The Truth Killers by Charley Reese
In the debate, Cheney got off what the television chatter-heads called the “best zinger of the night” when he said to Edwards that as president of the Senate, he (Cheney) had never met Edwards before that night’s debate. It was designed, of course, to diminish Edwards, to dismiss him as neglectful of his Senate duties.
And, true to form, it was a lie.
The Kerry campaign quickly produced a file photo of the two them together at a prayer breakfast at which the vice president, in his remarks, thanked Sen. Edwards for attending. If you are naďve or recklessly charitable, you can excuse Cheney’s false statements about Iraq by blaming them on the CIA, but the spookery is innocent in this case. Since no one has accused Cheney of having Alzheimer’s, it’s quite plain that he just lied when he claimed never to have met Edwards before. It’s also true that Cheney rarely shows up in the Senate except to have an occasional lunch with Republican senators.
When I was at the SF Examniner writing op-eds (from a conservative perspective) I could always count on Charley Reese for writing the most nutty right-wing manic rants, ever. Nobody was more to the right than Reese. So when someone sends me a few of Reese’s pieces with the note, “With a nut like Reese turning on Bush, you know Kerry is going to win.”
Don’t know what just happened, but here it is again: as a Kerry supporter (already having voted via absentee ballot), I am lately wondering what would happen if Bush won–but not the popular vote. Do you think it would lead people to get rid of the electoral college once and for all?
As opposed to a left-wing nut like Dvorak who hates Bush.
FYI..I’m a registered Republican who actually voted for Bush the first time around. Unlike lockstep people who cannot think for themselves I have decided he has done a crummy job. Because I think for myself I’m called a “left wing nut.” Thus another reason to abandoned the Republicans, since everyone who disagrees with them is called some “name” or smeared. Christians who partake in this should be ashamed of themselves. Fact is, get ready, I’m a moderate. That’s been redefined by the right wing nuts as “liberal.” I’m tired of it. It’s a disgrace. Reese is right.
I can give you the benefit of doubt on being a moderate, John. But many of your economic positions, regarding outsourcing, seem quite left-of-center, and right up Kerry’s “benedict arnold corporations” alley.
Meanwhile, Hooray for moderates! The rest of the country doesn’t realize that California Republicans are fighting for our lives our here. The Dems in California legislature truly are liberal, but most people see them as better than the red-meat eating Repubs who can get nominated and elected by an ultra-conservative California GOP.
The Gubernator is the best thing that ever happened to California Republicans, as he’ll pull the party back into the mainstream and back into contention. We may even start sending some moderate Republicans to Congress, reversing the trend towards extremism in both parties.
Most of this extremism (all over the country) is caused by the gerrymandered drawing of election districts, making the vast majority into safe seats for one party or the other.
Would you vote for a California Initiative Proposition to put the drawing up of Congressional and State Legislature districts into a bi-partisan (or, gasp, multi-partisan) commission?
Oh, Yeah. I’m a Republican who’s not voting for Bush, either. Since Kerry is winning California anyway, I get to vote my conscience. I think I’m going to write in John McCain. (same as I did in the Republican primary, when my vote _really_ didn’t matter.)
I’m surprised – all you seem to post is anti-Bush and Co. stuff. Party trumps person. I’m not all that impressed with Bush, but on balance I agree with Republicans more than Democrats. You pick a party and stick with it – the President is just one part of the system. The next President will likely appoint one or more Supreme Court justices, whom will be from his party. A Republican President will sign more Republican bills. And so on.
I’m actually more centrist/libertarian, but Libertarians have no chance of winning, and actually have some pretty wacky ideas. In my experience, it’s liberals who smear such people as right-wing nuts.
I sympathize with TC Moore to a certain extent. I understand his not wanting to vote for Bush, and feeling compelled to write-in someone as apparently decent as McCain. Although I am not registered with either party–and although my vote has always been mixed (depending more on the candidate), I voted (absentee ballot) for Kerry this time… in the state of ALABAMA! So I do know how TC Moore feels living in a state that is hopelessly out of touch with his way of seeing things.
Dave,
your comments Party trumps person. … You pick a party and stick with it are way off the mark. That is like turning off your brain.
That is the way it works in a Parlimentary system, like the UK has, but here you vote for the PERSON. That is why on the ballot, it doesn’t have just an R or D. It has the persons name.
A Libertarian candidate has no chance of winning because the Republicrats have brainwashed people like you into believing that “Party trumps person” (not mention rigging the system against anyone else).
Actually, I consider myself conservative, yet I have mixed feelings about Bush appointing Supreme Court judges. Having Bush appoint some yahoo that thinks that the Pledge should include “Under God” or one that thinks that Creationism is science finds no appeal with me. I have to say that I’m more inclined to approve of Kerry’s/the Democrat’s appointments than Bush’s.
Dave wrote:
Party trumps person. I’m not all that impressed with Bush, but on balance I agree with Republicans more than Democrats. You pick a party and stick with it – the President is just one part of the system.
Are you sure you agree with the Republicans? The makeup of the parties change over time. For instance, the neocons were originally Democrats. So I’d check to verify your party is what you think it is.
I would hope that everyone be motivated by their own personal interest. Pre-Gingrich, I used to vote for whomever. The Republican party platform for 2004 makes my head ache. It reads like a nightmare scenario. Seeing how I’m a moderate Presbyterian (vs Jesus Freak) and making less than $200k per year, the current Republican leadership doesn’t represent my interests. Specifically, that’d be progressive tax policy, fiscal responsibility, social tolerance and justice, strong defense of the Constitution, enviromental protection, and international multilaterism. Etc.
There’s also words and deeds. Sure, everyone breaks campaign promises. But there are limits.
[John- Two feature requests. Preview posts. Show posts most recent first. Thanks.]
Dave Pearson,
Thanks for the clarification. What about the other branches of government? I was under the impression that UK had proportional representaion, so if party X got 35% of the vote, they got 35% of the seats.
How does this work if you vote for an actual person?
What about the Prime Minister? Do you actually vote for that person, or do the ministers of the party with a majority select that person?
From Bryan: What about other brances of government?.
It depends what you mean by that question. What “branches” do you have in mind?
I was under the impression that the UK had proportional representation
Not for national elections we don’t. I think, but can’t say with authority, that the Scottish Parliament use PR and I believe that the Welsh Regional Assembly do too; IIRC the same is true of elections for the European Parliament. But when it comes to voting for the General Election we vote for an MP to represent us in the House of Commons; while many people will vote along party lines we are voting for an MP. In those cases, yes, you tend to be voting for a “party” but you still get individuals standing that you can vote for.
What about the Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister is the leader of the party that gets the majority of seats in the House of Commons. The leader of a party is chosen by party members using rules that are laid down by each party and that selection process doesn’t have a direct connection with the General Election (although, of course, in part, a party will pick somone who is seen as “electable”).
In general terms it works out that people tend to vote along party lines or vote as if they’re picking a PM but the realities of voting in the GE are such that your vote doesn’t directly select which party or which person will have wich, if any, office.
Two points. For John Ryle:Why do you want to get rid of the Electoral College? For John C. Dvorak: So you are a registered Republican? Thjat doesn’t mean anything as you clearly indicate later when you state you are a moderate. Anybody can register with any party and vote as they choose. Labeling yourself one way and voting another doesn’t mean that your label (ie Repub or Dem) has any validity vis a vis your political position. You will vote your beliefs/ principles and from what I read your are politically left of center.