Re: All Internet voting is insecure: report
Grant Lee wrote: Online voting is fundamentally insecure due to the architecture of the Internet, according to leading cyber-security experts. without even having to read the entire article, i feel i am justified in responding that the above assertion is wrong, except in a very trivial sense (such as saying all voting is fundamentally insecure due to the architecture of reality). BTW online does not necessarily have to mean the Internet (upper-case 'I'). --ravi
Re: All Internet voting is insecure: report
So, do you think they're rejecting it out of fear it may encourage democracy and third-party candidates? Joanna ravi wrote: Grant Lee wrote: Online voting is fundamentally insecure due to the architecture of the Internet, according to leading cyber-security experts. without even having to read the entire article, i feel i am justified in responding that the above assertion is wrong, except in a very trivial sense (such as saying all voting is fundamentally insecure due to the architecture of reality). BTW online does not necessarily have to mean the Internet (upper-case 'I'). --ravi
Re: All Internet voting is insecure: report
joanna bujes wrote: So, do you think they're rejecting it out of fear it may encourage democracy and third-party candidates? ravi wrote: without even having to read the entire article, i feel i am justified in responding that the above assertion is wrong, except in a very trivial sense (such as saying all voting is fundamentally insecure due to the architecture of reality). BTW online does not necessarily have to mean the Internet (upper-case 'I'). i don't know... perhaps that's the case. or perhaps they are saying the safest thing. it's sort of the problem of 'verification of a positive claim', isn't it? logically speaking, one can never prove that the 'internet is safe for voting'. otoh saying 'the internet is unsafe for voting' is always safe, since the first break proves one is right, while the lack of one only suggests that it hasn't happened yet. i am psychoanalyzing here: i think it could also be the pleasure in one's own cleverness. can i (not ravi, but the members on that committee), a world-renowned computer security expert, plausibly invent a scenario where online voting could be broken. well, if i had access to the support port on some intermediate router, or perhaps if i could generate a buffer overrun in the bind code on a relevant DNS server (what? they are running 1.7.4? that's been broken already!). and so on and so forth... boy, how clever i am! ;-) finally, in their defense (the larger context of their critique, not just the strong claim in the line i quoted), i think they are looking at the particular system that the DoD came up with and found it extremely flawed in its design and assumptions. i do think online voting WILL encourage democracy AND third-party candidates. i think it might also have negative effects: wasn't there a recent finding that more right-wing conservative types are wired than poor or left-leaning folks? online voting would thus make it even easier to mobilize and bring out the right-wing vote. but the solution (imho, in this case) is not to avoid the technology, but to find out ways to leverage it to our advantage. --ravi
Re: All Internet voting is insecure: report
ravi wrote: i do think online voting WILL encourage democracy AND third-party candidates. i think it might also have negative effects: wasn't there a recent finding that more right-wing conservative types are wired than poor or left-leaning folks? online voting would thus make it even easier to mobilize and bring out the right-wing vote. but the solution (imho, in this case) is not to avoid the technology, but to find out ways to leverage it to our advantage. In my neck of the woods, public schools become voting booths at election time. All public schools in Calif have computers -- so I don't see that computerizing the voting process would necessarily be a negative for the left. So it all comes back to the design, the overseers, and the paper trail. Joanna
All Internet voting is insecure: report
The Register All Internet voting is insecure: report By electricnews.net Posted: 23/01/2004 at 11:37 GMT Online voting is fundamentally insecure due to the architecture of the Internet, according to leading cyber-security experts. Using a voting system based upon the Internet poses a serious and unacceptable risk for election fraud and is not secure enough for something as serious as the election of government officials, according to the four members of the Security Peer Review Group, an advisory group formed by the US Department of Defense to evaluate a new on-line voting system. The review group's members, and the authors of the damning report, include David Wagner, Avi Rubin and David Jefferson from the University of California, Berkeley, Johns Hopkins University and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, respectively, and Barbara Simons, a computer scientist and technology policy consultant. The federally-funded Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment (SERVE) system is currently slated for use in the US in this year's primary and general elections. It will allow eligible voters to register to vote at home and then to vote via the Internet from anywhere in the world. The first tryout of SERVE is early in February for South Carolina's presidential primary and its eventual goal is to provide voting services to all eligible US citizens overseas and to US military personnel and their dependents, a population estimated at six million. After studying the prototype system the four researchers said that from anywhere in the world a hacker could disrupt an election or influence its outcome by employing any of several common types of cyber-attacks. Attacks could occur on a large scale and could be launched by anyone from a disaffected lone individual to a well-financed enemy agency outside the reach of US law, state the three computer science professors and a former IBM researcher in the report. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/35078.html
Re: Electronic voting machines
there's an article in the current Z magazine on this topic. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: k hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 6:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Electronic voting machines This has already happened in some instances where one party thinks they have been wronged. But one would think that both parties would reject the machines. Perhaps they think this will be an equal opportunity tampering system! You would think both parties would want some sort of check on tampering and some means of going over results. Couldnt party computer experts check on program to see if it was OK somehow? I suppose that would probably infringe on trade secrets. Widespread problems with new touch-screen voting machines delayed election results in Fairfax County Tuesday night and led to a legal challenge by Republican officials. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1355-2003Nov4.html Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Ralph Johansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 12:01 PM Subject: Re: Electronic voting machines This exchange is another on several lists that I've seen regarding the allegedly unaccountable voting machines which doesn't deal with the fact that this is, at least in terms of patronage if not of program, a two-party system. If one party seeks to squirrel votes in a machine not open to public scrutiny, why is not the other party crying bloody murder? I have asked this question on other lists at least twice. No answer offered by anybody so far. Is it the assumption that the Dems are brain-dead or is it that they are thought to be benefiting from the same glitch and colluding against voters? What in the world? Am I missing something here? Ralph
Re: Electronic voting machines
But only available to subscribers. How do they respond to this question? Ralph - Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 6:19 AM Subject: Re: Electronic voting machines there's an article in the current Z magazine on this topic. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: k hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 6:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Electronic voting machines This has already happened in some instances where one party thinks they have been wronged. But one would think that both parties would reject the machines. Perhaps they think this will be an equal opportunity tampering system! You would think both parties would want some sort of check on tampering and some means of going over results. Couldnt party computer experts check on program to see if it was OK somehow? I suppose that would probably infringe on trade secrets. Widespread problems with new touch-screen voting machines delayed election results in Fairfax County Tuesday night and led to a legal challenge by Republican officials. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1355-2003Nov4.html Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Ralph Johansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 12:01 PM Subject: Re: Electronic voting machines This exchange is another on several lists that I've seen regarding the allegedly unaccountable voting machines which doesn't deal with the fact that this is, at least in terms of patronage if not of program, a two-party system. If one party seeks to squirrel votes in a machine not open to public scrutiny, why is not the other party crying bloody murder? I have asked this question on other lists at least twice. No answer offered by anybody so far. Is it the assumption that the Dems are brain-dead or is it that they are thought to be benefiting from the same glitch and colluding against voters? What in the world? Am I missing something here? Ralph
Electronic voting machines
Has any one here written about the new wave of electronic voting machines or know of any good material on the subject? My sister-in-law is researching this for a talk she is giving and would like some critical commentary. Thanks. Bill
Re: Electronic voting machines
Try: http://www.blackboxvoting.com/ http://gregpalast.com/ http://www.markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/ Michael Pollak PEN-L post, Sunday, September 14, 2003 7:16 PM Insecure code for electronic voting, Financial Times, Sep 12, 2003 Macdonald Stainsby (rad-green list) also has information on this. http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green Or just look under Diebold Machines American democracy is a total fraud right up to the finding that Americans cannot even tally the votes cast in elections correctly. Nevertheless, the American fraudsters want to tell the Cuban government that the Cubans need to be more democratic and aim to establish democracy in Iraq. But if you lie and defraud in your own country, in the name of Jesus Christ our saviour and so on, you can hardly expected to act in a principled manner anywhere else. J.
Re: Electronic voting machines
There's a lot on the blogs on this. Check the archives on www.calpundit.com, www.dailykos.com, and www.talkingpointsmemo.com mbs Bill Lear wrote: Has any one here written about the new wave of electronic voting machines or know of any good material on the subject? My sister-in-law is researching this for a talk she is giving and would like some critical commentary. Thanks. Bill
Re: Electronic voting machines
- Original Message - From: Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 8:08 AM Subject: Re: Electronic voting machines There's a lot on the blogs on this. Check the archives on www.calpundit.com, www.dailykos.com, and www.talkingpointsmemo.com mbs Bill Lear wrote: Has any one here written about the new wave of electronic voting machines or know of any good material on the subject? My sister-in-law is researching this for a talk she is giving and would like some critical commentary. Thanks. Bill
Re: Electronic voting machines
How would it be possible to have a recount with these machines? And what replaces party scrutineers? Or do they have them in the US. Are there are laws regulating the manufacturers of these machines. It seems that they are able to donate to political parties. That is an open invitation to fraud.. Cheers, Ken Hanly sorry about blank post.. - Original Message - From: Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 8:08 AM Subject: Re: Electronic voting machines There's a lot on the blogs on this. Check the archives on www.calpundit.com, www.dailykos.com, and www.talkingpointsmemo.com mbs Bill Lear wrote: Has any one here written about the new wave of electronic voting machines or know of any good material on the subject? My sister-in-law is researching this for a talk she is giving and would like some critical commentary. Thanks. Bill
Re: Electronic voting machines
This exchange is another on several lists that I've seen regarding the allegedly unaccountable voting machines which doesn't deal with the fact that this is, at least in terms of patronage if not of program, a two-party system. If one party seeks to squirrel votes in a machine not open to public scrutiny, why is not the other party crying bloody murder? I have asked this question on other lists at least twice. No answer offered by anybody so far. Is it the assumption that the Dems are brain-dead or is it that they are thought to be benefiting from the same glitch and colluding against voters? What in the world? Am I missing something here? Ralph - Original Message - From: k hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 6:17 AM Subject: Re: Electronic voting machines How would it be possible to have a recount with these machines? And what replaces party scrutineers? Or do they have them in the US. Are there are laws regulating the manufacturers of these machines. It seems that they are able to donate to political parties. That is an open invitation to fraud.. Cheers, Ken Hanly sorry about blank post.. - Original Message - From: Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 8:08 AM Subject: Re: Electronic voting machines There's a lot on the blogs on this. Check the archives on www.calpundit.com, www.dailykos.com, and www.talkingpointsmemo.com mbs Bill Lear wrote: Has any one here written about the new wave of electronic voting machines or know of any good material on the subject? My sister-in-law is researching this for a talk she is giving and would like some critical commentary. Thanks. Bill
Re: Electronic voting machines
This has already happened in some instances where one party thinks they have been wronged. But one would think that both parties would reject the machines. Perhaps they think this will be an equal opportunity tampering system! You would think both parties would want some sort of check on tampering and some means of going over results. Couldnt party computer experts check on program to see if it was OK somehow? I suppose that would probably infringe on trade secrets. Widespread problems with new touch-screen voting machines delayed election results in Fairfax County Tuesday night and led to a legal challenge by Republican officials. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1355-2003Nov4.html Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Ralph Johansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 12:01 PM Subject: Re: Electronic voting machines This exchange is another on several lists that I've seen regarding the allegedly unaccountable voting machines which doesn't deal with the fact that this is, at least in terms of patronage if not of program, a two-party system. If one party seeks to squirrel votes in a machine not open to public scrutiny, why is not the other party crying bloody murder? I have asked this question on other lists at least twice. No answer offered by anybody so far. Is it the assumption that the Dems are brain-dead or is it that they are thought to be benefiting from the same glitch and colluding against voters? What in the world? Am I missing something here? Ralph
FT: Insecure code for electronic voting
[To add to the other downsides] Financial Times; Sep 12, 2003 THE AMERICAS: Security fears grow over electronic voting systems By Henry Hamman Bev Harris, a freelance writer and public relations consultant in Washington state, made a startling discovery while conducting research for a book about elections. Without trying, she stumbled upon one of Diebold Election Systems' most proprietary company secrets - the entire computer code to its electronic voting machines. Ms Harris is no cryptographer. She found the machine code for Diebold - one of the leading vendors of computerised voting equipment - using the popular Google internet search engine. She and her publisher then downloaded the entire site and had the files posted for public access on a New Zealand news site. From that site, Avi Rubin, a computer security expert at Johns Hopkins University, teamed up with two graduate students and pored through the code line by line. Their results leaked to the US media in July. Professor Rubin's report called the Diebold system far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts, and said that reliance on electronic voting systems such as Diebold's places our very democracy at risk. The report came at an awkward moment for Diebold. The company was about to sign a $55.6m (£34m) contract with the state of Maryland for 11,000 AccuVote-TS voting machines. Robert Ehrlich, Maryland's Republican governor, put the contract on hold and asked Science Applications International (SAIC), an IT consultant, to evaluate the Diebold system. Maryland officials are studying the 200-page report from SAIC. A spokesman for Mr Ehrlich said the state might announce its decision on whether to continue with the Diebold contract as soon as today. Tom Swidarski, president of Diebold Election Systems, said criticism of the product was misguided, and that the company supported the SAIC review. He also complained that the code on the Diebold site was copyrighted and had been stolen. While the stakes for Diebold are high, they are even higher for the US election system as it grows increasingly dependent on computerisation. Electronic voting could be a real nightmare if it's not watched carefully, said James Campbell, a professor of political science at the State University of New York in Buffalo. Prof Campbell said that after the Florida election crisis of 2000, so much attention went to eliminating hanging chads and butterfly ballots that politicians and election officials risked focusing on one problem to the exclusion of more traditional problems like vote fraud and ballot security. There should be a good deal of concern about various sorts of mischief. Beyond Florida in 2000, some have raised questions about the 2002 vote in Georgia - electronic across the entire state - which yielded multiple upsets. Meanwhile, in California, which holds its recall election for Governor Gray Davis next month, scientists are warning of potential trouble if one of the 135 candidates asks for a recount. Some of the state's electronic voting machines do not provide a paper trail for independent verification. Researchers looking at electronic voting have begun to call for a slowdown. No one knows what percentage of the 2004 presidential vote will be cast electronically. Experts say more than 10 per cent of votes cast in the 2000 presidential election were electronic. Michael Alvarez, co-director of the California Institute of Technology/Massachusetts Institute of Technology Voting Technology Project, has been urging states not to rush into electronic voting, and to ensure an independent record of votes cast electronically. Other nations are using electronic voting. Brazil conducted its last election electronically, and some European countries are moving towards computerisation.
Re: FT: Insecure code for electronic voting
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/ bev harris has a web site with much more information. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ABC voting on war
Results of the voting so far: This week's question is Do you believe there is a case for war against Iraq? Yes 14% No 86% 9977 votes counted Vote at http://www.abc.net.au/news/poll1/vote/ *** Confronting 9-11, Ideologies of Race, and Eminent Economists, Vol. 20 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
Tactical voting in British Election
Chris Burford reports: Today significantly the TImes report as their main headline Hague Turns Left to avoid a Labour Landslide. This is important because it shows a shift in how politics are perceived in the battle between the main parties. It is a sign that after the election the centre of gravity of UK politics can and will move leftwards. = What exactly do you mean by left? Just how is New Labour more left than the Conservative Party? Blair's plans for the privatisation of what remains of the welfare state, coupled with the acute observations made by Faisal Islam in the Observer, suggest a lot of lukewarm blather masking an unprecedented and on-going corporate takeover of Britain. There is no question that UK politics' centre of gravity has moved leftwards. It has been doing so for at least a decade (e.g. poll tax), and can be expected to continue, intensifying once Blair gets to work on privatising the NHS. But you would hardly know that from the behaviour of either main party during the last three general elections. In fact what is so pitiful about the current election is just how imprisoned both parties are by their respective mythologies. Blair still lives in his nightmare of 1983, while Hague, like Major before him, is captive to a Thatcherite legacy that is hopelessly anachronistic by any measure. In every instance of devolution local electorates have made clear their preference for candidates who reject the diktats and media spin of the centre. New Labour's capture of the centre comes at a cost of the hollowing out of Old Labour's core vote, and there is no shortage of replacements for that, as the Scottish Socialist Party, Socialist Alliance, Ken Livingstone, Plaid Cymru (!) et al. demonstrate. Equating UK politics with the shenanigans of New Labour and the Conservatives is not a recipe for profound analysis. Michael K.
Tactical voting in British Election
Today significantly the TImes report as their main headline Hague Turns Left to avoid a Labour Landslide. This is important because it shows a shift in how politics are perceived in the battle between the main parties. It is a sign that after the election the centre of gravity of UK politics can and will move leftwards. It is possible to vote against a party without risking tailing after another one. Tactical voting is on the rise despite the continuation of Britain's first-past-the-post system for our main elections, since 1992. There is a strong desire to vote against the Conservatives even now. http://www.tacticalvoter.net/ gives information about the best chances of beating the Conservative candidate. People who do not want to vote against their party can be paired with someone who will vote for their party where it has the best chance of beating the Conservative candidate. Perhaps people could pass this on to other potential British voters. Chris Burford London
Third Way voting trends
In a society in which individuals and groups compete for relative advantage of access to the total social product, how is it possible to win a strong majority for the interests of working people as a whole, particularly when half of them think they are middle class? Britain's Third Way government has marginalised the Conservative Party as eccentric, but its rational approach to managing the country as a whole, is unlikely to mobilise the voters at the forthcoming May General Election. see extracts from the following analysis. Chris Burford Paul Whiteley Thursday March 1, 2001 The Guardian We (myself with professors Patrick Seyd and Charles Pattie of Sheffield University) have been conducting a citizen audit, paid for by the Economic and Social Research Council and based on a sample of 3,000 adults. Its aim is to examine the meaning of citizenship in modern Britain and it looks at political participation and attitudes and voluntary activity of all kinds. . When asked how likely they were to vote next time, only 65% claimed it was "very likely" and if this works as a predictor then the 2001 general election is set to have the lowest turnout of any since Lloyd George went to the country in 1918. We also looked at differences in likely turnout among party supporters. As the chart shows, 87% of those who voted Tory in 1997 are very likely to vote in the next election. However, this is true of only 74% of those who voted Labour last time. As a political formation the Tories may be in difficulty but it appears that William Hague is shoring up support among the core Tory voters in a way which Tony Blair is not. These apathetic Labour voters tend to be disproportionately semi-skilled or unskilled manual workers, in their 20s and 30s and living on relatively low incomes. They also tend to be female and have relatively limited educational qualifications. They are twice as likely to strongly disagree with the proposition that "the government is doing a good job in managing public services such as health care and education" than they are to strongly agree with it. By the same token, they are more likely to distrust the government than voters in general.
Disenfranchisement by Database- GOP company whitewashed Florida voting rolls
http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,409137,00.html The Observer (UK) Sunday, December 10, 2000 Inside Republican America A Blacklist Burning For Bush The more you look the more disbarred and 'disappeared' Gore voters you find. You'd almost think it was deliberate By Gregory Palast [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey, Al, take a look at this. Every time I cut open another alligator, I find the bones of more Gore voters. This week, I was hacking my way through the Florida swampland known as the Office of Secretary of State Katherine Harris and found a couple thousand more names of voters electronically 'disappeared' from the vote rolls. About half of those named are African-Americans. They had the right to vote, but they never made it to the balloting booths. When we left off our Florida story two weeks ago, The Observer discovered that Harris's office had ordered the elimination of 8,000 Florida voters on the grounds that they had committed felonies in other states. None had. Harris bought the bum list from a company called ChoicePoint, a firm whose Atlanta executive suite and boardroom are filled with Republican funders. ChoicePoint, we have learned, picked up the list of faux felons from state officials in - ahem - Texas. In fact, it was a roster of people who, like their Governor, George W, had committed nothing more than misdemeanours. For Harris, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his brother, the Texas blacklist was a mistake made in Heaven. Most of those targeted to have their names 'scrubbed' from the voter roles were African-Americans, Hispanics and poor white folk, likely voters for Vice-President Gore. We don't know how many voters lost their citizenship rights before the error was discovered by a few sceptical county officials, before ChoicePoint, which has gamely 'fessed-up to the Texas-sized error, produced a new list of 58,000 felons. In May, Harris sent on the new, improved scrub sheets to the county election boards. Maybe it's my bad attitude, but I thought it worthwhile to check out the new list. Sleuthing around county offices with a team of researchers from internet newspaper Salon.com, we discovered that the 'correct' list wasn't so correct. One elections supervisor, Linda Howell of Madison County, was so upset by the errors that she refused to use the Harris/ChoicePoint list. How could she be so sure the new list identified innocent people as felons? Because her own name was on it, 'and I assure you, I am not a felon'. Our 10-county review suggests a minimum 15 per cent misidentification rate. That makes another 7,000 innocent people accused of crimes and stripped of their citizenship rights in the run-up to the presidential race. And not just any 7,000 people. Hillsborough (Tampa) county statisticians found that 54 per cent of the names on the scrub list belonged to African-Americans, who voted 93 per cent for Gore. Now our team, diving deeper into the swamps, has discovered yet a third group whose voting rights were stripped. The ChoicePoint-generated list includes 1,704 names of people who, earlier in their lives, were convicted of felonies in Illinois and Ohio. Like most American states, these two restore citizenship rights to people who have served their time in prison and then remained on the good side of the law. Florida strips those convicted in its own courts of voting rights for life. But Harris's office concedes, and county officials concur, that the state of Florida has no right to impose this penalty on people who have moved in from these other states. (Only 13 states, most in the Old Confederacy, bar reformed criminals from voting.) Going deeper into the Harris lists, we find hundreds more convicts from the 35 other states which restored their rights at the end of sentences served. If they have the right to vote, why were these citizens barred from the polls? Harris didn't return my calls. But Alan Dershowitz did. The Harvard law professor, a renowned authority on legal process, said: 'What's emerging is a pattern of reducing the total number of voters in Florida, which they know will reduce the Democratic vote.' How could Florida's Republican rulers know how these people would vote? I put the question to David Bositis, America's top expert on voting demographics. Once he stopped laughing, he said the way Florida used the lists from a private firm was, 'an obvious technique to discriminate against black voters'. In a darker mood, Bositis, of Washington's Center for Political and Economic Studies, said the sad truth of American justice is that 46 per cent of those convicted of felony are African-American. In Florida, a record number of black folk, over 80 per cent of those registered to vote, packed the polling booths on November 7. Behind the curtains, nine out of 10 black people voted Gore. Mark Mauer of the Sentencing Project, Washington, pointed out that the 'white' half of the purge list would be peopled overwhelmingly by the poor, also solid
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
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
voting
I just heard Albert Gore, Jr. give a speech. In it, he stated that voting is a way of stating individual principles. This is really different from what his folks were saying before the election, i.e., that voting is a way of choosing between the lesser of two evils, the Fool and the Knave, where if the former were elected, the world would instantly turn into sickening green soup. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
voting
This electoral circus is still more than a few thousand DQ-ed ballots counting either for tweedledee and tweedledum-mer , and the win/loss in the electoral college. Each side shows their megalomanic nature by having arbitrarily and capriciously DQ-ing ballots that will most probably go to their opponent. True the ruling class as a whole will not quake in their stolen well-heeled boots over this you won't see any State secession conventions held, whichever bourgeois gang wins out.. For them ,The election for the bosses is a heads i win, tails you lose scenario for sure. But but there mainly tactical differences in the DP or RP governance over us. Also There are some growing regional differences/contradictions in capitals competititve interests too. But this Pier6-er political brawling developing is probably more over the thousands of plum Federal jobs and appointments to be lost and/or gained. There is also the hundreds of billions in Federal Contracting projects that will be doled-out (no pun intended) over the next 4 years for the 'campaign contributions"- read bribes received ($3 Billions for this Fed. election alone) . For this the DP and the RP will politically duke it out --at least in their courts anyway. But , lo and behold , by Dec 12th, we will probaly know who 'won' out and anyway the DP-RP bi-partisan attacks on the workers continues apace. Neil.
Fwd: [BRC-NEWS] Lift the Ban Against Felons Voting
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 01:57:17 -0500 From: Art McGee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [BRC-NEWS] Lift the Ban Against Felons Voting Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/2927/t91681.html Los Angeles Times September 27, 2000 Lift the Ban Against Felons Being Able to Vote By Earl Ofari Hutchinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] A year ago the Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C., prison reform group, issued a report that found that seven states permanently barred felons who have been released from custody from voting. With the gaping racial disparities in prison sentencing, the vote ban has fallen heaviest on black men. One out of four black males were disenfranchised by these laws. Civil libertarians screamed foul and called it a return to Jim Crow segregation days when Southern states routinely used poll taxes, literacy laws, political gerry- mandering, physical harassment, threats and intimidation to bar blacks from the polls. If they were appalled last year at the number of states that permanently ban these felons from voting, the news from the latest Sentencing Project is even worse: Two more states have approved permanent voting bans. And the racial disparity is even greater. Black men now account for one out of three released felons barred from the polls. Even worse, the number of blacks disenfranchised by these bans probably will soar higher. More than 1 million blacks are now behind bars. The draconian drug sentencing laws, "three strikes" laws, racial profiling and the disparities in prison sentencing virtually ensure that more blacks will be arrested, convicted and sentenced more harshly than whites. The Sentencing Project estimates that in the next few years 40% of black men will permanently be barred from the polls in the states with this ban. This terrible, racially tinged policy wreaks much havoc on African Americans. It drastically cuts down the number of black elected officials, increases cynicism, if not outright loathing, by many young blacks for the criminal justice system and deprives black communities of vital funds and resources for badly needed services that could have come from their increased political strength. The rationale for keeping and putting more bans on the books in more states is that they make it rougher on lawbreakers. This is nonsense. Many of the men who are stripped of their right to vote are not convicted murderers, rapists or robbers. They are not denied the vote because of a court-imposed sentence, because no states require that a judge formally bar an offender from voting as part of a criminal sentence because of the seriousness of the crime. In fact, many offenders don't even serve a day in prison. They have been convicted of felonies such as auto theft or drug possession. They are more likely to receive a fine or probation. Most of these offenders were young men when they committed their crimes. The chances are good that they didn't become career criminals, but hold steady jobs, raise families and are responsible members of their communities. Yet the states that stamp them with the legal and social stigma of being a felon deprive them of their basic constitutional right to vote and relegate them to second-class citizenship in perpetuity. This cruelly mocks the notion of rehabilitation and gives lie to the fondly repeated line that when criminals pay their debt to society, they deserve and will get a second chance. While surveys show that a majority of Americans think that the felon voting ban is bad policy, only a handful of civil liberties groups and the NAACP in Virginia and Florida have challenged these restrictive laws in court. The only recourse that former lawbreakers have now in the states that permanently bar them from voting is to seek a pardon from the governor. This is a dead end for most. Governors read the fierce public mood on crime and know that many Americans see felons as pariahs who deserve any treatment they get. So few felons even bother to request a pardon. Civil liberties groups have urged state legislatures to rescind the laws or at least resist the temptation to place new voting restrictions on the books. The only state to heed their call and do the right thing is Delaware. In June, lawmakers there restored voting rights to some former criminals. The exclusion of thousands of blacks from the voting rolls 30 years after the civil rights movement waged a titanic battle to abolish Jim Crow voting bans is worse than a travesty of justice. It's a horrid stain on American democracy. It's a stain that state officials should immediately wipe away. Earl Ofari Hutchinson Is the Author of "The Disappearance of Black Leadership" (Middle Passage Press, 2000). Copyright (c) 2000 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved. [IMPORTANT NOTE: The views and opinions expressed on this list are solely those of the authors and/or
Florida Voting Rights Wrongs- Campaign for a Legal Election
Please forward everthing below the header. Thanks. For all the mocking of this election by US and foreign critics, the danger is that what is being mocked is the right of individual voters to challenge local election officials in the courts - a direct ideological assault on the Voting Rights Act and the whole history of the civil rights movement's use of the courts. Attached is a statement of principles/op-ed by an ad-hoc Campaign for a Legal Election here at Yale Law School highlighting the deeper problem beyond Gore v. Bush in these elite media and politician calls to bypass recounts or the courts through a concession. There were and are serious violations of law in the election and the right to go to court is the only proper way to resolve many of them. A slow resolution is not something to be mocked but to be celebrated; as is stated in this message, any country can have a quick result after elections. There is nothing admirable in that. What is more admirable is a system that says that the denial of any person's right to vote is a matter of greater concern that even who is elected President. -- Nathan Newman = Yale Law Students CAMPAIGN FOR A LEGAL ELECTION Yale Law School 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 432-4888 [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Any organization interested in signing onto the Campaign for a Legal Election's statement, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- How dare either candidate claim an election victory (or concede) before the facts of what happened in Florida are determined? Don't let the politicians or the pundits deprive Florida residents of their voting rights and the rest of the country of our democratic process. Please do your part NOW to change the tone of the debate. Don't let the press spin this story to force a hasty solution. Any country can have a quick result. America is special because we believe in the rule of law and the protection of constitutional rights. Let's set an example for the world by proceeding in a patient and dignified way. Any party or politician that seeks to claim this election prematurely will have violated our trust and threatened the legitimacy of our government both domestically and internationally. It is our responsibility to hold them accountable because we will pay the price. Therefore, please do the following: 1) WRITE TO YOUR HOMETOWN PAPER (please see a sample op-ed piece below; feel free to use/edit any part of it for letters to the editor, etc.) 2) CALL IN TO TALK SHOWS where you live and in Florida. You can find out which staions there are by checking out www.broadcast.com . 3) SEND THIS AND OTHER E-MAILS TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY. LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT A RUSH TO JUDGMENT BECAUSE THERE IS TOO MUCH AT STAKE. FOLLOWING IS A STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES THAT WE ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO DISTRIBUTE TO FRIENDS AND/OR SUBSTANTIALLY EDIT AND SUBMIT TO THEIR LOCAL (HOMETOWN) PAPERS. DON'T DELAY: TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE! == Voting Rights and Wrongs in Florida == Since Tuesday, many politicians and others have suggested that it is inappropriate for the results of the election in Florida to be subjected to a legal challenge. This attitude amounts to a fundamental assault on the Voting Rights Act and the right to vote guaranteed by state and federal constitutions. The right to vote is the underpinning of our society. As the Supreme Court has stated, "other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined." Equally important is the ability to enforce this right to vote. During the civil rights movement, people struggled and died not only for the right to vote itself, but also for the right to pursue legal action if the vote was denied. What James Baker decries as "unending legal wrangling" is the enforcement mechanism of our Constitution. It is premature for either campaign to declare victory or concede defeat. It is neither up to Governor Bush nor Vice President Gore to concede defeat or assume victory until the choice of the people is clear. As the Florida Supreme Court has stated, "the real parties in interest" in a legal challenge to the results of an election "are the voters," not the candidates or their political parties. There is too much at stake to let this election pass without scrutinizing the many reports of problems in Florida: * Thousands of voters in Palm Beach County may have been effectively denied their right to vote due to an illegal and unnecessarily confusing ballot design. * Polls closed while people were still in line in Tampa. * Voters were denied ballots on grounds that their precinct had changed. * Some election officials refused to allow translators in voting booths for Haitian-Americans in Miami. * Hispanic voters in Osceola County alleged they were require
Re: Florida Voting Rights Wrongs . . .
Nathan Newman wrote, . . . the deeper problem beyond Gore v. Bush in these elite media and politician calls to bypass recounts or the courts through a concession. There were and are serious violations of law in the election and the right to go to court is the only proper way to resolve many of them. Thanks to Nathan for circulating this. I think we need to focus the debate on Pen-l to building a movement around this issue. The elite media and politcians are calling for a backroom deal to preserve the facade of democracy while denying the fundamental substance of democracy. Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant Bowen Island (604) 947-2213
A note on the voting irregularities in Palm Beach, Florida. (fwd)
Please circulate widely. Background According to several news accounts, many voters in Palm Beach, Florida, have claimed that they were confused by the ballot structure and may have inadvertently voted for Buchanan when in fact they intended to vote for Gore. The event prompted a discussion among several academic friends and colleagues about whether the results could be statistically detected, since Palm Beach county alone had the unusual ballot structure. One of the participants in the discussion, Chris Fastnow, a political scientist and director of the Center for Women in Politics in Pennsylvania at Chatham College (and who is also my wife) found the Florida county-level returns for the election on the internet at the CBS News website and passed them on to me. We reasoned that if enough voters in Palm Beach county were confused and mistakenly voted for Buchanan, it should be statistically detectable by examining the vote for Buchanan relative to the votes for Gore and Bush for all of the counties in Florida. . . http://madison.hss.cmu.edu/ Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant Bowen Island, BC
Voting irregularities
consortiumnews.com - http://www.consortiumnews.com Please forward far and wide: According to news reports this night, there are apparently as many as 24,000 votes in question now in Florida. In addition to the 3,407 votes cast for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, it has now been reported by the Associated Press that about 19,000 votes in PB County were voided because they were punched with two holes for the presidential selection. Obviously, some of these COULD be attributed to accidents. But 19,000 votes is a lot of votes. Only speculation can answer the obvious questions at this time, but these irregularities are mounting. There is also a batch of 1,600 votes for Gore that were voided because of an apparent computer glitch. Add to this reports from the NAACP that black men were harassed at at least one polling place where the sheriff's's office had officers on the ground asking black men to see their identification and telling some that they were not eligible to vote because of convictions. Julian Bond from the NAACP made this charge on MSNBC tonight. To say that there were voting irregularities in Florida is now a serious understatement. All the networks called Florida for Gore only moments after the polls closed there. They apparently based this call on exit polls. But the Bush campaign questioned this call based on their own exit polls, supposedly. Question: How were Bush's exit polls so drastically different from the networks'? And then we find 24,000 votes in question as well as reports of intimidation against black voters at at least one polling place. And Jeb Bush is governor there. Something is rotten in the state of Florida. Dare I say coup d'etat? What to do? I say we get calls going into Florida news outlets as well as national outlets expressing our concern and outrage at these reports. I say we call our Congressional offices to let them know we are paying close attention. Any ideas on how to get something like this organized? __ To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
voting
Yes, Jim D., true sure "they" give you a little red -white and blue sticker for your so-called duty to vote. But the "they" is a courtesy of the capitalists political state machinery for going along with and promoting the illusion that common folk have some say-so over the governments actions , federal, state city in the USA. This , is this modern monopoly capitalist epoch, is the most nausiating deception and deadly lie. Even as far as social reforms are concerned, who can name any in our adult lifetimes that were won (and many were/are to be later stripped down) via voting?. most anything of value to the working class has attained has come thru building movements of struggle and mass actions. Then these usually have to cope with the repressive and machiavellian style campaigns/sabotoge by the bosses democratic state. The same one issuing out these red white and blue lapel stickers for recognizing /respecting the bosses rule as legitimate over us by voting in its electoral circuses. Neil http://www.ibrp.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
voting
Voting is like giving blood: it's painful, sort of disgusting, but they give you a little sticker to show that you did it! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "Is it peace or is it Prozac?" -- Cheryl Wheeler.
Re: Re: voting for Nader
Other factors in Florida are that Cubans are now outnumbered among Hispanics by more recent immigrants from Central and South America, as well as a weakening of the knee jerk right wing impulse among second and third generation Cuban immigrants, although the real biggie will be the high turnout by seniors worried about social security. Actually, I think the people who will get screwed by the Bush s-s plan will be those in their 40s. Current oldsters will not have their bennies cut, and those sufficiently young will get their private accounts and avoid paying high s-s taxes. The middle group got to enter the job market after the Greenspan commission big tax increase (to pay for the COLAed bennies of the "greatest generation" who got to pay low s-s taxes for the non-COLAed recipients), but who will face higher retirement ages and other bennie cuts that will be used to pay for the new scheme. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: martin schiller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, November 05, 2000 12:56 PM Subject: [PEN-L:3996] Re: voting for Nader Austin, Andrew said on 11/5/00 9:36 A In what way is abortion a "proven issue"? The GOP have historically used the issue to draw the christian alliances into their camp by suggesting that they are the party of pro-life. If the issue becomes a states rights issue the christian alliances would not be available for support for national tickets. Unless another "tool" is found to rally that support. In a similar vein the florida race going to Gore is a result of the traditionally cuban exile voter support being lost by a combination of the "elian" decisions and the decisions to open some trade with cuba.
RE: Re: Re: voting for Nader
. . . Actually, I think the people who will get screwed by the Bush s-s plan will be those in their 40s. Current oldsters will not have their bennies cut, and those sufficiently young will get their private accounts and avoid paying high s-s taxes. I agree current and near retirees are not in much danger under the Bush plan. But I think the fate of young workers is completely up in the air. If the long-term projections are right (which I dispute), the private accounts to not avert extreme financial distress around 2050 or so. If they are wrong, the private accounts returns are still eaten up by transaction costs and annuity conversion costs, among other threats. If that Yale guy is right about market overvaluation, there will hardly be any positive returns. mbs
Re: Re: voting for Nader
Martin, I am saying they would not do that now. But, if they had won in 1992 they would have felt then that they could have. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: martin schiller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, November 04, 2000 5:26 PM Subject: [PEN-L:3963] Re: voting for Nader J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. said on 11/4/00 1:48 P In fact, the big one on that probably was abortion. Maybe they would have appointed more Souters to the Supreme Court rather than Ginsburg and Breyer. Neither of those is nearly as progressive as the Ford-appointed Stevens. But, put anti-abortion justices in instead of Ginsburg and Breyer and we would have a very different situation right now with regard to abortion rights, I think. He does not get any credit it for it, but the likelihood that a Bush victory probably will not undo this, is in fact a sign of how important the 1992 outcome was. Can you really believe that the GOP wants to align the court to undo Roe/Wade and alienate the pro-choice voters in order to sooth the tempers of the pro-life sector? How do you see that serving the long term objective of gaining retaining power?
Re: voting for Nader again: A reply to Barkley
Michael, I have agreed with you that a Bush administration is not likely to be substantially worse than a Gore administration on either Supreme Court appointments or environmental policy. I have argued that policies towards unions and social security are likely to be more important. I also agree with Brad DeLong that there will be a tilt in terms of income distribution. The biggest source of anti-poverty policy has been EITC expansion which will not be undone by a Bush administration. But, elimination of inheritance (aka "death") taxes and lowering the top marginal income tax rate will stop the (very) recent (and slight) trend towards greater equality of income in the US. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, November 04, 2000 5:32 PM Subject: [PEN-L:3964] voting for Nader again: A reply to Barkley Presidents do not appoint people in a vacuum. The people who advise the presidents know the consequences of terribly stupid decisions. So, Bush, in such a divided country, without dare to appoint another Clarence Thomas. Now, it is true that many justices have disappointed to people who originally appointed them. Some were more liberal; some more conservative. The court does not operate in a vacuum either. When people get angry, the court changes direction. Reagan was able to blame for depression on Carter because Carter had already taken the wrap as an incompetent. He can blame Clinton for an awful lot terrible things, but he was not incompetent. Finally, James Watt may have been better for the environment than Bruce Babbitt. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: Re: voting for Nader
Max, I fully agree that the private accounts may turn out to be a complete disaster for those getting them. It is kind of amazing that this shit is selling so well. Maybe the Dems will still be able to filibuster it in the Senate, even with a full Repub sweep tomorrow. Barkley -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, November 06, 2000 12:27 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4027] RE: Re: Re: voting for Nader . . . Actually, I think the people who will get screwed by the Bush s-s plan will be those in their 40s. Current oldsters will not have their bennies cut, and those sufficiently young will get their private accounts and avoid paying high s-s taxes. I agree current and near retirees are not in much danger under the Bush plan. But I think the fate of young workers is completely up in the air. If the long-term projections are right (which I dispute), the private accounts to not avert extreme financial distress around 2050 or so. If they are wrong, the private accounts returns are still eaten up by transaction costs and annuity conversion costs, among other threats. If that Yale guy is right about market overvaluation, there will hardly be any positive returns. mbs
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: voting for Nader
I agree current and near retirees are not in much danger under the Bush plan. But I think the fate of young workers is completely up in the air. If the long-term projections are right (which I dispute), the private accounts to not avert extreme financial distress around 2050 or so. If they are wrong, the private accounts returns are still eaten up by transaction costs and annuity conversion costs, among other threats. If that Yale guy is right about market overvaluation, there will hardly be any positive returns. mbs I've always been very impressed by the Yale guy (Robert Shiller)... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
At 05:33 AM 11/5/00 +, you wrote: they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR, they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion on demand. This is what they have been doing. There isn't much that O'Connor finds to be an "undue burden." --jks poor wording on my part. i got the impression that someone was laboring under the notion that overturning roe v wade would mean outlawing abortion. that's not what it would mean, as you know. so, yeah, they are and have been making it a states rights issue, but abortion won't then be/c magically illegal. the politics will have to turn to state level. and that won't necessarily alienate that many people. in fact, it's a pleasant goal for the GOP since their national political races won't be mired in the politics of abortion. kelley
Re: voting for Nader
kelley said on 11/5/00 7:43 A poor wording on my part. i got the impression that someone was laboring under the notion that overturning roe v wade would mean outlawing abortion. that's not what it would mean, as you know. When "someone" suggested that disposing of a functional tool would be uncharacteristic for a conservative entity you got the wrong impression? How uncharacteristic! More characteristic would be for you to _distort_ "someone"'s words.
Re: Re: voting for Nader
At 08:48 AM 11/5/00 -0800, martin schiller wrote: kelley said on 11/5/00 7:43 A poor wording on my part. i got the impression that someone was laboring under the notion that overturning roe v wade would mean outlawing abortion. that's not what it would mean, as you know. When "someone" suggested that disposing of a functional tool would be uncharacteristic for a conservative entity you got the wrong impression? How uncharacteristic! More characteristic would be for you to _distort_ "someone"'s words. i honestly thought you were laboring under that impression since you seemed to think that it would be so damaging to the GOP. disposing of the abortion issue is no big deal. it is something that GOP would *like* to get rid of. it isn't that much of a tool anymore. you're laboring under the idea that it is, a rather ignorant assumption if you 1. know anything about the right and the defection of some factions of the antiabortion crowd and 2. understand anything about attitudes and opinions toward abortion in the US kelley
RE: Re: voting for Nader
In what way is abortion a "proven issue"? Andrew Austin Green Bay WI -Original Message- From: martin schiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 7:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:3976] Re: voting for Nader Austin, Andrew said on 11/4/00 4:31 P Besides increasing the overall level of repression, criminalizing abortion could have the same effect that criminalizing drugs has had - permitting the elaboration of a rhetoric justifying the further expansion of repressive controls targeting disadvantaged groups in America. This will probably work to the advantage of the right wing in the same way the drug war has worked to their advantage. I'll try to imagine the GOP weighing your probabilities in one hand and the proven issue of abortion in the other.
Re: voting for Nader
kelley said on 11/5/00 10:10 A i honestly thought you were laboring under that impression since you seemed to think that it would be so damaging to the GOP. disposing of the abortion issue is no big deal. it is something that GOP would *like* to get rid of. it isn't that much of a tool anymore. you're laboring under the idea that it is, a rather ignorant assumption if you 1. know anything about the right and the defection of some factions of the antiabortion crowd and 2. understand anything about attitudes and opinions toward abortion in the US I guess that I'll have to suffer in ignorance if the alternative is submitting to your guidance.
Re: voting for Nader
Austin, Andrew said on 11/5/00 9:36 A In what way is abortion a "proven issue"? The GOP have historically used the issue to draw the christian alliances into their camp by suggesting that they are the party of pro-life. If the issue becomes a states rights issue the christian alliances would not be available for support for national tickets. Unless another "tool" is found to rally that support. In a similar vein the florida race going to Gore is a result of the traditionally cuban exile voter support being lost by a combination of the "elian" decisions and the decisions to open some trade with cuba.
Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
Max Sawicky wrote: If I was king of the labor movement, I would devote all electoral resources to Congress. At least for the time being, the WH is a lost cause. And, as every schoolchild knows, the executive branch is the executive committee of the bourgeoisie. The legislative branch is a bit more open to possibility. Doug
RE: Re: voting for Nader
Another tool already exists: a constitutional amendment protecting the unborn. Once several states criminalize abortion (and we could rattle off several who would move immediately to outlaw abortion), the push for a constitutional amendment will gain considerable momentum. Plus there is the need to keep a Supreme Court in the hands of constructionists (for a lot more than abortion, mind you). Bush will make probably four appointments, but these may not all come in his first term. The pro-choice position has already lost ground in public opinion. You seem to be operating with a false premise in mind: that state's rights undermines national priorities. Andrew Austin Green Bay, WI -Original Message- From: martin schiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 11:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:3996] Re: voting for Nader Austin, Andrew said on 11/5/00 9:36 A In what way is abortion a "proven issue"? The GOP have historically used the issue to draw the christian alliances into their camp by suggesting that they are the party of pro-life. If the issue becomes a states rights issue the christian alliances would not be available for support for national tickets. Unless another "tool" is found to rally that support. In a similar vein the florida race going to Gore is a result of the traditionally cuban exile voter support being lost by a combination of the "elian" decisions and the decisions to open some trade with cuba.
Re: Re: voting for Nader
Michael, In fact, the big one on that probably was abortion. Maybe they would have appointed more Souters to the Supreme Court rather than Ginsburg and Breyer. Neither of those is nearly as progressive as the Ford-appointed Stevens. But, put anti-abortion justices in instead of Ginsburg and Breyer and we would have a very different situation right now with regard to abortion rights, I think. He does not get any credit it for it, but the likelihood that a Bush victory probably will not undo this, is in fact a sign of how important the 1992 outcome was. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, November 03, 2000 5:45 PM Subject: [PEN-L:3931] Re: voting for Nader Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had 8 years of Bush/Dole? Eric yes... Michael Hoover
Re: voting for Nader
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. said on 11/4/00 1:48 P In fact, the big one on that probably was abortion. Maybe they would have appointed more Souters to the Supreme Court rather than Ginsburg and Breyer. Neither of those is nearly as progressive as the Ford-appointed Stevens. But, put anti-abortion justices in instead of Ginsburg and Breyer and we would have a very different situation right now with regard to abortion rights, I think. He does not get any credit it for it, but the likelihood that a Bush victory probably will not undo this, is in fact a sign of how important the 1992 outcome was. Can you really believe that the GOP wants to align the court to undo Roe/Wade and alienate the pro-choice voters in order to sooth the tempers of the pro-life sector? How do you see that serving the long term objective of gaining retaining power?
voting for Nader again: A reply to Barkley
Presidents do not appoint people in a vacuum. The people who advise the presidents know the consequences of terribly stupid decisions. So, Bush, in such a divided country, without dare to appoint another Clarence Thomas. Now, it is true that many justices have disappointed to people who originally appointed them. Some were more liberal; some more conservative. The court does not operate in a vacuum either. When people get angry, the court changes direction. Reagan was able to blame for depression on Carter because Carter had already taken the wrap as an incompetent. He can blame Clinton for an awful lot terrible things, but he was not incompetent. Finally, James Watt may have been better for the environment than Bruce Babbitt. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: voting for Nader again: A reply to Barkley
At 02:33 PM 11/04/2000 -0800, you wrote: Presidents do not appoint people in a vacuum. The people who advise the presidents know the consequences of terribly stupid decisions. So, Bush, in such a divided country, without dare to appoint another Clarence Thomas. also, the Congressional Democrats are much more alert to the problem of people like Scalia, Renquist, and Thomas. I'm not sure Gore is, though, since he voted for Scalia. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: voting for Nader again: A reply to Barkley
Jim Devine wrote: also, the Congressional Democrats are much more alert to the problem of people like Scalia, Renquist, and Thomas. I'm not sure Gore is, though, since he voted for Scalia. Everyone did. It was 98-0. Doug
Re: Re: voting for Nader
At 02:24 PM 11/4/00 -0800, martin schiller wrote: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. said on 11/4/00 1:48 P In fact, the big one on that probably was abortion. Maybe they would have appointed more Souters to the Supreme Court rather than Ginsburg and Breyer. Neither of those is nearly as progressive as the Ford-appointed Stevens. But, put anti-abortion justices in instead of Ginsburg and Breyer and we would have a very different situation right now with regard to abortion rights, I think. He does not get any credit it for it, but the likelihood that a Bush victory probably will not undo this, is in fact a sign of how important the 1992 outcome was. Can you really believe that the GOP wants to align the court to undo Roe/Wade and alienate the pro-choice voters in order to sooth the tempers of the pro-life sector? How do you see that serving the long term objective of gaining retaining power? they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR, they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion on demand. we don't have that anyway. but what they'll do is keep pushing through rulings that uphold state-based decisions to restrict abortions for as many reasons as they can think of. this won't alienate anyone but the ~30% who are adamantly for unrestricted access to abortion. the rest are unconditionally opposed to it (~18%) or opposed to it for certain reasons (if it appears that it is an undeserving abortion--if a woman appears to be having one for selfish reasons.) i've not paid attention to pending court cases or even tried to read around about analyses of the anti-abortionists' legal strategy in terms of an assault on the Supreme Court. but, i'm sure if you check around, you'll find that kind of information. that will likely tell you more about how such an eventually might come about. kelley
Re: voting for Nader
kelley said on 11/4/00 4:40 P they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR, they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion on demand. we don't have that anyway. The question was "how do you see reversing roe/wade as benefiting the long term goal of the GOP to gain/retain power.
Re: Re: voting for Nader
At 03:48 PM 11/4/00 -0800, martin schiller wrote: kelley said on 11/4/00 4:40 P they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR, they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion on demand. we don't have that anyway. The question was "how do you see reversing roe/wade as benefiting the long term goal of the GOP to gain/retain power. i wasn't answering your question. i was providing you with some numbers in order for you to rethink your assumption that it would significantly hurt the GOP if they alienated the ~30% of people (not voters) who are in favor of unrestrained access to abortion. moreover, that's their *opinion* about *why* and *under what conditions* women should be allowed to have an abortion and not an opinion that *necessarily* directs the way they vote or shapes their willingness to fight the erosion of RvW. a voter, iow, could be a huge libertarian and find it perfectly acceptable for Roe V. Wade to be overturned and made a states' rights issue AND hole the opinion that a women should be able to obtain an abortion for any reason she wants. such a person would not be alienated by such a move in the least. Can you really believe that the GOP wants to align the court to undo Roe/Wade and alienate the pro-choice voters in order to sooth the tempers of the pro-life sector? How do you see that serving the long term objective of gaining retaining power?
RE: voting for Nader
Besides increasing the overall level of repression, criminalizing abortion could have the same effect that criminalizing drugs has had - permitting the elaboration of a rhetoric justifying the further expansion of repressive controls targeting disadvantaged groups in America. This will probably work to the advantage of the right wing in the same way the drug war has worked to their advantage. Andrew Austin Green Bay, WI -Original Message- From: martin schiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 5:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: voting for Nader kelley said on 11/4/00 4:40 P they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR, they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion on demand. we don't have that anyway. The question was "how do you see reversing roe/wade as benefiting the long term goal of the GOP to gain/retain power.
Re: voting for Nader
kelley said on 11/4/00 5:08 P i wasn't answering your question. i was providing you with some numbers in order for you to rethink your assumption that it would significantly hurt the GOP if they alienated the ~30% of people (not voters) who are in favor of unrestrained access to abortion. moreover, that's their *opinion* about *why* and *under what conditions* women should be allowed to have an abortion and not an opinion that *necessarily* directs the way they vote or shapes their willingness to fight the erosion of RvW. Well consider this in return. If the GOP creates the conditions to overturn Roe/Wade they'll have to find another tool with the same leverage to move opinion/support. Abortion has been an extremely useful issue.
Re: Re: voting for Nader
At 04:34 PM 11/4/00 -0800, martin schiller wrote: kelley said on 11/4/00 5:08 P i wasn't answering your question. i was providing you with some numbers in order for you to rethink your assumption that it would significantly hurt the GOP if they alienated the ~30% of people (not voters) who are in favor of unrestrained access to abortion. moreover, that's their *opinion* about *why* and *under what conditions* women should be allowed to have an abortion and not an opinion that *necessarily* directs the way they vote or shapes their willingness to fight the erosion of RvW. Well consider this in return. If the GOP creates the conditions to overturn Roe/Wade they'll have to find another tool with the same leverage to move opinion/support. Abortion has been an extremely useful issue. yep. but, as someone else said on LOB: both parties are in incredible states of disarray. the internecine battling that has been going on among repugs for a decade now is pretty telling. there are a whole faction of anti abortionist and folks none as fundamentalists who have effectively been saying the same thing as we've been saying on LOB about democrats: they feel betrayed by the GOP. so, just as the dumbocrats are perfectly willing to toss out anything smacking of left poltics, so too are the GOP. good, i say. power vacuum, of a sort. kelley
Re: voting for Nader
Austin, Andrew said on 11/4/00 4:31 P Besides increasing the overall level of repression, criminalizing abortion could have the same effect that criminalizing drugs has had - permitting the elaboration of a rhetoric justifying the further expansion of repressive controls targeting disadvantaged groups in America. This will probably work to the advantage of the right wing in the same way the drug war has worked to their advantage. I'll try to imagine the GOP weighing your probabilities in one hand and the proven issue of abortion in the other.
Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
At the risk of consoling the Goreoids, Souter was an anomaly. He was chosen because Warren Rudman lied about him to Sununu; told him he was pro-life, when he knew he wasn't. The Supreme Court concern is legitimate. I think there are two overriding considerations. One is the extent of ideological retreat of the Right since 94-96, especially in Congress. Bush reflects this as well. Second is that there is never a good time to go third party. If you want to replace or pressure the Dems, you are necessarily going to harm them and divide the left in the process. There will be casualties. Failure to accept this means eternal acceptance of an unmotivated Dem Party. And that is unacceptable. I've been working 'inside' for a decade now. Any support I have rendered to Clinton et al. has not helped me in anything I have done in the slightest bit. If I was king of the labor movement, I would devote all electoral resources to Congress. At least for the time being, the WH is a lost cause. mbs
Re: voting for Nader
Max Sawicky wrote, I've been working 'inside' for a decade now. Any support I have rendered to Clinton et al. has not helped me in anything I have done in the slightest bit. Max, According to Leonard, you've only served have your sentence. I was sentenced to twenty years of boredom for trying to change the system from within Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant Bowen Island
Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR, they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion on demand. This is what they have been doing. There isn't much that O'Connor finds to be an "undue burden." --jks _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: voting for Nader
Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had 8 years of Bush/Dole? Eric yes... Michael Hoover
RE: following this debate, who you all voting for?
i'm voting at the Fire Station on Wilson Blvd in Rosslyn (Arlington) around 6:30 a.m., so if you have an anarchist friend there, give me his/her name and i'll introduce myself. however, i will appreciate it if he/she does not burn down the Fire Station until after my Nader vote is tallied. norm -Original Message- From: Chuck0 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 1:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: following this debate, who you all voting for? Mikalac Norman S NSSC wrote: i know that louis is voting for McReynolds, but what about the other listers: who you gonna vote for on the 7th? or will you stay home and cry I'll be picketing polling places around Washington, DC with various anarchist friends. Chuck0
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
Brad writes: So let's elect George W. Bush rather than Al Gore? That does not follow... In general, I'm saying that both of them are corporate toadies, so there's no reason to vote for either. But that was not what I was saying in this specific thread. This specific thread is saying that Gore and the Goristas have themselves to blame if they lose. This business of scape-goating Nader is dishonest, self-deceit. Gore dug his own grave. Oh, Gore and the Goristas will blame themselves if they lose. There will be more than enough blame to go around. But people who pull the lever for Nader (and who encourage others to do so) should not try to evade their share of the blame... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
I wonder if people who were organizing big anti-war [in Vietnam] demonstrations... worried _ahead of time_ that their movements would "crash and burn." They should have. Chicago in 1968 elected Richard Nixon president... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
mbs wrote Really? Can you say how the 'space' provided by Clinton since 1992 has facilitated the growth of progressive movements? I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater than Bush elder/Dole would have provided. That answer begs the question of 'how.' mbs Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had 8 years of Bush/Dole? Eric
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would submit that the space provided by Clinton was greater than Bush elder/Dole would have provided. Would progressive movements have been better off today if we had just had 8 years of Bush/Dole? You glance at Chuck Grimes's argument (the only respectable argument for voting Dem. I know of) that the Demireps make a better enemy than the the Republicrats. I disagree but it is respectable. Now as to the "better off." We might well have been able to fight off welfare reform with Bush and a Democratic congress having to pretend to match the illusion that they are progressive. And social security would be less at risk with Bush/Dole. The Dems are very apt to sneak through a wrecking program. Monica saved it last time around. Who will save it if Gore is elected? And Republican administrations are far worse on foreign policy. The only major exception to a century of Democratic war making was the Gulf War, and Clinton has kept that up. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
By Eric's reasoning, we should just give up and become good little Democrats, or am I missing something, Eric? --jks I wrote But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or Gore--appointing people to, say, the National Labor Relations Board? Carrol responded If enough progressives think like this, by (say) 2012 the bottom line will be do you want someone like Buchanan or someone like Gerald R. K. Smith appointing the NLRB? By 2030 it will be do you want someone like Mussolini or someone like Pinochet appointing the NLRB? Boy, that was a pretty slippery slope I stepped on (in the eyes of Carrol). Many union elections are lost by unions by a very small number of votes. Although the NLRB often has fairly minor impacts on what goes on "in the field" they do have an impact: large enough often to cause widespread gains or losses for union representations elections over time. I think that the best way--right now--to support working people is to avoid the horrors of Bush appointments to NLRB and other similar Federal agencies. And, Gore might very well follow in the footsteps of Clinton and do some good things in his appointments. Unions--as flawed as they are in the US--are the strongest working peoples' organizations here in the US. They need every (minor) bit of production they can get. A Gore administration would provide a much better space for progressive movements to grow in than a Bush administration. Just remember the very sad years we had when Reagan and his folks were in power. If the hope is that a growing Green Party--and a 5% Nader vote--will help things down the road, just remember what happened to the (at the time) very popular movement started by Ross Perot and the Reform Party. Where does it stand now? Eric _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
yes indeed On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 11:09:06PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael wrote Eric, Perot was a major factor in making the deficit such an important issue. Possibly true. But the Reform Party itself has crashed and burned (which was my point). Might not the same fate befall the Green Party? Eric -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: voting for Nader
I initially wrote, But the bottom line is who do you want--Bush or Gore--appointing people to, say, the National Labor Relations Board? Some responses have ranged from 1. my question leads directly to fascism (Carrol, Gar), 2. progressive politics might have been better off if Dole had become president (Carrol), 3. my messages imply we should become good little Democrats (jks). My response: I utter some hyperbole _ (fill in the blanks) in response to the above hyperbole. Mbs asked about "how" it makes a difference who is president while Jim D asks about whether it matters who is appointed with moble capital and declining budgets. Response: vetos, who is appointed to various positions within the federal government (including NLRB and Supreme Court), and general ideological discourse uttered by the president. And, yes, even in an era of open economies and declining enforcement budgets, I think it matters who is making the decisions. Eric .
