WWTBAM Bored

Both sides this year has set up a rhetorical situation wherein regardless of who wins on November 4th, people will claim that the victory was illegitimate.

The Republicans have done this by harping on ACORN and pushing the argument that the registration fraud (which is undeniable) means that if Senator Obama wins, then there must have been voting fraud (which is a spurious conclusion).

The Democrats have done this by saying if Senator McCain wins it will only be because of racism. I'm sure if McCain pulls out the miracle come from behind upset, many will also allege electronic voting fraud.

This scorched earth approach is destroying our sense of community in the country. I am working on a column to present to my local newspapers about this political culture of hate. I'm sick of political opponents being viewed as enemies.

There used to be respect from both sides of the aisle for the other despite some pretty significant disagreements on policies. We've lost that. I am wondering if it is possible to get it back any time soon.

I've thought the exact same thing.

You even see it here on the bored. It's not enough to have political discourse. It needs to get personal (not necessarily against the person you are arguing with, but certainly against the candidate who holds a differing view).

I cannot envision how it can improve, since there are so many nutjobs on either side of the political fence.

Good post, Cal. I look forward to reading your column.

at this point, the best way for your points to be answered would be for one candidate to win a 40 state or plus victory. No one even considered at this point in the 1980 election that Reagan would win as strongly as he did, carrrying 44 states.

I still wonder why anybody wants the job.

I'm amazed at some of the discourse on here and in general, but I shouldn't be.

Fro a while I thought this year might be better - but while I think until recently the candidates did better, many of their supporters can't do any better.

I hope whoever wins does a good job - I just don't think anyone can meet the challenge.

gotribego26 wrote:I still wonder why anybody wants the job.

I'm amazed at some of the discourse on here and in general, but I shouldn't be.

Fro a while I thought this year might be better - but while I think until recently the candidates did better, many of their supporters can't do any better.

I hope whoever wins does a good job - I just don't think anyone can meet the challenge.

The ridiculous publicity and media spotlight do tend to bring narcissists to the fore, but the job is technically MUCH easier than many other heads of state or government: fixed term, can only seek re-election once, division of powers, most of what you send to Congress is dead on arrival anyhow, no requirement to sit in the legislature to maintain the government, no fractious coalitions or you're out, no generals ready for coups (I hope, still), no broad-based insurrections, small cabinet with strong bosses, no tradition of cabinet shuffling (commonly at least). You get to establish a sense of direction, win on a few domestic issues, tubthump without effect on others, choose friends wisely and enemies even more wisely. The ONLY difficult area is foreign policy, which merely concerns the future of the nation and the world. The biggest problem is that more is expected than can possibly be done. The second biggest problem is being able to realize when immediate action is beneficial to your cause or to your governing.

Delegitimizing?


The Bastards!

starfish1113 wrote:I've thought the exact same thing.

You even see it here on the bored. It's not enough to have political discourse. It needs to get personal (not necessarily against the person you are arguing with, but certainly against the candidate who holds a differing view).

I cannot envision how it can improve, since there are so many nutjobs on either side of the political fence.

Good post, Cal. I look forward to reading your column.

I disagreed with most of Gore's proposals in 2000 and with Kerry's in 2004, but I generally stayed away from attacking their character. I have to say that my feelings against Obama run much deeper than with those past candidates, and I think it starts with one basic action on Obama's part. His blockage of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in the Illinois state legislature is just an inconceivable, detestable action, that it casts a long shadow over everything he does, for me at least. It has caused me to question everything else about the man. He is so radical that he would allow babies living outside the womb to die of neglect or worse, merely to protect the woman's "right" to choose. Obama's immorality in regards to this one event causes me to question just about everything he says or does. So yes, with Obama, my feelings and attacks toward him do need to get personal mainly because I question just what kind of human being he is.

I really think that John McCain has always wanted to run an honorable campaign, which is one reason why his campaign has appeared to flail around as much as it has the last couple of weeks. Unfortunately for him, his idea of the Senate as a place where ladies and gentlemen can discuss their differences in a reasoned manner the way Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen once did does not fit with current reality, especially the sort of Chicago style politics being practiced by Obama, easily the least scrupulous Democratic candidate in modern presidential history.

If Obama wins, which should be a nobrainer in this economic climate, many people will see it not as a disgrace and nearly giving a moribund bunch of Republicans their only realistic chance at victory, but rather as a vindication of his "style" of politics and a blueprint for future elections. In 2012, the political climate won't favor the Democrats nearly as much and the Republicans will undoubtedly field a candidate far more willing to engage in Obama-style politics.

as Judge of Elections, i dont see how I can figger out that voters named Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck "might" be fraudulent, even if their photo id's give a different name, and are made with crayon.

BigDrawMan wrote:as Judge of Elections, i dont see how I can figger out that voters named Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck "might" be fraudulent, even if their photo id's give a different name, and are made with crayon.

So because there are some voter registrations have names like Mickey Mouse and are clearly fraudulent, this means that there are no fraudulent registrations that have legitimate sounding names and might be taken as real, especially if the person voting has a fake ID.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BigDrawMan wrote:as Judge of Elections, i dont see how I can figger out that voters named Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck "might" be fraudulent, even if their photo id's give a different name, and are made with crayon.

So because there are some voter registrations have names like Mickey Mouse and are clearly fraudulent, this means that there are no fraudulent registrations that have legitimate sounding names and might be taken as real, especially if the person voting has a fake ID.

Which has always been my issue with the "Motor Voter" registrations, or any other type that doesn't require proper ID either up front or at the voting booth.

The ACORN incident sounds more like incompetence than fraud to me, and not exactly "destroying the fabric of democracy". They probably paid the registration getters by the name without bothering to check on the legitimacy of the name or existence of the person.

gsabc wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

BigDrawMan wrote:as Judge of Elections, i dont see how I can figger out that voters named Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck "might" be fraudulent, even if their photo id's give a different name, and are made with crayon.

So because there are some voter registrations have names like Mickey Mouse and are clearly fraudulent, this means that there are no fraudulent registrations that have legitimate sounding names and might be taken as real, especially if the person voting has a fake ID.

Which has always been my issue with the "Motor Voter" registrations, or any other type that doesn't require proper ID either up front or at the voting booth.

The ACORN incident sounds more like incompetence than fraud to me, and not exactly "destroying the fabric of democracy". They probably paid the registration getters by the name without bothering to check on the legitimacy of the name or existence of the person.

ACORN's position is that they pay people by the hour and that they do check, going so far as to flag for the authorities registrations that they view as suspicious and cooperating with the prosecution of employees who submit fraudulent registrations.

It wouldn't shock me, though, to find out that policy wasn't always followed. We're talking about a lot of registrations and a lot of employees. --Bob

BigDrawMan wrote:as Judge of Elections, i dont see how I can figger out that voters named Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck "might" be fraudulent, even if their photo id's give a different name, and are made with crayon.

LOL -- I knew a guy years ago named Michael House. He went by "Mickey." Yes, indeed -- Mickey HOUSE!

At the moment, there are no fewer than 12 people in my veterans database with the surname "Duck." No Donalds. There is only one (a female) with the first initial "D."

I also had a guy with a very famous name, whose Social Security # (which I will certainly not tell you!) was pretty darn close to the equally famous number associated with that famous fictional character's name. And, this fellow was born and named in the early 1920s -- about 30 years before Ian Fleming created his fictional namesake! The SSN, I can only surmise, was a total coincidence

Hopefully, all these folks vote, without too much trouble!

Beedums, are you still an election judge? Keith used to be, before we were married. Karen is interested in doing stuff like that; how did you get started?

silverscreenselect wrote:

BigDrawMan wrote:as Judge of Elections, i dont see how I can figger out that voters named Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck "might" be fraudulent, even if their photo id's give a different name, and are made with crayon.

So because there are some voter registrations have names like Mickey Mouse and are clearly fraudulent, this means that there are no fraudulent registrations that have legitimate sounding names and might be taken as real, especially if the person voting has a fake ID.

No
This means a first time voter in PA needs a photo ID to vote.
The penalties for getting caught far outweigh any gain in casting a single vote.

this is more of an urban legend than a real concern.

VAdame wrote:

BigDrawMan wrote:as Judge of Elections, i dont see how I can figger out that voters named Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck "might" be fraudulent, even if their photo id's give a different name, and are made with crayon.

LOL -- I knew a guy years ago named Michael House. He went by "Mickey." Yes, indeed -- Mickey HOUSE!

At the moment, there are no fewer than 12 people in my veterans database with the surname "Duck." No Donalds. There is only one (a female) with the first initial "D."

I also had a guy with a very famous name, whose Social Security # (which I will certainly not tell you!) was pretty darn close to the equally famous number associated with that famous fictional character's name. And, this fellow was born and named in the early 1920s -- about 30 years before Ian Fleming created his fictional namesake! The SSN, I can only surmise, was a total coincidence

Hopefully, all these folks vote, without too much trouble!

Beedums, are you still an election judge? Keith used to be, before we were married. Karen is interested in doing stuff like that; how did you get started?

i am

my cousin and aunt-in-law did it, and it seemed like a worthwhile endeavour.

call the county board of elections, the oldtimers who used to do it are dying off.

silverscreenselect wrote:I really think that John McCain has always wanted to run an honorable campaign, which is one reason why his campaign has appeared to flail around as much as it has the last couple of weeks. Unfortunately for him, his idea of the Senate as a place where ladies and gentlemen can discuss their differences in a reasoned manner the way Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen once did does not fit with current reality, especially the sort of Chicago style politics being practiced by Obama, easily the least scrupulous Democratic candidate in modern presidential history.

If Obama wins, which should be a nobrainer in this economic climate, many people will see it not as a disgrace and nearly giving a moribund bunch of Republicans their only realistic chance at victory, but rather as a vindication of his "style" of politics and a blueprint for future elections. In 2012, the political climate won't favor the Democrats nearly as much and the Republicans will undoubtedly field a candidate far more willing to engage in Obama-style politics.

kicking hillary's ass is is indeed unscrupulous.
Unlike Hillary's war vote.