GOP and College Comments
Can this nation survive four more years of Dick Cheney running the show? Probably, but it is a risk that few thoughtful Americans, conservatives included, should want to take.
Whatever one thinks of George W. Bush--do you see a smile or a smirk?--it is now patently obvious that the most powerful vice president in U.S. history is in charge of the White House. Cheney's ultra-secretive, anti-democratic and crony-capitalist instincts have defined this administration.
Perhaps we should have expected all this from a man who, as head of the Bush vice presidential search team, selected himself. It was a forewarning of the Machiavellian arrogance that has made him the leading individual in an administration that has consistently believed that self-serving ends such as helping Enron at the expense of California's energy needs or boosting Halliburton's profits at the expense of American troops justify lying, secrecy and preemptive war.
As the Washington Post's Bob Woodward reports in "Plan of Action," his insider account of the Bush White House, Secretary of State Colin Powell "detected a kind of fever in Cheney
. Cheney was beyond hellbent for action against Saddam. It was as if nothing else existed."
And through the reports of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and 9/11 commission, and an exhaustive compilation released last week by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) of the Senate Armed Services Committee, it is now possible to read in excruciating detail about Cheney's role in convincing a majority of Americans that strong evidence to the contrary Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was moving toward the production of nuclear bombs and was an ally of Al Qaeda.
As recently as June and contrary to the 9/11 commission's final report, to give but one of many examples, Cheney was still insisting that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta had a meeting in Prague with a high-ranking Iraqi intelligence agent before the 9/11 attacks. This is an unconscionable and obviously knowing use of the Big Lie technique, given that the CIA and FBI repudiated that baseless yet titillating claim in 2002.
Lately, as the war has become an unmitigated disaster for the United States and Iraq, Cheney and the president have been on the defensive against charges by numerous terrorism experts and presidential candidate John F. Kerry that the invasion of Iraq was a dangerous distraction from the fight against Al Qaeda and its affiliates.
Undaunted, Cheney tells us the Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has been blamed for many anti-American attacks in Iraq, originally entered Iraq with Hussein's permission; thus Cheney tries to post facto justify the invasion as a legitimate pillar of the war on terror. But it's just another lie, with the CIA stating the opposite: The fundamentalist Zarqawi first sneaked into Hussein's secular and nationalist dictatorship using a false identity.
That Cheney clearly has a huge personal interest in the war makes all of this that much more sickening.
The latest report in a never-ending stream of conflict-of- interest revelations about this administration appears in the current issue of Time magazine. It detailed how the Pentagon favored Halliburton which Cheney headed from 1995 until 2000 with long-term, no-bid contracts. No problem. In Cheney's world, messianic ambition and personal greed can happily co-exist.
Ahhh, I love comment spammers who post about something with no relation to the post they are "commenting on."
So, let me get this straight, you are saying that since Bush won more counties and acreage, but less votes, then he should be president? So by your logic, space is more important than people's votes?
So people that live in big cities, their votes are worth less than people that in less populated areas? I'm trying to understand what you are trying to prove with your pretty, but utterly devoid of logic graphs, but all I can come up with is....your an idiot.
No, I'm saying that Democrats have learned that in a strictly popular vote, if you only concentrate on the large density populations, you don't have to bother with the less dense populations since they will be outnumbered.
As I stated, the electoral college is to the elections, as the Senate is to the legislative branch.
If you had actually read the post you would have realized that.
Nice try to 'mainstream' your rants. The entire message of your graph-based posts were to show how Gore almost 'stole' the election from the 'real' people and the 'majority' of the US, by focusing on the liberal cities. This is somehow wrong? How? More people vote for you, you win. Simple. Explain how your idea of Bush winning more counties, yet getting less American votes, makes him the the rightful winners?
Your Canada example both amplifies what you were trying to show...and...four years later, shows that you are, actually, a moron. Your dire predictions for Canada have turned out completely incorrect...there is no other currency on Earth that has gained more against the US Dollar than the Canadian Dollar in that time frame...and it is the US economy that is right on the edge of a spectacular recession.
My God, where did you learn economics and statistics? George Washington Elementary? You give us Republicans a bad name every time you attempt coherent speech.
Thank you for taking the time to put together your analysis! I know it was a LOT of work!
However, your arguement doesn't make good sense. If the electoral college is scrapped, and 1 vote=1 vote, then why would it matter if people live in the cities versus the country? Each person is still entitled to their opinion and each...vote...counts. This is also the prime argument against gerrymandering.
What your insightful survey is mainly hinting at is that the MAJORITY of the population of the US is "liberal" as you termed it, and if the majority is "liberal" why should'nt the majority win...even if you don't personally agree with the majority? As a democrat (a native of the deep rural South) I am deeply appalled by the events and mentality of the past 8 years, yet I am still a member of the "loyal opposition",working for the betterment of my country beside people with whom I don't agree. And I offer the idea that y'all on the other side of the aisle should be committed to this idea too, out of love of country though sadly not from love of *all* of your fellow citizens.
If the government is awful, as with the Bush administration, then a true democracy trusts its people to recognize that and tack against the wind. If Bush had done a good job, then there would not be such a furor to get rid of "conservatives", but there should be no hiding behind the electoral college.
It matters because in cities, you make a larger amount of money because there is a higher standard of living.
But if you notice, most of manufacturing is in rural areas, and the cost of living is lower, wages are lower, and from that, the cost of producing goods is lower.
If you control a country of the US's size and diversity with one group's interests, you are going to create massive amounts of friction.
For example, let's say in an election the candidate wins by appeasing to the big cities, and wants to enact a "national living wage." Well, that wage is going to be based on those cities. Let's say its $9/hour.
Switch over to the rural manufacturing areas;
Any assembly line worker making less than that $9/hr instantly raises to that $9/hr. Now how is that increase in cost going to be offset? There are 2 options. Increase the price, or decrease the labor costs by laying people off.
AAAAANNNND, because those people are making more, prices will inflate to match.
The point is that the interests of one group, may not be the same as the others, and can even be harmful to the others. Politicians should strive to lead the country, not simply lead the majority.
Commenting by HaloScan
