BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Oct 03 - 10:37 PM

Right back atcha, Dougie.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 03 - 09:40 PM

I would think that a true conservative would have accepted the kind of changes Don Firth mentions, changes which have taken place and survived for a generation or so, and would seek to defend them, as forming part of the status quo.

Surely trying to restore a previous state of affairs by changing the present system wouldn't actually count as "conservative" but rather as a type of radical reformism. Actually "reactionary" is the more accurate word - defined in the Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought as "applied to those who not merely resist change but seek to put the clock back and return to some earlier order of society which is seen as having possessed characteristics...which the present is felt to lack..."

However the word "reactionary" has accrued to itself all kinds of pejorative associations, so it's unfair to expect people to use it to describe themselves. That's a pity really because it'd be a useful term to be able to use without those associations - and there are all kinds of ways in which turning the clock back would be an excellent thing. But in saying that I'm probably thinking of some very different aspects of the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 03 - 06:18 PM

One of the problems with the current crop of Republicans, particularly the Right-wing Republicans now in power, is that they have no real understanding of politics as most old-time politicians did. Politics in a democracy is a slow, messy process of debate in which both sides get a hearing, and the solution comes as a result of bringing forth the best, most persuasive arguments of both viewpoints. Maximum benefit with the minimum of damage. Politics, it has often been said, is "The Art of Compromise." But the Bush administration does not want debate and they are unwilling to compromise. People like Tom DeLay, for example, embody an insane degree of partisanship. They pay little attention to the affects their policies have on people in general, and furthermore, they don't care. They want to "win" at all costs.

The current crop of Right-wing Republicans don't want to govern. They want to rule.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 03 - 03:17 PM

Merriam-Webster:

conservatism capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer a existing or traditional situation to change

Electronic dictionary that comes with Wordperfect 11:

conservative adjective 1 averse to change and holding traditional values. 2 (in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas. 3 Conservative (cap.) relating to a Conservative Party.

Submitted for your consideration. If more is needed, I have several political science texts at my disposal from which I can quote at length.

One could possibly make the case that the Bush administration is "conservative" if one claimed that it really isn't trying to change anything, it is merely trying to restore the status quo prior to the social reforms initiated by FDR, e.g., when there was no Social Security, no Medicare, no unemployment insurance, in fact, no social safety net at all, when the National Guard could be called out to put down strikes and other union actions, and corporate corruption reigned unchecked. Yeah, that works. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 03 - 03:11 PM

Aw shucks, Nicole, you may force me to "Out" if you keep that up.

McGrath: I have often thought that the definition of "liberal" and "conservative" (speaking politically)differs on both sides of the pond.

Greg F. Thank you. I can always count on good old Greg F. for a good insult or two. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Nerd
Date: 24 Oct 03 - 02:33 AM

Yeah, the John Street thing is depressing. But the funny thing is, at least at first, he got a "bounce" in the polls, not because liberals think the FBI probe is politcally motivated, but because he is making a convincing pitch to black philadelphians that it's racially motivated. The only people revealed to be subjects of this investigation are black!

Personally I suspect it is politically, not racially, motivated. The Republicans see Philly as a vulnerable city because Katz and Street ran close in the last election, and because Street himself has an image problem: he is affectionately known as "Mayor Snarly." So they figure it's a good place to use one of their old Rovian dirty tricks, and call out the Justice Department to begin a very public phase of their investigation right before the election, throwing enough people into doubt to shift the tide to Katz's side.

I hope Street wins at this point. If nothing else, Katz winning under these circumstances would be the most racially divisive thing to happen in Philly since Move and Mumia Abu Jamal. That we don't need.

DougR. Come on! Everyone knows by now that there was indeed a vast right-wing conspiracy out the discredit Clinton. To claim otherwise is simply ridiculous at this point. All the probes on Whitewater, Travelgate, filegate, all the rumors about the White House being vandalized by Clinton's staff, all the talk about inappropriate gifts taken from the White House by Clinton, all this was spun by a collection of conservative pundits, think-tanks, and politicians. None of it was true. They managed to find no indictable evidence of any kind on any charge except lying about a blow job. So if dozens of Republicans spending millions of dollars to drag embarrassing but not criminal details about his consenual sex life before a grand jury is not a vast (or at least pretty big) right-wing conspiracy, then what is?

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Oct 03 - 10:31 PM

Nah. Doug is less neo-con than he proposes -- when you back him into a corner on issues he usually comes out to be leaning right but pretty moderate overall :)

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Oct 03 - 10:14 PM

Because he hasn't a clue what the term means or, for that matter, what you're trying top explain to him.

He's more to be pitied than censured
He's more to be helped than despised
He's only a poor boy who's wandered
Down life's stormy path, ill-advised...

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Oct 03 - 09:43 PM

Well, it's a point of view, Doug: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." (Alice through the Looking Glass.)

But if you abandon completely the historical definition of "conservative" as someone who is suspicious of change, and resistant to any change which is not necessary, you manhandle it in a way that risks throwing the baby out with the bath water.

In Britain true enough the word has been hi-jacked for a long time, when printed with a large C, to cover all kinds of disparate positions. But in America you already have two overlapping parties like that.

However the word still retains it's more precose meaning, which is why the media in this country see nothing strange in referring to leftists in Russia as "conservative, while Tony Blair refers to left wingers in the Labour Party as "forces of conservatism."

There are conservatves of the left and the right, and radicals of the left and the right. What you appear to be espousing, Doug is radicalism of the right. So why not use that term?

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: DougR
Date: 23 Oct 03 - 07:58 PM

McGrath: that tired old definition of "conservatism" is pure horse pucky! Conservatives are NOT opposed to change! Who, for example, is pushing to change the Social Security system in the U. S. so that a worker might expect a better return on investment? Conservatives, that's who? What is it that you and others are so convinced conservatives DON'T want to change?

I think Nicole is right. There is no center. Liberals are left-leaning, Conservatives are right-leaning. I don't think there is an in-between. Some liberals are farther to the left than others as are some conservatives more to the right than others.

As to a "Right-wing power grab," I think that is about as truthful as Mrs. Clinton's claim that her husband's problems stemmed from a "right-wing conspiracy." Balderdash!

Mark: you asked earlier how would I like to see the government run (or words to that effect). I perfectly satisfied with the way it is currently being run by the man who will go down in history as one of the best presidents the U. S. ever had (along with "the actor" as Kendall likes to refer to him as.)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Oct 03 - 09:32 AM

L.H.

You just pack up the Oldsmobile and come on down here and help me replace some rotten floors in a house I'm renovatin' an' you won't have no trouble gettin' to sleep.... and stayin' asleep. Guarendoubledangedteeeeeed.......

Conservatives unite!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Oct 03 - 02:08 AM

You're right, Bobert! Bush is astoundingly liberal! He's liberal to the point of being downright radical. If most of his supporters were to realize this there'd be a hell of a row, and his ratings would drop down to about 5 or 10 percent, I suspect...which is about all the people who are actually going to benefit from his policies. :-)

That's what's wrong with Bush. He's just too danged liberal!

It's time we conservatives got together and brought people's attention to this in no uncertain terms.

By the way, I can't sleep. Hell of a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 11:19 PM

Ain't too sure how much lexdexia got into the above post but I gotta think, more than usaul........

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 10:57 PM

Well, Mark, liberals like to chnage things, or at least they are open minded toward changin' things... Bush fills the3 bill purdy danged good. He has cahnged almost everything... civil liberties, tax codes that favor the trich, preemptive wars, etc.... Likw ir or bor this is liberalism at it *worst*!!!! It certainly hasn't anything to do with preserving the here-and-now.... They fact that Bush's target may be something that slightly resembles a time from 40 years ogo, doesn't much matter...

The guy is an absolute "liberal". We are now the conservatives....

Go think it..... but it's true...

Yeah, the Rush Limbaugh's and the George Dubya's are the "liberals".... Not us!.....

Think about it....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: TIA
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 08:57 PM

As I said in another thread, I'm really not a conspiracy nut, but I'm beginning to wonder... The latest in right wing power grab?

Bugging devices are found in the office of Mayor John Street of Philly. The FBI immediately announces that they put them there, but "Mayor Street is a subject of the investigation, not a target". That's FBIspeak that few will understand. All they will retain is that the FBI is bugging him. His opponent Sam Katz immediately says "they wouldn't be bugging him if he wasn't corrupt".

All this just weeks before the election.

You got it - Philly is the 5th (?) largest city in the USA, and the largest in a key battleground state in presidential 2004. Street is a Democrat. The FBI works for who? More powergrab?

I'm suspicious.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 08:25 PM

LH, You are correct as usual. Almost as soon as I submitted that post I realized I probably should have said progressives. You picked up on what I meant… that liberals are the centrists, not the leftists. And the neocons aren't really conservatives, they're facists. The problem is a lot of thoughtful conservatives think they're Bushites just because the Bushites use the term.

Bobert, I wouldn't equate activism with liberalism. Activism is simply getting off one's duff to effect change, whatever one's political leanings.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 08:00 PM

I thought it was strange, almost eerie, how empathetic and forgiving the various conservative pundits are being in discussing Limbaugh's drug problems. It seemed out of character. But I think I now know why this is so. In the current Newsweek, they make a point of it: Conservatives are on Rush's side in this event because they know that Rush Limbaugh is the conservative Republicans' best hope at the ballot box. If he goes away, they will have to find someone else to rile the populace.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 07:50 PM

Actually, if ya' really get down to the thick of it, Bush is the most "liberal" president since FDR!.... Activism everywhere you look. Fascist? Well, sure, but can't deny the liberalism in the fascism...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 07:31 PM

When people describe old-style communists in Russia as conservatives, and that is what is normally done, it's quite correct, because the central thing about being "conservative" is that you are opposed to change, or at least highly suspicious of it.

My dearest wish would be to live in a society where I could be a conservative, because it was so well ordered that it needed to be protected against change. In many areas of life I am in fact very suspicious of change, not so much because I think things are perfect, but because I don't trust the motives of the people trying to change things.

For example we've got a field across the road from where I live where there's a Rugger Club, and the Club Committee had got in bed with some developers and wanted to build a lot of posh houses there, and relocate. That was a change I was hotly opposed to, and fortunately we seem to have beaten them off.

What I can't understand is people who call themselves "conservative", and who are all into tearing society up by the roots, and destroying well established social structures.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Gareth
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 07:26 PM

OI ! Kevin - Don't generlise. I may be able to drink with the Tory's, and Fenians, but the Yackida's and the Liberals are beyond the pale !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 07:09 PM

There is such a thing as a conservative socialist, Mark. A Stalinist is a conservative socialist. A supporter of Pol Pot is a conservative socialist. A Maoist is a conservative socialist. A socialist who rejects any and all forms of capitalism is a conservative socialist. A fanatical socialist who thinks socialism is the answer to all of life's problems is a conservative socialist.

I am somewhat of a socialist, but I can't stand the kind of socialists I alluded to above...

They are not centrists or liberals. They are extremists.

You are correct that a liberal is usually a centrist.

Some conservatives (in fact, many of them) are centrists also, but the extremists have lately hijacked the label of "conservatism", just as they have demonized the label of "liberalism".

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 05:36 PM

Right you are, McGrath, but Gore's legal team didn't file suit against Bush. Probably should have even if the Supreme Court would have had to hear both cases. To be fair, the Supreme Court would have had to rule the same in both cases as countin' votes did "harm" Bush but not countin' 'em would have "harmed" Gore... I wish it had gone down like this but Gore's legal team wasn't in the same league as Bush's. Bush was ready fri such a scenerio and had lawyers and paid goons on redeye flights the night of the election....

Shows just how well organized the right wing is in the US.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 12:43 PM

"For whatever reason" But what reason was there?

Surely it couldn't have been the reason Bobert quoted, that if they carried on counting Bush might be "harmed". After all on the same logic calling a halt meant Gore would be "harmed". That's the kind of "harm" that all elections inevitably involve.

..................

Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, the impression I have is that most professional politicians in England get on pretty well when they aren't on duty.

Generally speaking politics here still operates on the old Parliamentary principle: "Your opponents are on the other side; your enemies are behind you."

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 09:23 AM

In "Bush v. Gore" the Supreme court ruled that if the Florida recount were to continue then Bush would be "harmed".... Hmmmmmm, Part 26,549, and countin'...

As fir libereals v. conservatives. Look at Rush Limbuagh. Had he been a liberal, the conservatives would have been on him like ugly on a gorilla. The condimnations would be raining down from every crack and crevice of the conservative community. The *hate* would come thru loud and clear. But Rush isn't a liberal. Quite the opposite and look at the liberal's response to the situation. "Hypocrisy" is about the worst thing we can come up with but quickly get beyond that to feelings of pity and compassion for a man who is suffering... This speaks volumes about the differences.

Compassionate conservatism is an oximoron.

And lets look at the difference between the two camps have treated Clinton and Bush. Clinton was hated because he beat Bush the Father and though Clinton put forth a purdy much centrist/conservative policies he was absoloted hated personally. Now we have a guy who has ripped off an election, ripped off the woeking class, lied to the American people and taken us to a war that lines to pockets of his contributors. Compared to Clinton, I should hate him but I don't. But I sure do hate what he has done... Big difference!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Oct 03 - 09:00 AM

No one has ever decisivly proven that Gore won...

Just as no one has ever decisivly proven that Bush won.
That's one of the problem created by the interference by
the [conservative Republican] Supremes- we'll never know- "decisivly".

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: freightdawg
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 10:57 PM

I agree with Little Hawk.

At the risk of indulging in a little reverse chronological snobbery, in which every era but your own was idyllic, it seems to me that in times past (distant and near) there was a far greater sense of statesmanship involved with our elected officials (speaking of the US). The distant example would be those who had to reconstruct a nation following the civil war, and to a lesser extent, WW I and II. By no means were they perfect, but considering the devastation (physical, moral, emotional, economic) that they faced they did a remarkable job of forging a new union from the breach. More recently, there is much anecdotal evidence that while Pres. Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neil shared little but respect during the daytime, they got along famously when each was allowed to "let his hair down" and things got accomplished. Reagan the conservative and O'Neil the liberal both understood that they had a job to do - govern. Alas and alack, today the vitriol flows 24 hours a day and there really is no "off season" when elected officials take off their gloves and govern. Don't know about other places, but around here it extends even to the local sheriff's office. Neither side can afford to be seen as being "soft" by their most radical elements, therefore it is all confrontation, all the time.

My comments about the Supreme Court acting as adults was not intended to be a ringing endorsement. It is just that when two young children are bickering endlessly an adult has to put a stop to it. The issue was going to the supreme court from one side or the other. For whatever reason the court decided to act quickly. I think in terms of governance it was a good call. No one has ever decisivly proven that Gore won, even though several groups did come up with split decisions.

My take on the whole political scene now is "who cares." Unless and until I hear a man or a woman stand up and say, "I know I am at odds with my party, but this is for America" then all we have to look forward to is more of the same old same old. We really, really need a viable third party, but it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

Sorry to be such a wet blanket, but honestly, where did the concept of statesmanship go? How about in Europe? Is there a greater sense of the good of the country that ultimately prevails, or is it all partisan 24/7?

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: TIA
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 10:44 PM

If this story on potential - and easy - electronic voting fraud (led by one of GWB's biggest contributors) doesn't scare the crap out of you, nothing will.

Diebold

I'm no conspiracy theorist - some pretty serious and knowledgeable people (John's Hopkins U., Rice U., Science Applications International corp. ) and many others are beginning to wave red flags over this.

I fear this could lead to rioting in the streets.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: NicoleC
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 10:43 PM

Depends on your definition of "conservative," I think, Mark. I don't really think there *is* a center -- there are too many other viewpoints. Truth is, conservatives and progressives agree on a lot of basic ideals (at least in America). Stuff like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and fundamental freedoms FROM and freedoms TO.

Your new generation of neo-conservatives should repulse both sides, but they have very effectively convinced the vast majority of conservatives that they are on their side.

"Liberal" is a word that has become so tainted in the US that is bears no resemblance to what many of us grew up thinking of as a political philosophy. I fear that conservative is moving in the same direction -- but unlike former liberals, conservatives aren't letting go of the handle even though it means lumping them in with some very unsavory fundamentalist and fascist types.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 09:39 PM

But conservatism and liberalism aren't two ends of a spectrum in which compromise brings us to some imagined center. Liberalism is the center. Socialism is the left side balance for conservatism's rightist point of view.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 08:45 PM

Well, I think most conservatives, like most other people have a sort of general loyalty to what they're most familiar with, and that was established quite early in their lives by their family most of all, and by the community they grew up in. So if one grew up in a conservative family, then one associates conservatism with the positive values, such as law and order, traditional values, hard work, honesty, religious faith, moral courage, accountability, security, and so on...

If one grew up in a "liberal" family, then one associates conservatism with hard-heartedness, a "tight ass", greed, acquisitiveness, aggressiveness, religious fanaticism, narrow-mindedness, ignorance, and so on...a pretty ugly picture.

About as ugly as the picture that forms in the minds of many conservatives when they hear the word "liberal"...but that's a different picture, of course, with a different set of faults.

So our initial interpretations are formed at a very young age, and then we set about reinforcing them as we can, by how we interpret or reject information around us.

Now the fact is that there is a positive side to conservatism and a negative one...and the same is true of liberalism. The fact is that there are a lot of good people and a few scoundrels on both sides of the divide. You can take any basic idea and use it either well or badly.

Given this, with a little understanding it ought to be possible to combine the best of conservatism and liberalism into a common purpose. I don't think that's what happening now at all, but it could happen.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 05:53 AM

Surely the real question is how can anyone who is conservative feel happy with a radical right-wing government which is fundamentally opposed to the central conservative principle that change should be resisted unless it can be proved to be essential.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 21 Oct 03 - 02:11 AM

Doug, Bush certainly is the President, you'll get no argument from me on that score, but it's a real stretch to say that he won an election. He was handed a victory in Flordia only because the Supreme Court stopped the counting, thereby handing him the presidency. Yes, it counts. No, he didn't actually win an election. Go figure.

But I'm curious, Doug. If we throw out all the suspicion, conspiracy theories, and sour grapes… what, exactly, is the conservative point of view? Why do you feel conservative policies are better? What do conservatives hope to accomplish? What role do you see for the U.S. on the world stage?

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: DougR
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 10:27 PM

We are almost in a new election mode and you folks still haven't accepted the fact that Bush won the election. Your time is coming. Be patient. If enough folks believe as you do ...your candidate will be the next president! If not ...well, it's four more years of your favorite guy to bash!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 09:05 PM

And there was always a strong possibility that it would enbd up with Bush losing. I think most people outside the USA at any rate have assumed that that was what actually determined the Supreme Court's decision.

But there had to be a rationalisation, even if that was the real underlying reason. I'm still far from clear what that rationalisation was.

The need to set up an afdminstartion offuce and so forth is really not very convincing.

After all, in the UK at a General Election a Prime Minister doesn't know he or she is going to be Prime Minister until a couple of hours before formally taking office. And in some ways that is probably an even more demanding job than being President. And that is more or less the position in most countries. And when a Pope is elected too for that matter.

The only other people I can think of, off the cuff, who go in for long waiting periods, when the succession has already been determined, are hereditary monarchies...

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Mark Clark
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 07:45 PM

The U.S. Federal Government employes 4.2 million people including 1.5 million in the armed forces. These people are the ones that actually make things work. You can be sure that all those workers are not waiting to start their day each morning until they've been told what the president has in mind for the day. The wheels of government will continue to turn just as they have.

The election debacle didn't affect either house of Congress but if it had, no problem. Those guys are working on policy, not operation. There is virtually no one on Capitol Hill directly involved in the actual operation of government.

There was no need to hurry the count except to placate the hand-wringing media who were making a big deal out of the delay.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Gareth
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 07:16 PM

Hmmmm ! AGAIN !

If I remember correctly the election in November is not to choose the the President etc., but to chose the individual States representatives to the electorial congress. This, ostensibly, might be the reason for a need for a quick decision.

Never the less, I will maintain my previous views (this and other threads) that BUsh junior was not elected in an open and honest vote.

And that is bad.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 07:06 PM

I posted the question on a political forum that I belong to, and they stated that in the 2-1/2 months between the election and the inauguration, the president-elect (unless he is the incumbent) has to set up staff, become briefed, manage all sorts of political issues that he will have to attend to when he is president ... etc. etc., and that all of these items take a lot of time.

It seemed dubious to me, but many people responded that way when I posted the query. I don't know why a president-elect-in-waiting couldn't proceed on the basis of expectations, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Nerd
Date: 20 Oct 03 - 02:25 AM

I agree entirely with McGrath. The idea that a rush was necessary, which was essentially the Supreme Court's argument, was a crock of shit from the get-go. And if it is true what freightdawg said so long ago, that "If they [the Supreme Court] had not stepped in and acted like adults we would still be counting hanging chads," then we had an election in Florida that was so close as to be essentially uncountable; so why not hold it again? As McGrath points out, there is PLENTY of time built into the system, and despite what ludicrous people said the US was not going to descend into chaos in December because we didn't know who was taking over in January.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: mack/misophist
Date: 19 Oct 03 - 01:24 PM

Between 1915 and 1930, more or less, the US went through something similar to what we're seeing today. Before this, the churches were almost synonomous with American thought and saw no real need for political influence. As they saw their influence ebbing, they sought out congressmen and legislators to get laws passed that represented their views. A host of 'red light abatement' laws sprang up. Marriage licenses were instituted. Adultry, cohabitation, and such became crimes. instead of sins. Alcohol was outlawed, and later marijuanna and cocaine. Opium was outlawed. And the thousand thousand 'Sunday blue laws' that plague the south were enacted. Something similar is happening today. The difference is that the most effective portion of the religious right is the portion that has forsworn honor and honesty for the sake of getting their own way ('Be thou cunning as serpents' is the rational). They've had years of practice and experience within the religious community and now they're taking that expertise into the political arena. Don't expect them to advertize their agendas, they've learned not to do that. Two things many of the members have in common, though, are the establishment of a theocracy and the institution of 'biblical law'. Think about it.

Biblical law, for those who have never seen the term before, would make adultry, incest, abortion, and virtually all sexual offenses into capital crimes. Fathers would have the right to execute unfilial children. Homosexuality would carry the death penalty. Atheism and paganism would be crimes. Jews would probably be tolerated, but maybe not. Non JudeoChristian religions would be outlawed.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 10:33 PM

RE: "People seem to have assumed that there was a need to sort things out with the minimum delay. But in God's name, why?"

vide the "Generation of Morons" thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 09:26 PM

But the question is, given the lengthy delay till Inauguration Day built in by the Constitution, how was it possible for anyone to suggest that there was the least reason to hurry proceedings. Leaving aside the fact that it might assist one of the candidates, which couldn't possibly have been accepted as relevant by the Supreme Court, or by anyone else who didn't belong in jail.

I know there are countries where a rapid result might be desirable, because of instability, and the possibility of a military coup and all that kind of stuff. But I can't imagine that would have entered into it in this case.

In everything I've seen written about it, this point seems to have been ignored. People seem to have assumed that there was a need to sort things out with the minimum delay. But in God's name, why?

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 09:02 PM

The Bush people were the ones in a rush. The Gore folks wanted to keep on counting. Why were the Bush people in a rush? Because they believed that further counting would either reveal their crimes or the count would go in favor of Gore.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 05:09 PM

Why rush? What do you mean why rush? What kind of question is that?

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 04:54 PM

All in all it would be damn difficult to rig a British election.

True enough - but there are "modernising improvements" on the way that should make it a lot easier.

What I can never understand is, why is it considered important to get the count done quickly? Why not take six months if need be?

And in America, where there are literally months between the election and the time the elected president takes over, how was it possible to justify pretending there was any need to rush? Especially when the rush meant that for a sizeable number of people it this cast doubt on the legitimacy of the winning candidate as President. I've always assumed that the reason for putting in such a long delay between election day and inauguration day was to allow for just this kind of situation, and to avoid any doubts about legitimacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: Gareth
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 04:14 PM

Ah Well - When youve been to as many counts as I have you will appreciate that the "Cock up" theory beats "Conspiracy" theory any day.

I have my doubts about the theoretical reliability of any system which does not have a paper audit trail.

Were there not suggestions of machine faud in Chicago when Kennedy was elcected ?

In the UK there is the right of appeal to the Courts. Ultimately this can result, if the Court so decides, in the ballot papers being individually counted by the Court.

Now this is significant, for in Florida in 2000 there was a paper audit trail. I am still at a loss to understand why the recount was not continued untill the voting intentions had been clarrified, or where there is an ambiguity and the voters intentions are not clear, the ballot paper is discounted as void.

These void papers are entered and reported in the returning officers declaration. The electorial registers marked off as to who attended the polling station, and requested a ballot paper, and who had "postal votes" is available for public inspection, and copying.

Postal ballots, envelopes are opened with scrutineers present and the declarations of identity are scrutinised, then the ballot envelope opened seperatly.

All in all it would be damn difficult to rig a British election.

Incidently, with the exception of Northern Ireland, where the dead have been known to vote, no proof of identity is required when attending a polling station. Unless of course the polling agent (Candidates represetative) asks the Presiding Officer for a declaration of indentity. I have only needed to do this once in over 30 years. And that was due to "information" received - We caught one attempt at impersonation - The Police, and I think correctly, put this down as a drunken prank, by a local student, and merely cautioned him.

The real potential culprits backed off when they saw/heard that unusually that I had appointed polling agents to supervise the poll in one particullar ward. (I was the overall election agent)

And the information received ? That the opposition candidates were going around collecting the "Poll Cards" (trs = instructions as to when and where to vote) of the deceased, ill, and those who would be away on polling day. (It is not a requirement to present these cards at the polling station, but it does make life easier for the presiding officer.)

The real crime in Florida was the manipulation of the electorial register to exclude people entitled to vote.

I would respectfully suggest that the failure to act on this prior to election day demonstrated a lack of care on the part of the Gore Election organisation.

I doubt that the same mistake will be made next year, in Florida, or any other state.

It is appalling that this long after the Civil Rights Acts in the US of A it is still neccessary to take these basic precautions.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 03:38 PM

For an explanation of these and other anomalies in American politics these days, may I recommend The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. A fascinating look at altruism and selfishness as programmed into us.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 02:36 PM

Yes, you would have those posses. When I take over this country I'm going to invoke a Constitutional amendment mandating that any election with a 3% difference is legally a tie vote, subject to the next set of procedural rules, which might be a legislative vote. And the legislature in question might just be geographically distant from the electorate in question. (For example, Washington State would have decided whether Gore licked Bush in Florida.)

As I mentioned before to no persuasive effect, we have been misled into believing that elections have been tallied with precision in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 02:25 PM

But if you go by what happened in the USA in 2000, if the electronic result came in showing someone ahead, but with a narrow margin, there'd be posses of people organised to disrupt the actual count, just in case it came up with the wrong result.

And the supporters of the candidate would see nothing whatsoever wrong with that. Because the only thing that matters is winning.

The chances are, it seems to me, that electronic vote counting is going to mean the end of any trust in electoral politics around the world.

I wonder, if Fidel Castro were to buy a set of electronic voting machines, and hold an election using them, and win it, does anybody think that Georege Bush and his minders would accept the results and end the sanctions on Cuba?

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 02:14 PM

I think the biggest price the US might pay for having no paper trail in voting is that the Republicans will move from dominance in American politics to absolute total dominance. And that's a huge price to pay -- to whom could the public appeal?

Subject: RE: BS: Explaining the 'right-wing power grab'
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 18 Oct 03 - 02:07 PM

It seems so obvious. A verifiable audit trail to instill public confidence, EVEN IF the electronic tally is safe, according to the biggest-headed scientists we can find. The electronic answers can be the fast answers, the paper trail controlling in disputes (chads or misprints or lost boxes or whatever.) The extra costs are less than the cost of riots, and even of simple public no-confidence.