Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
But Bush can't have it both ways. He can't say "I'm ahead, and the purpose of any rccount is to put you ahead," and then, when Gore choses his best counties, complain that the recount omits counties favorable to him. Joel Blau David Shemano wrote: Boies is being disingenuous. The statute provides that the country canvassing board should do a manual recount if there is an error in the vote tabulation "which could affect the outcome of the election." Now think about this. You are George Bush. You are ahead. Why would you ask for a recount, if the only way you can get a recount is if the error "could affect the outcome of the election," meaning that the recount would have to show that Gore would win? Therefore, under the statute, Bush may not have even been entitled to a manual recount in Republican counties -- which all goes to show the absurdity of allowing losing candidates to pick and choose county manual recounts in a statewide election.David Shemano -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Joel Blau Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 5:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5829] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting) No, it is not completely cynical. As Boies argued this morning on the issue of a broader recount, it is not the plaintiff's responsibility to protect Bush from the incompetence of his own lawyers. Joel Blau David Shemano wrote: Here are the facts, more than you are ever going to want to know. Under Florida law, any candidate may request a manual recount within a county within the later of 72 hours after the election or when the county canvassing board certifies the results to the Secretary of State. Upon the request, the board has the discretion to do a 1% sample manual recount. If it does so, and discovers an "error in the vote tabulation" that could affect the election, then it must either (1) correct the error in the 1% and do a mechanical recount for the remainder of the county, (2) have the Secretary verify the software, or (3) manually recount all ballots. The Secretary of State took the position that "error in the vote tabulation" means a defect in the equipment or software. Gore, and ultimately the Florida Supreme Court, took the position that "error in the vote tabulation" includes any difference between the mechanical count and the manual recount, which will always exist if you use punch ballots, because of the problem of hanging chads. In any event, Gore had the opportunity to request a manual recount in each of the 67 counties, or even only the dozens of counties that used punch ballots. However, he was not looking for "defects" or irregularities in the equipment (because none existed), he was simply looking for instances where the machines were not counting hanging chads and dimples. The "undervote" rate in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade were not significantly different than the dozens of other punch card counties, but they were the large Democratic counties and the remaining counties were Republican strongholds. Furthermore, after the Secretary certified the election, and Gore filed the "contest" portion of his challenge, he took the position that the court could only examine and recount the specific ballots that he (Gore) contested. Therefore, although he could have made the commonsense argument that there were over a 100,000 undervotes in an election decided by 500 votes, he made the argument that there were 13,000 undervotes in Palm Beach and Miami-Dade, and the court should pay no attention that there were tens of thousands of identical undervotes in Republican counties. He made the same argument this morning to the Florida Supreme Court. Completely cynical. In the abstract, I don't blame Gore for litigating under the circumstances. But the original question was why Republicans are not wishy-washy about the issue. I hope this explains why. David Shemano -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of kelley Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5780] Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting) correct me if i'm wrong, but if memory serves, there wasn't an option for a statewide manual recount, at first. there was an option for a statewide machine recount. and there was the possibility of challenging the result in particular counties. borehead's team (and shrubya's) already knew their strategies and the intricacies of state law well in advance, shrubya probably more than borehead because he was predicted to be in the boat borehead found himself in. the first thing bore's team did was scour the state in search of voting problems. (TNR covered this quite thoroughly). they then looked for grounds upon which to ask for the manual recount. if you know better, i'd appreciate it you could point me to facts
Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
correct me if i'm wrong, but if memory serves, there wasn't an option for a statewide manual recount, at first. there was an option for a statewide machine recount. and there was the possibility of challenging the result in particular counties. borehead's team (and shrubya's) already knew their strategies and the intricacies of state law well in advance, shrubya probably more than borehead because he was predicted to be in the boat borehead found himself in. the first thing bore's team did was scour the state in search of voting problems. (TNR covered this quite thoroughly). they then looked for grounds upon which to ask for the manual recount. if you know better, i'd appreciate it you could point me to facts otherwise, but i believe you have to challenge on a county basis, since voting is a local control issue. i don't believe a statewide recount was an option unless he had evidence of some statewide problem. since elections are a local affair, it would have been unlikely that such irregularities would have been rooted at the level of the state. my county, pinellas, is heavily democratic and there were problems here. he could have asked for a manual recount here, too. but i think they chose not to because they could only chose four. similarly, he could have asked for hand recounts where there was plenty of evidence of racially motivated impediments to voting, but he didn't pursue that tack. in general, in the game of politics, as you suggest, why should anyone do something that doesn't keep their advantage just to appear noble? but, more specifically, given what you said about being sympathetic, if you were a pol who was convinced that you would have won without nader taking some of your votes, wouldn't you all that you could do to turn things in your favor, particularly if everything you were doing was provided for according to the law? and, barring that, were you convinced that you would have won had it not been for the weird votes for obscure third party candidates in two counties, wouldn't you have picked heavily leaning dem counties? wouldn't you want to push the stats back on your side, as fate seemed to have pushed them to the other guy's side? and even absent those things that make you certain you are the righful winner, wouldn't you still wish to ensure that you won simply because you believe you ought to, particularly since the vote was so damn close in this state that a statistical blip in the other direction would have turned it your way. i hate the guy. but when i think about it in that way, his actions certainly weren't stupid or extralegal or even grossly unfair. i can't imagine any reason why anyone in the game of politics should be noble since, as you say, that's simply giving the other guy the advantage. in hindsight, the option of a statewide manual recount seems reasonable, but at the time it simply was not clear that this was an option--especially since i think that one just doesn't ask the state to recount, but has to ask each county, unless the problem you identify originates at the level of the state b.o.e. politicians are a slimey lot, but most of them really think they're what the world needs--in their mind, they *should* try to win. A comment - has anybody met/seen/talked with/heard or heard of a single Republican who doesn't stand solidly on Bush's side in this dispute? Why is it that the Democrats are wishy-washy on Gore, while the Republicans are hard-core for Bush? Perhaps they have a clearer vision. Barry Since you asked, I am a conservative who lurks on this list, so I can give you my opinion. I actually was sympathetic to Gore for the first day or two. The fact that he won the national popular vote, and was only behind by several hundred votes in a state in which Nader received 92,000 votes, were hard to ignore. But then he lost me. Instead of immediately requesting a state-wide manual recount, he asked for a manual recount in four Democratic counties, and then started suing the Democratic canvassing boards if they either refused to do a manual recount, or refused to count the dimple ballots. He then turns Kathryn Harris into Ken Starr, simply because she was doing her job. (I am a lawyer and have followed this closely. She may be a partisan, but she did nothing wrong and did not deserve the treatment she received.) In other words, instead of playing fair, Gore played power politics. And if he was going to play power politics, then all was fair on the Bush side. I do not know what Bush could have done differently. He was ahead -- was he supposed to voluntarily change the rules to make victory more difficult? If Gore had requested a statewide manual recount on November 9, he would have had the moral upper hand, and I would have supported him. But if he did that, he probably would have lost, so he chose the "count every Democratic vote" strategy. He deserved to lose after that. And
RE: Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
Title: Here are the facts, more than you are ever going to want to know. Under Florida law, any candidate may request a manual recount within a county within the later of 72 hours after the election or when the county canvassing board certifies the results to the Secretary of State. Upon the request, the board has the discretion to do a 1% sample manual recount. If it does so, and discovers an "error in the vote tabulation" that could affect the election, then it must either (1) correct the error in the 1% and do a mechanical recount for the remainder of the county, (2) have the Secretary verify the software, or (3) manually recount all ballots.The Secretary of State took the position that "error in the vote tabulation" means a defect in the equipment or software. Gore, and ultimately the Florida Supreme Court, took the position that "error in the vote tabulation" includes any difference between the mechanical count and the manual recount, which will always exist if you use punch ballots, because of the problemof hanging chads. In any event, Gore had the opportunity to request a manual recount in each of the 67 counties, or even only the dozens of counties that used punch ballots. However, he was not looking for "defects" or irregularities in the equipment (because none existed), he was simply looking for instances where the machines were not counting hanging chads and dimples. The "undervote" rate in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade were not significantly different than the dozens of other punch card counties, but they were the large Democratic counties and the remaining counties were Republican strongholds. Furthermore, after the Secretary certified the election, and Gore filed the "contest" portion of his challenge, he took the position that the court could only examine and recount the specific ballots that he (Gore) contested. Therefore, although he could have made the commonsense argument that there were over a 100,000 undervotes in an election decided by 500 votes, he made the argument that there were 13,000 undervotes in Palm Beach and Miami-Dade, and the court should pay no attention that there were tens of thousands of identical undervotes in Republican counties. He made the same argument this morning to the Florida Supreme Court. Completely cynical. In the abstract, I don't blame Gore for litigating under the circumstances. But the original question was why Republicans are not wishy-washy about the issue. I hope this explains why. David Shemano -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of kelleySent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:52 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L:5780] Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)correct me if i'm wrong, but if memory serves, there wasn't an option for astatewide manual recount, at first. there was an option for a statewidemachine recount. and there was the possibility of challenging the resultin particular counties. borehead's team (and shrubya's) already knew theirstrategies and the intricacies of state law well in advance, shrubyaprobably more than borehead because he was predicted to be in the boatborehead found himself in.the first thing bore's team did was scour the state in search of votingproblems. (TNR covered this quite thoroughly). they then looked forgrounds upon which to ask for the manual recount. if you know better, i'dappreciate it you could point me to facts otherwise, but i believe you haveto challenge on a county basis, since voting is a local control issue. idon't believe a statewide recount was an option unless he had evidence ofsome statewide problem. since elections are a local affair, it would havebeen unlikely that such irregularities would have been rooted at the levelof the state. my county, pinellas, is heavily democratic and there wereproblems here. he could have asked for a manual recount here, too. but ithink they chose not to because they could only chose four. similarly, hecould have asked for hand recounts where there was plenty of evidence ofracially motivated impediments to voting, but he didn't pursue that tack.in general, in the game of politics, as you suggest, why should anyone dosomething that doesn't keep their advantage just to appear noble?but, more specifically, given what you said about being sympathetic, if youwere a pol who was convinced that you would have won without nader takingsome of your votes, wouldn't you all that you could do to turn things inyour favor, particularly if everything you were doing was provided foraccording to the law?and, barring that, were you convinced that you would have won had it notbeen for the weird votes for obscure third party candidates in twocounties, wouldn't you have picked heavily leaning dem counties? wouldn'tyou want to push the stats back on your side, as fate seemed to have push
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
No, it is not completely cynical. As Boies argued this morning on the issue of a broader recount, it is not the plaintiff's responsibility to protect Bush from the incompetence of his own lawyers. Joel Blau David Shemano wrote: Here are the facts, more than you are ever going to want to know. Under Florida law, any candidate may request a manual recount within a county within the later of 72 hours after the election or when the county canvassing board certifies the results to the Secretary of State. Upon the request, the board has the discretion to do a 1% sample manual recount. If it does so, and discovers an "error in the vote tabulation" that could affect the election, then it must either (1) correct the error in the 1% and do a mechanical recount for the remainder of the county, (2) have the Secretary verify the software, or (3) manually recount all ballots. The Secretary of State took the position that "error in the vote tabulation" means a defect in the equipment or software. Gore, and ultimately the Florida Supreme Court, took the position that "error in the vote tabulation" includes any difference between the mechanical count and the manual recount, which will always exist if you use punch ballots, because of the problem of hanging chads. In any event, Gore had the opportunity to request a manual recount in each of the 67 counties, or even only the dozens of counties that used punch ballots. However, he was not looking for "defects" or irregularities in the equipment (because none existed), he was simply looking for instances where the machines were not counting hanging chads and dimples. The "undervote" rate in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade were not significantly different than the dozens of other punch card counties, but they were the large Democratic counties and the remaining counties were Republican strongholds. Furthermore, after the Secretary certified the election, and Gore filed the "contest" portion of his challenge, he took the position that the court could only examine and recount the specific ballots that he (Gore) contested. Therefore, although he could have made the commonsense argument that there were over a 100,000 undervotes in an election decided by 500 votes, he made the argument that there were 13,000 undervotes in Palm Beach and Miami-Dade, and the court should pay no attention that there were tens of thousands of identical undervotes in Republican counties. He made the same argument this morning to the Florida Supreme Court. Completely cynical. In the abstract, I don't blame Gore for litigating under the circumstances. But the original question was why Republicans are not wishy-washy about the issue. I hope this explains why. David Shemano -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of kelley Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5780] Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting) correct me if i'm wrong, but if memory serves, there wasn't an option for a statewide manual recount, at first. there was an option for a statewide machine recount. and there was the possibility of challenging the result in particular counties. borehead's team (and shrubya's) already knew their strategies and the intricacies of state law well in advance, shrubya probably more than borehead because he was predicted to be in the boat borehead found himself in. the first thing bore's team did was scour the state in search of voting problems. (TNR covered this quite thoroughly). they then looked for grounds upon which to ask for the manual recount. if you know better, i'd appreciate it you could point me to facts otherwise, but i believe you have to challenge on a county basis, since voting is a local control issue. i don't believe a statewide recount was an option unless he had evidence of some statewide problem. since elections are a local affair, it would have been unlikely that such irregularities would have been rooted at the level of the state. my county, pinellas, is heavily democratic and there were problems here. he could have asked for a manual recount here, too. but i think they chose not to because they could only chose four. similarly, he could have asked for hand recounts where there was plenty of evidence of racially motivated impediments to voting, but he didn't pursue that tack. in general, in the game of politics, as you suggest, why should anyone do something that doesn't keep their advantage just to appear noble? but, more specifically, given what you said about being sympathetic, if you were a pol who was convinced that you would have won without nader taking some of your votes, wouldn't you all that you could do to turn things in your favor, particularly if everything you were doing was provided for according to the law? and, barring that, were you convinced that you would have won had it not been f
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
Boies
is being disingenuous. The statute provides that the country canvassing
board should do a manual recount if there is an error in the vote tabulation
"which could affect the outcome of the election." Now think about
this. You are George Bush. You are ahead. Why would you ask
for a recount, if the only way you can get a recount is if the error "could
affect the outcome of the election," meaning that the recountwould have to
show that Gore would win? Therefore, under the statute, Bush may not have
even been entitled to a manual recount in Republican counties -- which all goes
to show the absurdity of allowing losing candidates to pick and choose county
manual recounts in a statewide election.
David
Shemano
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Joel BlauSent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 5:23
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L:5829] Re:
RE: Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)No, it
is not completely cynical. As Boies argued this morning on the issue of a
broader recount, it is not the plaintiff's responsibility to protect Bush from
the incompetence of his own lawyers.
Joel Blau
David Shemano wrote:
Here are the facts, more than you are ever going to want to know.
Under Florida law, any candidate may request a manual recount within a
county within the later of 72 hours after the election or when the county
canvassing board certifies the results to the Secretary of State. Upon
the request, the board has the discretion to do a 1% sample manual
recount. If it does so, and discovers an "error in the vote
tabulation" that could affect the election, then it must either (1) correct
the error in the 1% and do a mechanical recount for the remainder of the
county, (2) have the Secretary verify the software, or (3) manually recount
all ballots.
The Secretary of State took the position that "error in the vote
tabulation" means a defect in the equipment or software. Gore, and
ultimately the Florida Supreme Court, took the position that "error in the
vote tabulation" includes any difference between the mechanical count
and the manual recount, which will always exist if you use punch ballots,
because of the problem of hanging chads. In any event, Gore had the
opportunity to request a manual recount in each of the 67 counties, or even
only the dozens of counties that used punch ballots. However, he was
not looking for "defects" or irregularities in the equipment (because none
existed), he was simply looking for instances where the machines were not
counting hanging chads and dimples. The "undervote" rate in Volusia,
Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade were not significantly different than
the dozens of other punch card counties, but they were the large Democratic
counties and the remaining counties were Republican strongholds.
Furthermore, after the Secretary certified the election, and Gore filed
the "contest" portion of his challenge, he took the position that the court
could only examine and recount the specific ballots that he (Gore)
contested. Therefore, although he could have made the commonsense
argument that there were over a 100,000 undervotes in an election decided by
500 votes, he made the argument that there were 13,000 undervotes in Palm
Beach and Miami-Dade, and the court should pay no attention that there were
tens of thousands of identical undervotes in Republican counties. He
made the same argument this morning to the Florida Supreme Court.
Completely cynical.
In the abstract, I don't blame Gore for litigating under the
circumstances. But the original question was why Republicans are not
wishy-washy about the issue. I hope this explains why.
David Shemano
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of kelley Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:52 AM To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5780] Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem
Behavior (e.g., voting)
correct me if i'm wrong, but if memory serves, there wasn't an option for
a statewide manual recount, at first. there was an option for a
statewide machine recount. and there was the possibility of
challenging the result in particular counties. borehead's team
(and shrubya's) already knew their strategies and the intricacies of
state law well in advance, shrubya probably more than borehead because
he was predicted to be in the boat borehead found himself in.
the first thing bore's team did was scour the state in search of voting
problems. (TNR covered this quite thoroughly). they then
looked for grounds upon which to ask for the manual recount. if
you know better, i'd
RE: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
I have no problem at all w/your being here, but I have to say I am curious as to why. mbs Since you asked, I am a conservative who lurks on this list, . . .
GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
notice, david shemano (the conservative who was brave enough to comment in this nest of thieves) that the leftie cut you down quickly by not even deigning to remember your name. that's par social etiquette for lefties, but please don't be piqued by their insolence. just remember that they've been rolled so often and so long that their natural instinct is to shoot first and ask questions later. conservatives, having had the upper hand for 1000 years, can afford to magnanimously turn the other cheek. centrist -Original Message- From: Rob Schaap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 10:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5665] Re: RE: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting) Dear conservative lurker (apologies for losing your name), Since you asked, I am a conservative who lurks on this list, . . . Lurk not, brave sir! Tell us why the economy's healthy. Or why it's not. Or what, in the heady dynamics around and within us, represents the status quo to which you are committed enough to call yourself a conservative. I'm not being rhetorical (though I admit years on mailing lists has a way of making one's every word look it), I wanna know! I have it in me, too, y'see. Hate it when they move the furniture, reckon popular music just doesn't cut it these days, and am sure the only thing that has actually got better in the last thirty years is the consistency of Continental CuppaSoup ... also wary of Utopians, think Ed Burke had some good points, and share Oakeshott's fear of narrow rationalism. But I just don't see where the likes of Sowell, Rand or The Shrub offer succuour. Noblesse oblige is not even a myth any more, and neoliberalism seems a most radical programme to me (yeah, it may have been warming us towards boiling point for decades now, like that frog in the saucepan, but what dramatic changes the last three deades have wrought, eh?) Cheers, Rob.
Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
At 10:46 AM 12/6/00 -0500, you wrote: notice, david shemano (the conservative who was brave enough to comment in this nest of thieves) that the leftie cut you down quickly by not even deigning to remember your name. that's par social etiquette for lefties, but please don't be piqued by their insolence. just remember that they've been rolled so often and so long that their natural instinct is to shoot first and ask questions later. conservatives, having had the upper hand for 1000 years, can afford to magnanimously turn the other cheek. norm, it's important to note that Rob apologized for losing his name. -Original Message- From: Rob Schaap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 10:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5665] Re: RE: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting) Dear conservative lurker (apologies for losing your name), Since you asked, I am a conservative who lurks on this list, . . . Lurk not, brave sir! Tell us why the economy's healthy. Or why it's not. Or what, in the heady dynamics around and within us, represents the status quo to which you are committed enough to call yourself a conservative. I'm not being rhetorical (though I admit years on mailing lists has a way of making one's every word look it), I wanna know! I have it in me, too, y'see. Hate it when they move the furniture, reckon popular music just doesn't cut it these days, and am sure the only thing that has actually got better in the last thirty years is the consistency of Continental CuppaSoup ... also wary of Utopians, think Ed Burke had some good points, and share Oakeshott's fear of narrow rationalism. But I just don't see where the likes of Sowell, Rand or The Shrub offer succuour. Noblesse oblige is not even a myth any more, and neoliberalism seems a most radical programme to me (yeah, it may have been warming us towards boiling point for decades now, like that frog in the saucepan, but what dramatic changes the last three deades have wrought, eh?) Cheers, Rob. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/05/00 02:11PM MK: I disagree. I think most folks take the outrages of the GOP for granted. They are shameless in their shamefulness. Michael K. Yes, they are. But it doesn't seem to hurt them. Can you imagine the Democrats successfully doing to Bush what was done to Clinton? For example, a la Whitewater: Having a leftist civil servant accuse Bush of crimes while governor of Texas. Having the Democrats successfully make this a federal issue. Having the Democrats in Congress get a Democratic law firm to investigate, which clears Bush of any criminal involvement (a la Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro). Continuing the investigation regardless, getting a Democrat appointed by the GOP AG as a special prosecutor. When the special prosecutor clears Bush, successfully getting him replaced with another Democrat, and proceeding with the investigation. Keeping the investigation going for six more years. I can't. A year ago, I believed the story that the GOP's whacko behavior was leading to their political destruction. Now, I don't believe that that's so (or at least, that it will do so before they do far more damage). ( CB: Both Dems and Repubs are parties of big business, but Repubs are the favored of the two. Overall, the Repubs have more power than the Dems. Look how Wallstreet keeps signalling for Bush.
Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/05/00 02:13PM A comment - has anybody met/seen/talked with/heard or heard of a single Republican who doesn't stand solidly on Bush's side in this dispute? Why is it that the Democrats are wishy-washy on Gore, while the Republicans are hard-core for Bush? Perhaps they have a clearer vision. (( CB: Yea, Repubs are more like stormtroopers, hard-core.
RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
Dear conservative lurker (apologies for losing your name), Since you asked, I am a conservative who lurks on this list, . . . Lurk not, brave sir! Tell us why the economy's healthy. Or why it's not. Or what, in the heady dynamics around and within us, represents the status quo to which you are committed enough to call yourself a conservative. I'm not being rhetorical (though I admit years on mailing lists has a way of making one's every word look it), I wanna know! I have it in me, too, y'see. Hate it when they move the furniture, reckon popular music just doesn't cut it these days, and am sure the only thing that has actually got better in the last thirty years is the consistency of Continental CuppaSoup ... also wary of Utopians, think Ed Burke had some good points, and share Oakeshott's fear of narrow rationalism. But I just don't see where the likes of Sowell, Rand or The Shrub offer succuour. Noblesse oblige is not even a myth any more, and neoliberalism seems a most radical programme to me (yeah, it may have been warming us towards boiling point for decades now, like that frog in the saucepan, but what dramatic changes the last three deades have wrought, eh?) Cheers, Rob. --- I am not sure what your question is, so I will answer as follows. First, I am conservative, so I don't believe in perfection and am willing to defend and conserve imperfection -- I am not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Second, I believe, as an empirical matter, that a political-economic system that encourages and defends private property is more conducive to the achievement of individual human happiness than a system to the contrary, especially because the causes of human happiness are subjective and diverse. Third, I believe, as an empirical matter, that a political-economic system that encourages and defends private property is more conducive to the achievement of the "good life" or the "best life", as I would define it, than a system to the contrary. If you have specific questions, I would be happy to answer as best I can. David Shemano
Re: RE: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
If you have specific questions, I would be happy to answer as best I can. David Shemano How would you rank the following conservatives in terms of importance? 1. J. Edgar Hoover 2. Al Capp 3. Spiro Agnew 4. Oliver North 5. Frank Rizzo 6. Roy Innis 7. Rush Limbaugh 8. Joseph McCarthy 9. Roy Cohn 10. Hukkalaka Meshabob Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/05/00 04:43PM Nathan Newman wrote: One of the areas where the Democrats have clearly and demonstrably moved towards a more progressive position in the last fifteen years is on immigration. Employers love loose immigration regulations, no? Forbes and the WSJ are all in favor of pretty open borders. CB: Sort of a contradiction, because employers also liked Simpson-Mazzoli because it puts immigrant labor in such a precarious position that it is smoother exploiting immigrant laborers, harder for immigrant laborers to fight back. (( Can you come up with an example of a "progressive" move on the part of Dems that goes against the interest of employers? It was nice, however, to see organized labor drop its longstanding nativism. Doug
RE: Re: RE: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
Why mention the lumpenconservatives? In terms of importance in establishing the merits of convervatism, you are forgetting the most important conservatives: 1. Rulers of Soviet Union from 1917 to 1991. 2. Rulers of Eastern European countries from 1945 to 1989. 3. Rulers of North Korea from 194? to present. 4. Rulers of Cuba from 1959 to present. 5. Rulers of China from 1949 to present. 6. Every ruler of an African country since 1960 whoever quoted Marx. Take care, David Shemano -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Louis Proyect Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 1:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5725] Re: RE: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting) If you have specific questions, I would be happy to answer as best I can. David Shemano How would you rank the following conservatives in terms of importance? 1. J. Edgar Hoover 2. Al Capp 3. Spiro Agnew 4. Oliver North 5. Frank Rizzo 6. Roy Innis 7. Rush Limbaugh 8. Joseph McCarthy 9. Roy Cohn 10. Hukkalaka Meshabob Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/06/00 04:45PM Why mention the lumpenconservatives? In terms of importance in establishing the merits of convervatism, you are forgetting the most important conservatives: 1. Rulers of Soviet Union from 1917 to 1991. 2. Rulers of Eastern European countries from 1945 to 1989. 3. Rulers of North Korea from 194? to present. 4. Rulers of Cuba from 1959 to present. 5. Rulers of China from 1949 to present. 6. Every ruler of an African country since 1960 whoever quoted Marx. Take care, David Shemano CB: Are you speaking English ? I think you wrote "conservative" when you should have written "radical".
Re: RE: Re: RE: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
Why mention the lumpenconservatives? In terms of importance in establishing the merits of convervatism, you are forgetting the most important conservatives: 1. Rulers of Soviet Union from 1917 to 1991. 2. Rulers of Eastern European countries from 1945 to 1989. 3. Rulers of North Korea from 194? to present. 4. Rulers of Cuba from 1959 to present. 5. Rulers of China from 1949 to present. 6. Every ruler of an African country since 1960 whoever quoted Marx. Take care, David Shemano Yes, but you neglect the anarcho-conservatives, fascist-conservatives and monarcho-conservatives: 1. Queen Mary 2. Prince Albert 3. Oswald Moseley 4. Marilyn Manson 5. Charles Manson (admittedly liberal on capital punishment, but conservative on race relations) 6. Fred Durst (Limp Bizkit lead singer) 7. David Duke 8. Herman Goering 9. Martin Heidegger 10. J. Montgomery Burns Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
David Shemano wrote: I am not sure what your question is, so I will answer as follows. First, I am conservative, so I don't believe in perfection and am willing to defend and conserve imperfection -- I am not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In this sense I am also a conservative. Over the past 20 years in North America radical policies have been introduced in the name of conservatism that have had the effect, literally, of throwing out the baby. Ten years ago, the Canadian parliament unanimously passed a resolution calling for the elimiination of child poverty by the year 2000. Of course it didn't happen. But more specifically, child poverty increased as a direct consequence of changes in government policies, many of which have been enacted in the name of conservatism and with the proclaimed purpose of encouraging and defending private initiative, etc. One can, of course, justifiably argue that there was nothing genuinely conservative about the policy changes and that in their implementation they didn't in fact pursue their proclaimed purpose, but sought instead to coerce and regulate low-income people. One rationale articulated by one of the drafters of unemployment insurance reform in Canada referred to widely-held *perceptions* that large numbers of people were abusing the system, acknowledged the lack of substance to the perception and went on to recommend sanctions against claimants as a palliative for the hostile perceptions. I've said before that one can't dance with two left feet and I can't see how the "expropriation of private property" offers more than a rhetorical solution to the achievement of the good life. Beyond that, though, I think there's an important issue of how and why it is that under capitalism -- and uniquely under capitalism -- private property comes to refer exclusively to the ownership of things and not to other traditionally established relationships and why it is that the notion of private property couldn't (or shouldn't) evolve to refer, for example, to universal entitlement to a share of social production instead of decaying to refer to the ever more exclusive ownership of an even bigger pile of things (i.e., "intellectual property"). From my perspective, it seems that a major thrust of so-called conservative initiatives over the past 20 years has been to usurp established entitlements to a share of social production in the name of promoting incentives to work and to invest. That is to say, the direction has been to expropriate one kind of private property in the name of narrowly promoting the accumulation of another kind (the ownership of things). Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant Bowen Island, BC
Re: RE: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
Dear conservative lurker (apologies for losing your name), Since you asked, I am a conservative who lurks on this list, . . . Lurk not, brave sir! Tell us why the economy's healthy. Or why it's not. Or what, in the heady dynamics around and within us, represents the status quo to which you are committed enough to call yourself a conservative. I'm not being rhetorical (though I admit years on mailing lists has a way of making one's every word look it), I wanna know! I have it in me, too, y'see. Hate it when they move the furniture, reckon popular music just doesn't cut it these days, and am sure the only thing that has actually got better in the last thirty years is the consistency of Continental CuppaSoup ... also wary of Utopians, think Ed Burke had some good points, and share Oakeshott's fear of narrow rationalism. But I just don't see where the likes of Sowell, Rand or The Shrub offer succuour. Noblesse oblige is not even a myth any more, and neoliberalism seems a most radical programme to me (yeah, it may have been warming us towards boiling point for decades now, like that frog in the saucepan, but what dramatic changes the last three deades have wrought, eh?) Cheers, Rob.
Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
MK: I disagree. I think most folks take the outrages of the GOP for granted. They are shameless in their shamefulness. Michael K. Yes, they are. But it doesn't seem to hurt them. Can you imagine the Democrats successfully doing to Bush what was done to Clinton? For example, a la Whitewater: Having a leftist civil servant accuse Bush of crimes while governor of Texas. Having the Democrats successfully make this a federal issue. Having the Democrats in Congress get a Democratic law firm to investigate, which clears Bush of any criminal involvement (a la Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro). Continuing the investigation regardless, getting a Democrat appointed by the GOP AG as a special prosecutor. When the special prosecutor clears Bush, successfully getting him replaced with another Democrat, and proceeding with the investigation. Keeping the investigation going for six more years. I can't. A year ago, I believed the story that the GOP's whacko behavior was leading to their political destruction. Now, I don't believe that that's so (or at least, that it will do so before they do far more damage). Barry
Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
A comment - has anybody met/seen/talked with/heard or heard of a single Republican who doesn't stand solidly on Bush's side in this dispute? Why is it that the Democrats are wishy-washy on Gore, while the Republicans are hard-core for Bush? Perhaps they have a clearer vision. Barry
Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
For those who don't think that the dispute in Florida is a big deal, consider this: Aside from Bush getting the presidency, we are now (if things go as I predict) going to see: Widespread voting abuse conducted by a party, sufficient to alter a national election. The campaign co-chair rushing to certify an election, and then claiming that the election can't be altered after it was certified. A candidate's brother and the legislature openly discussing the idea of just declaring a winner, and disenfranshising the electorate of a state. And the idea that these abuses deserve a thorough investigation going straight down the tube (unless you think that the GOP will investigate them). In many ways, it's a regression to the days before the civils/voting rights acts of the 1960's. Barry
Re: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
A comment - has anybody met/seen/talked with/heard or heard of a single Republican who doesn't stand solidly on Bush's side in this dispute? Why is it that the Democrats are wishy-washy on Gore, while the Republicans are hard-core for Bush? Perhaps they have a clearer vision. Barry The Democratic Party essentially believes in nothing except winning office, so why would it be capable of galvanizing a nonexistent base? This state of affairs was created by the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC was launched by Gore, Clinton and other disciples of New Republic publisher Marty Peretz shortly after the defeat of Dukakis. It was seen as a way to capture the presidency by going after the Republican Party's base of white middle-class suburbanites. It calculated that Republicanism minus the reactionary social message would appeal to this sector. Clearly this is what accounts for Clinton's success. However, by following this road it cut itself off from those elements of society who were capable of acting in an energized fashion: blacks, students, sections of the labor movement, etc. It probably would have succeeded in winning the last election if Gore had not been so inept and unattractive. Black votes automatically go to the Democrat, it seems. I expect that as the social and economic crisis of late capitalism deepens, the Republican Party will continue to shift to the right. Despite Bush's minstrel show at the convention, the Republican Party ruled Texas with a racist iron fist. When this party shifts to the right, so will the Democrats. This means that if the Republicans run a figure like Pat Buchanan at some point, the Democrats will run somebody opposed to immigration as well but without the creepy rhetoric, just as Tony Blair does today in Great Britain. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
- Original Message - From: "Louis Proyect" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I expect that as the social and economic crisis of late capitalism deepens, the Republican Party will continue to shift to the right. Despite Bush's minstrel show at the convention, the Republican Party ruled Texas with a racist iron fist. When this party shifts to the right, so will the Democrats. This means that if the Republicans run a figure like Pat Buchanan at some point, the Democrats will run somebody opposed to immigration as well but without the creepy rhetoric, just as Tony Blair does today in Great Britain. It's this kind of comment, unsupported by any facts, that makes your whole ideological point seem so empty and wrong-headed. One of the areas where the Democrats have clearly and demonstrably moved towards a more progressive position in the last fifteen years is on immigration. Back in 1986, the Democratic leadership supported the imposition of employer sanctions and other retreats from the 1965 more open immigration position. But when Prop 187 came in California, the official Democratic Party position and almost every major Democratic position was to oppose it. Softening or repeal of anti-immigrant sanctions, restoration of welfare for legal immigrants, and broad-based amnesty for large classes of undocumented immigrants are supported by the top leadership of the Dems, including Clinton. The Dems had a real "Buchanan" wing around conservative union folks a decade ago; that has largely shrunk to a few nuts like the wacko from Youngstown Ohio who is moving towards joining the GOP. Whole state Dem party apparatuses as in California are controlled largely by latino and pro-immigrant allies, with large numbers of the top elected state leadership, including Lieutenant Governor, speakers of the assembly, and chairmanships held by pro-immigrant latinos. One of the bigger wins for unions in the last couple of years from the NLRB was the firm declaration that undocumented workers have protection under labor laws. So where is your evidence of any even incipient rightward shift among Dems on immigration issues. In the last four years, especially, as the results of the latino electoral mobilization of 1996 was fully appreciated, the Dems have been moving in a MORE pro-immigrant stance. -- Nathan Newman
Re: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
So where is your evidence of any even incipient rightward shift among Dems on immigration issues. In the last four years, especially, as the results of the latino electoral mobilization of 1996 was fully appreciated, the Dems have been moving in a MORE pro-immigrant stance. -- Nathan Newman Actually both parties have eased up on anti-immigration rhetoric over the past 5 years or so. I suspect that this is a function of a tight job market that requires a steady inflow of labor, either legal and skilled or illegal and unskilled. My reference to Buchanan was of an entirely hypothetical nature. It presupposes an extremely nasty polarization in the USA that is fueled to some extent by xenophobia. We know from experience that Clinton is not above pandering to racial hysteria as evidenced in his Sister Souljah performance and putting in an appearance at the Ricky Rector execution. If and when objective conditions foment a Buchanan candidacy, I would expect the Democrats to run somebody who has an abysmal position on immigration and all the rest of it. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
At 02:13 PM 12/5/00 -0500, you (Barry?) wrote: Why is it that the Democrats are wishy-washy on Gore, while the Republicans are hard-core for Bush? perhaps because Gore is such a robot? or because he's so wishy-washy himself, first being a DLC technocrat and then pretending to be an "I'll fight for you!" amalgamation of a late-night TV lawyer ad and an attenuated populist. The latter felt less sincere. GOPsters heard Bush say he was a "compassionate conservative" and said "heh heh, we know what he means." But Democrats saw Gore and said, "yuk, but he's better than the alternative." I don't know how anyone -- even a stone-cold Democrat -- can get _excited_ by the lesser of two evils. At 02:19 PM 12/5/00 -0500, you (Barry?) wrote: In many ways, it's a regression to the days before the civils/voting rights acts of the 1960's. shouldn't we also be denouncing Clinton and the DLC in encouraging this trend? And isn't it Gore who led the charge for "welfare reform"? At 02:34 PM 12/5/00 -0500, Louis wrote: This state of affairs was created by the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC was launched by Gore, Clinton and other disciples of New Republic publisher Marty Peretz shortly after the defeat of Dukakis. It was seen as a way to capture the presidency by going after the Republican Party's base of white middle-class suburbanites. according to Christopher Hitchens (a reliable source though not a reliable thinker), the DLC started earlier, as the "Democrats for Nixon." Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
Nathan Newman wrote: One of the areas where the Democrats have clearly and demonstrably moved towards a more progressive position in the last fifteen years is on immigration. Employers love loose immigration regulations, no? Forbes and the WSJ are all in favor of pretty open borders. Can you come up with an example of a "progressive" move on the part of Dems that goes against the interest of employers? It was nice, however, to see organized labor drop its longstanding nativism. Doug
Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
- Original Message - From: "Louis Proyect" [EMAIL PROTECTED] If and when objective conditions foment a Buchanan candidacy, I would expect the Democrats to run somebody who has an abysmal position on immigration and all the rest of it. New immigrants becoming citizens are voting Democrats in overwhelming numbers. Why would Democrats, even as craven opportunists, do anything to stop a massive expansion of their supporters? Given that Dems have added millions of new voters in the last four years - a big reason for the total destruction of the GOP as a viable political force in California - the "Buchanan leakage" of nativist voters would have to get incredibly large to make such a move rational. In the midst of the nativist, anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic hysteria of the 1920s, the Dems moved the other way in 1928 in electing Al Smith, thereby locking in white Catholics and many other white ethnics for the next generation. 1994 in California is a good example of this dynamic- the GOP lunged to the Right on immigration issues - remember Pete Wilson had once supported immigration - while the Dems solidified a pro-immigrant position. Whether based on principle or opportunism, the results for the Dems have been fantastic with a massive increase in latino voters as a percentage of the population and a massive partisan increase of latinos voting Democratic. Nationally, Dems have learned from that result. They recognize that the demographic shift that has hit California is hitting the whole country over the next decades, so they have strengthened their pro-immigration positions on amnesty et al. The shift of the labor unions towards a stronger pro-immigrant position - partly from recognizing the same demographic shifts for organizing - are just reinforcing that shift by the Dems. I'm sure there will be backtracking by some Dems when the recession hits, but it will not be wholesale and the basic pattern of pro-immigrant positions will remain, from NLRB protection to restoration of welfare benefits for legal immigrants. -- Nathan Newman
Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
The Democratic Party essentially believes in nothing except winning office, so why would it be capable of galvanizing a nonexistent base? This state of affairs was created by the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC was launched by Gore, Clinton and other disciples of New Republic publisher Marty Peretz shortly after the defeat of Dukakis. Louis Proyect DLC was founded in 1985 following Mondale's prez candidacy in 84. Original members were mostly "centrist" southern Dem pols. If memory serves, Clinton was 1st chair and most chairs have been from south: Nunn, Breaux, Robb, etc. (Gephardt may be former chair as well). DLCers intended to move party to right *and* facilitate relations with wealthy contributors (expanding upon work of Tony Coelho). First specific DLC accomplishment was to convince 11 southern states to hold their prez primaries on same day in 1988 for purpose of boosting their clout, enhancing position of south in nominating process and helping "moderate" southern candidates. Gore won a few of these so-called "Super Tuesday" races that year. In 1986, DLC had established Progressive Policy Institute as advisory arm to DLC. PPIers were most influential group of pro-business Dems backing Clinton in 1992 and comprise large number of his advisers. At time, PPI was chaired by Wall Street broker Michael Steinhardt who had been early booster of Buckley's *National Review* and who voted for Goldwater in 64. Michael Hoover
RE: Re: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
The DLC started after the Mondale defeat. The guiding principle was not any special conservative ideological position, but a determination not to get smoked again in a national election. What did Mondale win? Two states or something? A pretty strong reaction was understandable. Mondale was perceived as too liberal, hence the logical remedy was to move towards the center. You could as easily say the DLC started with Thurmond and the Dixiecrats in 1948. But that, like Dems for Nixon, is polemics masquerading (ineffectively) as history. mbs according to Christopher Hitchens (a reliable source though not a reliable thinker), the DLC started earlier, as the "Democrats for Nixon." Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
- Original Message - From: "Michael Hoover" [EMAIL PROTECTED] First specific DLC accomplishment was to convince 11 southern states to hold their prez primaries on same day in 1988 for purpose of boosting their clout, enhancing position of south in nominating process and helping "moderate" southern candidates. Gore won a few of these so-called "Super Tuesday" races that year. What a weird spin on the 1988 primary debacle for the DLC? What Super Tuesday did was hand Jesse Jackson a chance to rack up some of his most impressive states and, for a short period, seem to threaten to win the nomination. Gore generally failed miserably, while Dukakis managed to maintain his stead delegate gains that eventually left him the last white guy standing to defeat Jesse. Super Tuesday did its job finally in 1992 in helping elect Clinton - although the irony was that it helped Clinton defeat Tsongas because Clinton could pick up Jesse's black vote support, while Tsongas I believe took the majority of the white vote in a lot of the Southern states. -- Nathan Newman
RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
A comment - has anybody met/seen/talked with/heard or heard of a single Republican who doesn't stand solidly on Bush's side in this dispute? Why is it that the Democrats are wishy-washy on Gore, while the Republicans are hard-core for Bush? Perhaps they have a clearer vision. Barry Since you asked, I am a conservative who lurks on this list, so I can give you my opinion. I actually was sympathetic to Gore for the first day or two. The fact that he won the national popular vote, and was only behind by several hundred votes in a state in which Nader received 92,000 votes, were hard to ignore. But then he lost me. Instead of immediately requesting a state-wide manual recount, he asked for a manual recount in four Democratic counties, and then started suing the Democratic canvassing boards if they either refused to do a manual recount, or refused to count the dimple ballots. He then turns Kathryn Harris into Ken Starr, simply because she was doing her job. (I am a lawyer and have followed this closely. She may be a partisan, but she did nothing wrong and did not deserve the treatment she received.) In other words, instead of playing fair, Gore played power politics. And if he was going to play power politics, then all was fair on the Bush side. I do not know what Bush could have done differently. He was ahead -- was he supposed to voluntarily change the rules to make victory more difficult? If Gore had requested a statewide manual recount on November 9, he would have had the moral upper hand, and I would have supported him. But if he did that, he probably would have lost, so he chose the "count every Democratic vote" strategy. He deserved to lose after that. And that's how this bourgeois Republican thinks. David Shemano
Re: Re: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
From: "Michael Hoover" [EMAIL PROTECTED] First specific DLC accomplishment was to convince 11 southern states to hold their prez primaries on same day in 1988 for purpose of boosting their clout, enhancing position of south in nominating process and helping "moderate" southern candidates. Gore won a few of these so-called "Super Tuesday" races that year. What a weird spin on the 1988 primary debacle for the DLC? What Super Tuesday did was hand Jesse Jackson a chance to rack up some of his most impressive states and, for a short period, seem to threaten to win the nomination. Gore generally failed miserably, while Dukakis managed to maintain his stead delegate gains that eventually left him the last white guy standing to defeat Jesse. Super Tuesday did its job finally in 1992 in helping elect Clinton - although the irony was that it helped Clinton defeat Tsongas because Clinton could pick up Jesse's black vote support, while Tsongas I believe took the majority of the white vote in a lot of the Southern states. -- Nathan Newman no spin, no debating points to win...allow me, however, to revise and extend my remarks... DLC promoted "Super Tuesday" as vehicle for centrist/southern dems based on assumption that party couldn't win prez election without winning south. Proponents looked to Robb Nunn as best choices but neither decided to run. DLCers were left with Al Gore after one their own, Gephardt, decided to run opposing organization's position on free trade. Gore won 4 ST states - Ark, Ky, NC, Tenn (5 if you count Okla where another former DLC chair, McCurdy was from) and his campaign had some temporary life. Jackson won 5 states - AL, GA, LA, Miss, VA. Significantly, Dukakis won 2 biggest states - FL TX. No, 1988 "Super Tuesday" didn't work out as its architects had planned with respect to either candidate choices or to bringing conservative white Dems back into party. By late 1980s, southern whites were more likely to vote Rep than in any other region of country. Smaller 1992 "Super Tuesday" - FL, LA, Miss, Tenn, Tx - worked (I guess) from standpoint of its creators in producing more moderate victor in Clinton. But this result was achieved via very low turnout. Moreover, more southern whites voted in Rep primaries in 1992 than in Dem primaries for first time. no spin, no debating points to win... Michael Hoover
