Election Musings

by Averroes

With the election cycle winding down to the last month or two, I would like to make some observations for the record.

I have always been sort of a maverick, always seen things differently, always liked to tweak the smug views of others. Richard Clarke would recognize me as a compadre. Some of this I have published before.

First, I love the unusual, the chance to be a part of a time that stands out in history. I would like to have an election result which calls future generations back with a "do you believe that, way back in 2004, ....?"

So, someone has calculated that there are over a hundred different ways for the electoral race to end in a tie, 269 for each candidate. But wait. Once we vote for a slate of electors pledged to a party's candidates, there is nothing but party loyalty to hold those electors to their pledge. Electors can, and have, voted for someone other than those for whom they have pledged. In 1988, for example, Margaret Leach of Huntington, West Virginia refused to cast her ballot for Michael Dukakis, although he had carried the state and she was on the Democratic slate.

Which brings us to an absolute dream result. If the electoral college is tied, and West Virginia goes to Bush, one elector on the Republican slate has already announced that he is undecided. Mayor Richie Robb, mayor of South Charleston, has said that he is mad at President Bush. While he says that it is "unlikely" that he will cast his ballot for Kerry, he said he might cast his ballot for some other Republican, such as Dick Cheney. But he COULD give the victory to Kerry. One man.

If Bush was at 270, a change by Robb would keep Bush from claiming victory. If it is a tie, and Robb DID cast a ballot for Kerry, Kerry would win. In these cases, the results of a presidential election would come down to the vote of one man. A truly remarkable 15 minutes of fame.

A second dream result would be for Bush to win the popular vote, while Kerry wins the electoral vote. This one seems possible. There have been several elections in which the winner of the popular vote did not become president. The last time this happened, the rancor and hatred it aroused lasted until the next election, that is, this one. I would hope that Bushies can say, like Dennis Miller, "I'm for Bush, and I don't want Kerry to be president, but if he is elected, on November 3rd, I get in line behind him. If he is elected, the day after the election, I am a Kerry man." Maybe the Bush supporters can show that they are Americans first, unlike those bilious, vitriolic Democrats.

On political boards, including Spinsanity when I first came to it, over a year ago, antiBushites could not write his name without attaching "unelected," "selected," "illegitimate," or some other adjectival phrase indicating that Bush somehow had not won the office according to the law, and should not be in it. On Spinsanity, at least, there has been less of this since the election season has started. But some of the offenders are still there.

In the best of cases, and this seems likely, Bush wins the popular vote, Kerry the College, the lawyers celebrate full-employment day by filing a hundred lawsuits. Eventually, it comes down to the supervisor of elections in one state enforcing the law as written, being overturned by the State Supreme Court, and it goes to the Supreme Court. There, the Court upholds the state law, and Kerry becomes president. All i ask in this case, or, actually, even if Kerry merely wins the presidency without the popular majority, is that those who so spoke about Bush spend the next three years attaching the same adjectival phrases to Kerry's name. Something like, "you filthy Republicans must admit that Kerry's new health policies will help solve a nasty situation, and the results of the new studies show that it will be cheaper than thought, so you must admit that Kerry was the right choice even if he is an illegitimate president." On the other hand, those who leapt to bush's defense by noting the legality of his election would repond to this in like manner: "Kerry's health policy is merely another liberal boondoggle, but I must insist that you refrain from calling him an illegitimate president, since he was elected according to the laws of the land." Wouldn't that be refreshing?

Now some random observations:

1) This may be the first presidential election in quite a while where the Democrats out spent the Republicans. A look at the top contributors to 527s shows that top Democrats contributed several times what the top Republicans have. Maybe all we have proven this year is that when the public is closely divided, the presidency is up for sale.

2) In a campaign in which truth checked out early, the Democrats win the contest for the most absolute lies. Both campaigns engaged in shading the truth, cherry-picking figures, subtly misrepresenting the facts, and other techniques of high spin. One would think that neither would have any need to simply lie, stating counterfactuals that even the casual observer would know were not true.

As examples of the former techniques, let me cite one example. In talking about Kerry's health plan, Bush likes to say that it is too expensive and can't be paid for. he often goes on to say, "Senator Kerry has proposed new spending worth 2.1 trillion dollars. With a 't.'" Notice the subtle switch to "total spending" while talking about health care. And you can be sure that his campaign didn't pick some random study, but the one whose figures best suited them. Bush goes on, "Even if he raises taxes on the top two brackets, like he said he would, that will raise just 600 to 800 billion. That's a gap. That gap has to be paid for. And guess who will pay for it. that's right, you will. The middle class."

The Kerry campaign responded. Spokespersons have said that the health plan will cost 600 billion dollars, "well covered by the 850 billion dollars that will be raised by eliminating Bush's tax cut for the rich." We are left to wonder what the truth is.

Now, both sides have used many tricks to obscure or enhance the truth. The Bushies excel here, counting procedural votes and votes for multiple instances of a bill together to come up with a high number of Kerry votes for or against something. the lump votes against tax cuts with votes for tax raises. They make Kerry seem much busier than he actually was. Unfortunately, they are the only source of information for Kerry's record, since the latter candidate has remained mum on his voting, for the most part.

But I have been unable to find the kind of actual lies in the Bush opus that have the last few months become the daily staple of Kerry's stump speeches. Kerry has claimed that "their policy is to raise Medicare premiums 17%," that "Bush will cut your Social Security benefits 25%," and many others. Let me examine one.

Kerry has said that Bush is planning a draft, which absolutely misrepresents what Bush has said. It is a lie. To his credit, Kerry has occasionally offered the reasons why he thinks the president will be forced to institute a draft. He cites the stretched military, the need to stay in Iraq and win, recruitment problems, re-enlistments which may be beginning to fall off, and that the stopgap measures like forced extensions of duty will eventually be impossible to sustain; All this is true, and makes a good argument. What Kerry doesn't say is that these arguments apply no matter who is president in the coming year. One might add that Kerry's promise to increase the size of the Army by 40,000 men makes his argument absolute for HIS presidency. So, the honest thing for Kerry to have said is that a draft will have to be instituted, and that he is not ignoring that reality.

But there is a reason why he would never say that. We in America do not reward honesty. Recently, Walter Mondale's assessment that a raise in taxes was needed sealed his doom. George Bush's father, in a move of honesty and political courage, told us that we needed a raise in taxes despite his promise not to raise taxes, and we rewarded him by voting him out of office. His successor is now lauded for raising taxes and righting the economy.

On many issues, the candidates are simply silent. That is because the truth would doom them. Such topics include Social Security, the unfunded mandate of Medicare, the growing burden of runaway entitlement programs, the huge growth in the size of government, and the interrelated problems of energy sustenance, environmental stewardship, and dependence on shifty allies and enemies for energy. All we get here are vague promises and political dogma.

Neither candidate is willing to call for a general sacrifice in a time of war, and to counter our debt and achieve strategic goals. They know that we will punish them if they do. They give us exactly what we have forced them to give us.

3) Provisional ballots may turn out to be a full employment plan for lawyers. If we continue to see voters as complete idiots who cannot take any responsibility for seeing that their wishes are properly cast, we may be facing a two month post election day court battle every election. One can imagine lawyers trying to change the law to spread elections across the calendar so that they don't have all their work at one time. The denigratory term for lawyers, "ambulance chasers," will be replaced by "election hounds."

4) Charges that the Republicans are trying to suppress the "Black vote" are just stupid. One cannot imagine that Republicans would ask someone to keep a Black voter from the polls, and when told "that's old Kawami Jones, he's a Republican, look at his Bush-Cheney button," that the Republican would say, "keep him from the polls anyway." The truth is that both parties would like to suppress their opponents votes, and increase their own. Are you surprised? I'm waiting for the party which will drive buses around town from early on election day, and announce through a loudspeaker that they will take anyone to the polls without asking their party affiliation, and without asking for whom they plan to vote. Unless a party does that, we should see all those overwrought displays of fake moral indignation as just more political acting. And in some cases, race baiting.

5) There have been several attempts by foreigners to influence the election. As it looks now, only one stands a chance of being successful. The Guardian's "pen pal" campaign was met with disgust, and rightly so. Endorsements and quasi-endorsements seem to have had no effect.

The one exception seems to be IAEA head Mohamed Baradei's blatant attempt to influence the election in favor of John Kerry. His release of the al-Qaqaa information at just the right time is a direct attmpt to save his position. Bush has stated that he will oppose another term for Baradei. The release of this charge with a minimum of data was calculated to provide grounds for exaggerated charges. The Kerry people put the spin machine in high gear, and the Republicans, failing to learn from Kerry's slow response to the Swift Boat charges, were slow to respond. If the election is very close, and Kerry wins, it will be absolutely true that this election was determined by an outside influence, one man, Mohamed El-Baradei.

I should note for honesty that Baradei did issue a statement that the timing of the release of this material had nothing to do with the election. If you believe that, you will also believe that Hillary (and many others) has "no plans to run for president." You would be like an embattled baseball manager, who, on hearing his general manager give him a vote of confidence, takes out a long term lease on a home. you would be the sort who believes the star of a new movie, making the talk show rounds, when he says that "it is really a great movie, one of the best productions I've been involved in, the director is incredible...."

6) We have all heard that the undecideds break against the incumbent. Actually, this is simply a usual example of a more general rule. Undecideds tend to break towards the most undefined candidate. Kerry has taken the natural advantage he had in this regard in running against an incumbent with a visible record, and made the avoidance of defining himself the central strategy of his campaign. He talked more about what he is not than about what he is. It may well be the winning strategy.

As for me, and this is as close as i will get to telling you how i voted, i asked very little from Kerry. I didn't vote for Bush, I don't like his policies, even the ones his supporters love. I opposed the war. Ralph Nader, for whom i voted in 2000, is not on my ballot. My vote was there for Kerry to take. All he has to do, (the election is not here yet as I write this), is to tell me what he would like to do to solve some problems, and how his Senate record the last 6-8 years gives me confidence that he will try to do what he says he will do. I am willing to overlook his (and other members of Congress') absolute responsibility for the Iraq war. His election would make more solid the divided government we have now, hanging now by the thread of the Senate Democrats' ability to block legislation. We Americans, and I, personally, like divided government. It means that government does less. Those who control government seem to think that they must govern, and they think they need more government to do this. This virus infects both Democrats and Republicans.

Let me end with one more dream. Let's say that we have an electoral tie, and the presidential vote goes to the House of Representatives. it is probable, almost a lock, that the several state delegations, one vote apiece, will elect George Bush. But the vice president is elected by the Senate in this case. It is quite possible that the Democrats will pick up a couple of seats in the Senate. If so, they could elect John Edwards the vice president with Bush as president. Now, that would be history. We all know how Bush relies on his vice president.

That first meeting between the vice president and George Bush would be very interesting. So would the first meeting of Vice president Edwards and the energy industry. I predict that John Edwards would keep the minutes secret, citing executive privilege, and noting that such privilege allows people to speak with complete candor. And O'Reilly's veins will pop out when he hears of this new example of secrecy in government, a new example of a government that is not looking out for the folks.

When we step back and look at this rancorous election, we are forced to agree with Ralph Nader, that in the long run, it will not make much difference in our daily lives, not in the solution of our social ills. We may wonder why we risked heart disease to inject so much ill will into this campaign.

Comments

[pyrrho]

>antiBushites could not write his name without attaching "unelected," "selected," "illegitimate," or some other adjectival phrase indicating that Bush somehow had not won the office according to the law, and should not be in it. On Spinsanity, at least, there has been less of this since the election season has started. But some of the offenders are still there.

finally a tacit admission that I'm not an antiBushite, since I've never done this regarding Bush and have held the position that our system worked as designed. The errors of the SC are their to make, for example, and not subject to second guessing in terms of their jurisdiction.

[pyrrho]

I predict that the Republicans will not accept Kerry as their president regardless of the electoral outcomes. They will attack Kerry fully and daily as they did Clinton and Carter and every democratic candidate, even when that official is cooperating with them ala Welfare Reform.

[Winston Smith]

Have you wondered about that heart disease risk? You're certainly doing your share to inject as much ill will into the campaign as possible. In fact, it's rare to find packed into 2600 words such a repulsive stew of nonsense, baseless smears, self-congratulatory pseudo-cynicism, sneering, indifference to reality and hot air.

[Nussmier]

Didnt really have an exact spot where this fit but I thought it would be ok here. So here goes.

One other thing that bothers me about this election is both candidates saying they will hunt down and kill terrorists that threaten America or Americain civilians. Which is all fine and good but I am afraid we have not learned anything from Israel/Palastine conflict. How long has Israel hunted down and killed terrorists? No matter how many leaders/followers of Hamas they kill another takes there place. It is very arguable that the violence is doing them more harm then good. I wish Kerry/Bush would discuss how they plan to stop little boys/girls from wanting to become a terrorist rather then saying how they are going to hunt and kill all that become one. Dealing with the result of a problem rather then the cause is typically not the way to solve a problem. I know making Iraq a deomcracy is the first step but it seems it will be a while before(if it ever does) that happens. I think there must be other steps in policy besides killing terrorists to insure success in changing the current trend in the middle east. I feel that niehter candidate has done a very good job of discussing what those are.

[pyrrho]

>Which is all fine and good but I am afraid we have not learned anything from Israel/Palastine conflict.

Nussmier... great point but it's even worse than you've said.

The fact is... people are still able to get elected on that rhetoric... and evolution is a niche finding game. The niche politicians occupy does well to Not Learn The Real Lesson in this case!

So the people have to teach learn this lesson first. The politicians cannot bring this too us safely (insofar as the politician stepping up to make this point will likely lose their election!). We have to force this realization onto the politicians.

The only exception: the modern military. The modern military seems to generate people that understand why war should be of last resort... they know the costs and are not (always) deluded by the glory of it all.

[pyrrho]

av,

ah, I hadn't read the extended portion.

a couple things: your accusation that the democrats have lied more is unsubstantiated, of course, and you did not say campaigns... the SBVT lies are the worst lies of this campaign.

I also think the provisional ballot is an employment program for lawyers. It's a nice idea but utterly ridiculous to have N votes which will automatically, by design, be registered at the rate of the judicial system. Two years into the Presidency a ruling will what... change who the president is? What a mess.

>Let me end with one more dream. Let's say that we have an electoral tie, and the presidential vote goes to the House of Representatives. it is probable, almost a lock, that the several state delegations, one vote apiece, will elect George Bush. But the vice president is elected by the Senate in this case. It is quite possible that the Democrats will pick up a couple of seats in the Senate. If so, they could elect John Edwards the vice president with Bush as president. Now, that would be history. We all know how Bush relies on his vice president.

Well, I admit with some guilt that I too love an exciting election. I spent years, no decades, telling people how the popular vote didn't mean being elected to which I got a lot of blank stares and "whahhuh?" etc, (it's a great way to find fellow political junkies though).... after 2000 it's a much simpler issue to raise. OTOH, as I grow older I'm more aware of the real pain caused by navigating these sorts of waters. I think of all your "continued democratic chaos" scenarios the one above might be the one that would be further illuminating. I for one would like to see it work. The other scenarios are more of the "just painful" variety. Still, if one of them happens I think it's our responsibility to push for the slight reforms our system needs to update The American Experiment.

(btw, the updates arem, proportional voting for states of more than 8 electoral votes, and IRV or Approval Voting).

[Batman]

Pyrrho:

Have you read "Unfit for Command" by the SBVT?? If you have not read it, you should refrain from classifying any of it as being a lie. I ask, because having read it, I have yet to find a lie that has been substantiated by the Kerry campaign or elsewhere. There are, of course, differing versions of the events in Vietnam, but nothing that either camp could conclusively call a lie by the other camp. But, more importantly, is the vast portion of the book that the Kerry campaign and others have not challeneged. I guarantee that you would see Kerry in a different light were you to read the book.
In fact, for any who want it, I am happy to e-mail the book to you. I have scanned the entire book and have it in PDF format for any who wish to see for themeselves. All you need to do is send me an e-mail address with your own e-mail adress and it will be done. I also have Kerry's other book "New Soldier" in PDF as well, just say the word.....

[pyrrho]

batman,

havn't read it... I would like to but it is in the classification of a book I can only read if given to me or if I find it in the library book sale...

As lies I take (1) saying there was no fire when your own documentation for your own medal disagrees, it's a lie in there somewhere, sometimes, and (2) saying you treated Kerry when in fact another physician claims to and is on the documentation, and (3) since evalualtions of lies are largely subjective, as I think we've proven, I have to say the whole thing strikes me as a lie. They started off bad mouthing Kerry's war service. I don't think that was sincere, I think they hate kerry for his VVAW protesting... NOT FOR HIS SERVICE.

Also, O'Neil, SBVT and Kerry stalker supreme said to Nixon, our president at the time, that he had been in Cambodia, but told us all that he hadn't been, and that therefore Kerry couldn't have been since they were assigned to the same duties.

Also, I don't forgive the early intimation that O'Neil was on the same boat as Kerry... oops, except not at the same time.

Your mileage may vary.

[pyrrho]

batman,

btw, I would like to read the book, but I don't think that's legal for you to scan and send... I'm assuming it's copyrighted.

[Batman]

Pyhrro:
"(1) saying there was no fire when your own documentation for your own medal disagrees, it's a lie in there somewhere, sometimes, and" I think you are referring to one man and one account. There are numerous other accounts that support this version. Who you gonna believe??
"(2) saying you treated Kerry when in fact another physician claims to and is on the documentation, and" That's not accurate. One doctor treated him, and gave his account. His orderly (as was not uncommon) took the notes and signed the medical paperwork during the visit. Because of this, theye are trying to say he was never treated by this doc. This has been debunked. Even Kerry's campaign has gone so far as to acknowledge that this PH may have been the reuslt of Kerry's own inadvertant discharge of his weapon.
"(3) since evalualtions of lies are largely subjective, as I think we've proven, I have to say the whole thing strikes me as a lie. They started off bad mouthing Kerry's war service. I don't think that was sincere, I think they hate kerry for his VVAW protesting... NOT FOR HIS SERVICE."
It may strike you as a lie, but as I said, I think you would be surprised at teh 95% of the other part of the book that has not been disputed by Kerry. Yes, they were certainly unhappy with his words after the war, but as the book makes clear, they all pretty much hated him and thought he was worthless while he was there, too. They did whatever they could to avoid missions with him and transferred him to ther units whenever possible to avoid serving with him.

"Also, O'Neil, SBVT and Kerry stalker supreme said to Nixon, our president at the time, that he had been in Cambodia, but told us all that he hadn't been, and that therefore Kerry couldn't have been since they were assigned to the same duties."
This has already been cleared up. If you listen to the whole transcript, he claims he was on the river on the border with Cambodia, not in Cambodia. In order for him to hav ebeena stalker, wouldn't he have had to have surfaced at some other point during Kerry's campaigns in the last 20+ years?? Kerry was not in Cambodia, Pyrrho, he lied about it.

"Also, I don't forgive the early intimation that O'Neil was on the same boat as Kerry... oops, except not at the same time."
That is never intimated in the book. He makes it abundantly clear that he served after Kerry.

Regarding the book...well, who knows...if that is the case I am already in deep trouble as I have sent it out to 1,000's of people in the last week or so. Who knows how many they have sent it on to (hopefully they sent it to at least 5 or more each). But, if you were to just send me an e-mail, you certainly have no control over what get sent to you, do you? Or, are you afraid of what you might find by reading the book?

[pyrrho]

not afraid of the book at all. in fact, I imagine the charges in it will hang around for the party after President Kerry is innaugerated... it might be a must read for political hobbyists.

I'm sure you're not supposed to copy it unless given express permission... but as the authors probably don't mind getting their message out they might have given such, or might be happy to look the other way I suppose. I've sent you an email address and I'll check the copyright myself. If it's copyrighted I'll try to find a legit copy even if I have to.... eck... buy it.

[Batman]

Pyrrho: Well, I am glad you are so sure your candidate will win tomorrow. I do not share the same level of confidence for Bush, nor for that matter Kerry. It appears to be very close, but Bush did break the magic 50% number in the last Gallup Poll. We won't know if that means anything until tomorrow.
However, should Kerry win, I hope he does so in a fashion that is significant enough to rule out any of the trauma we endured last election. I hope the same thing should Bush prevail. In either case, I will line up firmly behind whoever wins.
BTW..you hit it on the head. The SBVfT are not too worried about copyright at this stage of the game.

[pyrrho]

batman,

I already told you I'm just joshin' this is going to be some exciting results watching, I might need to get a spare bottle of Scotch.

It's close as could be... I'm just being a not-a-girlie-man and predicting in the face of it. Besides, that's when predicting is fun... when it really is too close.

OTOH, as I have said, I do have my reasons... I think Bush would have to be ahead to finish even, and I think the trends are in Kerry's direction for a 5% popular vote win and a narrow EC victory.

These are good numbers... even if I did just pull them out of my... uh... liquor cabinet.

At any rate... it's been good running up to the election with you... neither of us really knows what Wednesday has in store.

I hope you are right about the victory being clear (either way)... although I did have to admit to Averroes to a guilty pleasure of watching political forteana unfold right here and now in our own times, America needs a little breather.

On that topic, though... what would you make of a Bush/Edwards 4 years? Wierd? Think Edwards would resign? Cheers.

[Averroes]

pyrrho: "finally a tacit admission that I'm not an antiBushite, since I've never done this regarding Bush"

It is somethng some but not all antiBushites do. It is not a defining character, just a common one.

"a couple things: your accusation that the democrats have lied more is unsubstantiated, of course, and you did not say campaigns... the SBVT lies are the worst lies of this campaign."

" They will attack Kerry fully and daily as they did Clinton and Carter and every democratic candidate, "

Nice selective memory, maybe the result of the recency effect. In fact carter had a nice Democratic congress. Clinton actually got a lot of cooperation form Congressional Republicans. it waszn't until the later years that things got a little vicious. Yet, even at its worst, it never came close to the daily vitriol heaped on bush, who had only that honeymoon period after 911. one forgets thazt to this day, some Deomcrats clench their teeth whenever Bush is mentioned and say they are sill enraged by the 2000 election. It is true, unfortunaltely, that Congress has become more factious than ever.

" I spent years, no decades, telling people how the popular vote didn't mean being elected to which I got a lot of blank stares and "whahhuh?" etc, (it's a great way to find fellow political junkies though).."

To us oldsters, it is not a matter of being a political junkie, it was a matter of what one needed to know to get from grade 3 to grade 4. but i know exactly what you are talking about.

I was thinking of the candidates particularly, and the campaigns more generally. The swifties amy ofr may not have been lying about none, some, or all of their claimns, but since i don't give a hoot about what the several candidates did that long ago, i never really followed it up. Likewise, i'm not including those zillions of Dem 527 ads, some not even attampting to be truthful I just didn't want to get into the old "coordintaion" argument, you know, the one where the antiBushites are absolutely clear that the swifties acted under the direction of Rove, but all those Dem 527s are clean as a whistle and never had any contact with the Dem campaign.

That's why i picked those three lies spoken directly by Kerry. Right after the Republican convention, he came out with five different lies in five straight days, starting with the "policy of raising your medicare premiums 17%" lie the day after. Of course, i am open to any lies in Bush's stimp speeches.

Note that I accused both sides of high spin and misleading statements.

The one thing that bothers me is the incompetancy of these two campaigns, and the lack of quick thinking in these candidates. if you remember the forst debate, there were several times when a Reagan or a Clinton would have responded to a Bush comment with a knockout blow. Bush was so tired in that debate, and so over coached and "on message," that he seemed incapable of actually hearing what Kerry was saying. The Kerry campaing was all over the map, slow to find a central theme, and racked with dissension. the Republican campaign was just plain incompetant, from allowing Bush to repeat errors to actually insisting on just those rules for the debate which best served Kerry.

The actual theme of this election cycle is best summed up with the plaintive question: "Is this the best we could come up with?"

" Still, if one of them happens I think it's our responsibility to push for the slight reforms our system needs to update The American Experiment."

Actually, i think the system is perfect. An e;lection of the president by popular vote was specifically avoided by the framers of the constitution. Your suggestion would have insured a win for Bush, btw.

One more scenario, which is just wonderful: If the vote goes to the house, and the state delegations get one vote each, it is possible that some states could not provide a vote! OIt happens that a few states that Bush is expected to or has a good chance to win have an even number of delegates likely to be evenly divided between Repub;licans and Democrats. If a couple of these cannot resolve a tie, which party discipline makes likely, and Bush falls below the 26 states he needs to win, then the vice president, chosen by the Senate, becomes the acting president until scuch tome as a president is chosen by the Senate. That would mean either Cheney would be acting president, if the Republicans retain control of the Senate, or Edwards, if the Democrats can win control. Now, if the Senate is even, 50-50, then neither will be voted in, and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert becomes the acting president.

This is not insignificant, since it may be the case that the deadlock i described in the House could last the two year term of this congress! It is just so exciting.

I do have one idea which i think would be a great reform. Actually, it is a return to the (often unwritten) rules of the early days of the constitution. I learned form watching a little piece on dishonesty and vitriol in presidential campaigns that this one pales in the face of the first few.

But there was one great difference. in those days, the conceit was that the candidate was being asked to leave his private life and make the noble sacrifice of public office. Thus, it was deemed inconsistent that a candidate would ever ask anyone to vote for him. The candidates did no campaigning at all. if they were in office, they simply went about the duties of the office. If not, they stayed home, out of the public limelight.

The entire campaign was waged by supporters and anyone who decided to jump on any presidential bandwagon. the claims and counterclaims could be and were much worse than we now see (with the one possible exception of the daisy ad). My personal favorite is Jefferson being called a hermaphrodite whose election would bring murder to the streets and incest to our homes! Nowadays, of course, the hermaphrodites would rise up in indignation at such a remark.

[Averroes]

Winston: " In fact, it's rare to find packed into 2600 words such a repulsive stew of nonsense, baseless smears, self-congratulatory pseudo-cynicism, sneering, indifference to reality and hot air. "

Gosh, winston, i reread the piece and found no examples of your gratuitous slurs. And i bnotice that you do nbot provide any. I'm willing to consider your view, however. I'll be satisfied with one example of each.

I'm especially interested in an example of self-congratulatory pseudo-cynicism. I meant it to be self-adulatory arch-cynicism.

" You're certainly doing your share to inject as much ill will into the campaign as possible."

Of course there is no ill will in this piece.

But you will see exactly what you believe, I'm sure.

[Kav]

Winston,
I don't agree with all of Averroes's assesments but I think your analysis was somewhat over-harsh. Particularly since you launched at the generalities instead of specifics.
We're all here to air our arguments and sometimes our grievances and, in my opinion, the best way to do that is be critical of each other's musings but on a specific level. Otherwise the discourse descends into name calling and vitriol and we all suffer for it. I think that oftentimes we are all guilty of this and I encourage all of us to raise the level. If we can't then why should we expect our politicians to do it?

Basically, get it together you bunch of moronic bastards.
;-)

[Kav]

An aside:
Averroes I notice that your email address begins with Madscientist.
My favourite current anecdote concerns a recent trip to Calgary and subsequent return to the US. I apologise if my genralizations offend my yankee friends but I have noted on many comings and goings to the states that US customs officials tend to have little or no sense of humour and more often than not tend to be surly and unhelpful.
Well, on my way back from Calgary I passed US customs in Calgary airport (how weird is that?). The chap at the desk seemed the usual dour sort and was quite brusque with my wife and I.
he asked me what I did and so I replied that I was a scientist. He then hesitated and peered at me, before leaning in very close and asking
'are you a mad scientist?'
before breaking into a huge grin and processing us cheerfully and quickly.
The trip backed seemed a whole lot pleasant after that.

[pyrrho]

it's looks like a spooky 269-269 thing right now... havn't checked close enough on the Senate thing but have no reason to think that the Edward VP idea would fly.

[Winston Smith]

A very big disappointment tonight. I'm going to bed.

[pyrrho]

doesn't look 269 269 right now.

batman... should I have been more superstitious about predicting...? I'm just glad I explained the joke and acknowledged it was really going to be more like this... very close. I agree it will be nice to know if it's clear like it looks right now that the popular vote went with President Bush.

[Nussmier]

I don't blame the Democrats for all this legal junk that is going on because the Republicans would be doing the same if they thought they had a chance to win. If we didnt have the electoral college this all would be a moot point becase Bush has the majority votes handily. So if anything this proves as did the last election that the electoral college needs to be reformed or abolished all together.

[Averroes]

Funny thing...

I watched the coverage on all the channels, even the elite media channels ABC, CBS, and NBC, along with the news channels, and the Canadian news channel. As the first results came in, i got the distinct feeling that Kerry would win, it was inevitable, and i had a sinking feeling, a feeling of disappointment. The commentators seemed to indicate that everything that happended was a bad omen for Bush. For instance, the fact that even though Bush won N. Carolina and Virginia, he didn't win it fast enough did not bode well for Bush, and "may be indicative of a trend."

Now, what had happened was that the commentators had seen the exit ppolls, which were mostly in Kerry's favor, and had taken the huge turnout to be in kerry's favor.

It wasn't until Florida turned around that things changed. On one of the channels, a Republican explained that he wasn't concerned by the early results because they hhad done better than they had against Gore in wsome places, and the Republican precincts weren't in yet. Sure enough, the state turned around like he said it would, and the tenor of the commentary changed. Soon we were hearing that Kerry had failed to take any of the red states away, and for awhile, it looked like Bush had a xchance at pennsylvania. When Pennsylvania went to Kerry, the talk came to the various ways eityher could win with or without Ohio.

then suddenly, some states flipped, Ohio looked like Bush would win it, and the commentators held little hope for Kerry. (The Canadian man in the street interviews were really interesting at this time.)

It daswned on me that bush had probably won it.

I had a sinking feeling in my stomach. I felt disappointed.