that as it may, not all of the votes were counted. Hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots were not tallied as certain states have laws that say they need not be if the # of outstanding ballots would not change the overall result. Others were not counted because they were not postmarked, not taking into effect that the military doesnt postmark it's mail, and a large % of military voters supported Bush at that time (and still do)

We will never know what the actual popular vote count really was in an election that was as close as that one, so to say Gore won by popular vote is "misleading."

As for the war, Bush was not the "cause" of it. World events were. Someone with your education should know better I would think than to make such a statement.

As for "misleading us about WMD's"...nope. He truly believed at the time that they were there and a danger in Saddam's hands. That is no misleading or lying as Kerry would have you believe.....

You are wrong about one other thing....It will be slightly less than 50 % or slightly more who are pissed after all is said and done on the 2'nd....no 50/50 black & white split here. There are many grey areas to be considered as well.

I personally will not be pissed if Kerry wins....I survived 8 years of Clinton, I can survive 4 of Kerry and the American people will then wake up....if they have not already done so......

Good luck to all.......nothing more for me to say other than I voted for Kerry once for Senate when I lived in Massachusetts...I will NEVER vote for a man with his character again...."Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me..."


Ray
;)