BS: Kerry concedes California

Subject: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: GUEST,SueBee
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 11:39 PM

About an hour ago the polls slipped - this bastion of the democratic party's well-fare state has fallen into the hands of repulicans. The leverage for the tumble is accredited to ill-legal alien residents being denied access to the polls they have paid taxes to support. The govenator's prescence is also acknowledged.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:08 AM

My gawd. I think I will go get a few stiff drinks, just because.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:13 AM

Has Kerry actually said anything about this? Has he conceded so early? I sincerely doubt it! Might've been a better thread title if not.:-) Some people have been known to not vote when the media predicts before all polls are closed; they feel as though it is all over anyway so why bother? I HOPE this year will prove that differently!

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: mack/misophist
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:16 AM

I do not concede. I shall never concede.

          mm for JK

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:18 AM

The whole thread is a bogus will o'the wisp. It has n0othing to do with concession and hangs on one report of a tremble in numbers.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:35 AM

I think this is wishful thinking on GUEST SueBee's part. A survey of the recent headlines reveals nothing in this nature. I did find an interesting analysis of the issue of non-citizens voting.

Article here. I'm not familiar with this newspaper, but it has the look of a New York City-centric paper with a progressive editorial board. I wasn't able to read much beyond this article because most of it is set up for subscribers only. But this article is full-text.

It begins:

GOP Changes Sides on Immigration in Arizona Clash
BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 25, 2004

The clash over an Arizona ballot measure designed to crack down on illegal immigrants echoes the political debate over immigration that has played out across the American Southwest for four decades.

There is, however, one notable departure from the script: The Republican Party appears to have switched sides.

"The change is almost hard to describe it's so enormous," a prominent Hispanic activist, Cecilia Munoz of the National Council of La Raza, said.

"This initiative in particular has been disavowed by the Republican Party leadership in Arizona," an executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, Eliseo Medina, declared. "It's been stripped of any of its respectability."

The Arizona initiative that has prompted the GOP's about-face is a ballot measure that would require state and local officials to verify the citizenship of all who seek government services. Proposition 200, as it is known, also tightens safeguards on voting, requiring proof of American citizenship from those registering to vote, and some form of identification from voters at polling places. In addition, the initiative would require state and local employees to report suspected undocumented immigrants to federal authorities.

The drive for the proposal on Tuesday's ballot has been directed largely by a grassroots movement of local activists, with some financial backing from national organizations that favor tighter immigration controls.

An impressive and diverse coalition has joined forces to fight the proposition. Opponents include business groups, unions, health-care providers, and politicians from across the political spectrum, including Governor Napolitano, a Democrat, as well as the state's two senators, Jon Kyl and John McCain, who are Republicans.

Opponents of Proposition 200 say it could discourage ambulance crews and doctors from treating patients who appear to be Hispanic. Critics also say the measure would be costly to local governments, which might have to verify that all those who get garbage pickup or water service are citizens or legal residents.

"I understand the frustration of Arizonans, especially southern Arizonans," Mr. McCain said earlier this month. "Things are terrible, and we've got to fix it. But we're not going to fix it until we have comprehensive immigration reform."

Supporters of the initiative say it will have no impact on the provision of emergency medical treatment and could save taxpayers money by weeding out noncitizens from government programs.

Any discussion of the Arizona measure quickly turns to a similar ballot initiative put forward in California a decade ago, Proposition 187. The then governor of the state, Pete Wilson, led the charge to approve the immigration crackdown measure, which was more far-ranging than the proposition Arizonans are to vote on next week.

Anger over the costs of providing education, medical care, and other social services to illegal immigrants helped carry Mr. Wilson to re-election in 1994, but many observers now view his decision to back Proposition 187 as a colossal mistake.

"You can win the battle but still lose the war. The Republican Party has never been the same in California again," Mr. Medina said.

Political analysts said the GOP's support for Proposition 187, along with subsequent measures that sought to limit bilingual education and racial preferences, drove black and Hispanic voters away from the party and even stunted the party's inroads among young Anglos.

"The California lesson is this is a very dangerous game for the Republican Party to play," said a professor of political science at the University of California at Riverside, Shaun Bowler.

See the rest of this by following that link.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:41 AM

Well, can I get the drinks anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:53 AM

Just be sober enough to vote next Tuesday!

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:35 AM

I'm a Canuck, SRS. I wish I could vote in this election. I worked for McCarthy in the late 1960s, that being the most I could do. In this election I'd vote for Kerry. As often as possible. I truly hope America comes to its senses before it's too late. Four years has been enough. I hate to see the greatest country in the world being controlled by an inept individual, and I don't see that it could get worse. Four more years would make me see that.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: DougR
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:37 AM

Kerry will take California.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 04:04 AM

"I'll take Manhatten..."

Just read that Kerry is being endorsed by "The New Yorker" Magazine!!! First time that magazine has endorsed ANYONE..or so I've been informed. Is this true?

And another friend is most certain that it will be Wisconsin which will be the state that decides it all.

Let the rumours roll on!!!

..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 05:28 AM

Whoops! It's the New York Times that's backing Kerry. Not too shabby.

..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 05:31 AM

WHOOPS AGAIN!! My bad..it WAS the New Yorker!! Here's the article..xx..e


New Yorker breaks with tradition, backs Kerry


Posted online: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 at 0230 hours IST



NEW YORK, OCTOBER 25: For the first time in its 80-year history, the venerable New Yorker magazine has endorsed a presidential candidate, urging readers today to vote for Democrat John Kerry in next week's election.

''He is plainly the better choice,'' the weekly said in a lengthy editorial that excoriated the record of President George W. Bush on everything from health and the environment to his handling of the war in Iraq.



''As observers, reporters, and commentators we will hold (Kerry) to the highest standards of honesty and performance,'' the editorial said. ''For now, as citizens, we hope for his victory.''

Despite taking such an unprecedented move—the New Yorker has never endorsed a candidate before—the magazine argued that it was not sacrificing partisan independence. ''We just felt this was an important election to take a stand on,'' said spokeswoman Perri Dorset.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 08:41 AM

The NEW YORKER?? My God! The Times, the Washington Post, The PHiladelphia paper...looks like the Eastern Establishment is turning their collective back on the redneck loon. Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania...wow!   Where will it end? It's like 1775 all over again!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 09:16 AM

Why on earth would ANYONE be surprised that the liberal media establishment is endorsing Kerry? It would only be news if they hadn't.

DougR is right, Kerry will take California, that state isn't even in play.

I think it is depressing to see that the New Yorker has gotten sucked into the media echo chamber syndrome. I believe Dubya is every bit as bad as Reagan was, and we never saw this level of hysteria over Reagan. I find it utterly bizarre and over the top. I also believe that once the liberal establishment sobers up come November 15th or so, they are going to regret having gone overboard on so much of all this. Especially if Kerry loses.

Remember everybody, the polls being hawked now are all "likely voters" which don't tell you jack shit about who is ahead or behind. Realistically, it is a tie according to the polls, but we will have a winner next Wednesday. Thing is, no one knows which goose will be cooked. Without an October Surprise, and the Bush camp took a couple of very tough hits this week: serious signs the economy is tanking again, the price of gasshooting up over $2.00/gal, continued low level panic over flu shots, the Iraq weapons cache story, and the massacre of the Iraqi soldiers. If Kerry can't beat Bush after a week of headlines like that one week before the election, he truly deserves to lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 09:58 AM

And from the other side of the Union...The Honolulu Advertiser is also backing Kerry.

..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 09:58 AM

Hmm... SueBee rhymes with OG...........

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 10:46 AM

Even the conservative media are endorsing Kerry:

The American Conservative Endorses Kerry starts out with the following in the

November 8, 2004 issue:



Unfortunately, this election does not offer traditional conservatives an easy or natural choice and has left our editors as split as our readership. In an effort to deepen our readers' and our own understanding of the options before us, we've asked several of our editors and contributors to make "the conservative case" for their favored candidate Their pieces, plus Taki's column closing out this issue, constitute TAC's endorsement. —The Editors



Kerry's the One

By Scott McConnell



There is little in John Kerry's persona or platform that appeals to conservatives. The flip-flopper charge—the centerpiece of the Republican campaign against Kerry—seems overdone, as Kerry's contrasting votes are the sort of baggage any senator of long service is likely to pick up. (Bob Dole could tell you all about it.) But Kerry is plainly a conventional liberal and no candidate for a future edition of Profiles in Courage. In my view, he will always deserve censure for his vote in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.



But this election is not about John Kerry If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.



It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because he is the leader of America's conservative party, he has become the Left's perfect foil—its dream candidate. The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia's last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries' budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.



Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation's children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can't be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.



Click on the link above to read more.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: DougR
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:07 PM

Guest, 26 October: I couldn't agree more.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: DougR
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:18 PM

Kat: odd that YOU would quote a conservative publication. Did you read their Mission Statement on their website? Are you aware that Pat Buchanan is one of the editors of the new publication (yest it's new)? The same Pat Buchanan who ran for president, and who is an avowed Bush basher? It's not surprising that they would endorse Kerry.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 01:26 PM

As a regular reader of the New Yorker, I don't find this a surprise. More of a formality. :)

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 02:08 PM

I agree SRS, the only thing that is a surprise is that the editorial staff chose to endorse anyone. It is clear by the content of the magazine they are not conservative leaning.

DougR is also right about Pat Buchanan, though I don't know anything about the periodical being referenced by katlaughing above. Buchanan hasn't been a Republican party loyalist for a long time. He swings back and forth between the Republican party, and the indie and 3rd party movement regularly. He hasn't been firmly in the Republican camp for over 15 years, so if that is indeed a publication he is associated with, the endorsement of Kerry should come as no surprise.

Now, if the National Review or the Washington Times came out and endorsed Kerry, that would be a political earthquake! But this? Nah. That's just Buchanan politics as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 02:33 PM

Here is an amusing sequence of events:

Slate.com
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108598/
"When is a Cut not a cut? When it's a Con. Bush's Deceptive new ad."

Here's the ad.

Here's the wolf response:
http://www.wolfpacksfortruth.org/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 02:58 PM

Boy that ad is a piece of work!! Talk about fear-mongering and falsification of facts, this kind of rampant brazen distortion is actually toxic!!

I spit.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 03:52 PM

The American Conservative DID NOT ENDORSE KERRY. It published articles by several writers, each one arguing for a different candidate, ie Bush, Kerry, Nader, and the Constitution and Libertarian Party candidates, AND an article arguing that people shouldn't vote.

It would help a lot if Kerry's supporters would read the fine print.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 04:41 PM

Perhaps nameless ones might read the fine print themselves (my emphasis): Their pieces, plus Taki's column closing out this issue, constitute TAC's endorsement. —The Editors

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Nerd
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 05:32 PM

Why on earth would ANYONE be surprised that the liberal media establishment is endorsing Kerry? It would only be news if they hadn't.

Actually, GUEST, you are exactly wrong about this. Once again, Republican talking points emerge from a progressive source...shame on you.

When it comes to endorsements, there IS NO "Liberal Media Establishment." Endorsements are decided by publishers, who are executives in media conglomerates, and are overwhelmingly Republican. In only two modern presidential elections before this did the Democrat get more endorsements than the Republicans: Clinton in 92 and Johnson in 64. In all other cases, including Dole in 96 and Bush in 2000, the Republican has gotten many, many more endorsements. In fact, according to Editor and Publisher, which tracks these things, Bush got about TWICE the endorsements Gore got from Daily papers in 2000.

The joke of all this is that the Bush campaign says "well, of course Kerry gets more endorsements; the media is liberal and there was NO WAY a Republican would get more endorsements than a Democrat," when they know damn well they got far more endorsements than Gore in 2000, and that Republicans nearly ALWAYS get vastly more newspaper endorsements. Then gullible people like our GUEST repeat their talking point because it supports their position: Kerry's endorsements are only to be expected.

In fact, Kerry's endorsements mean this: Bush's actions have frightened away a LOT of newspapers that endorsed him in 2000.

E & P has this to say:

"Kerry now leads Bush 125-96 in endorsements in E&P's exclusive tally, and he leads by about 16 million to 10 million in the circulation of backing papers.

And more setbacks for Bush: The Detroit News, which has never endorsed a Democrat, and which backed Bush in 2000, announced that it would sit out the 2004 election, not happy with either candidate. The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, another Bush backer in 2000, said the same thing today in an editorial titled "No One to Champion." A third Bush supporter in 2000, The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa., also declared neutrality today.

The Chicago Sun-Times, the Daily News in Los Angeles, the Orlando Sentinel, and The Commercial-Appeal in Memphis, Tenn., were among the 24 papers that backed Bush in 2000 but today chose Kerry."

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 09:45 PM

Well I tell you Kerry supporters what. You just keep on going with your misinfopedia campaign on endorsements, as if it really mattered to somebody. I have never voted in my life for a candidate because they were or weren't endorsed by either celebrities, fellow politicians, their mothers, or the local paper or the New Yorker. I doubt there are many voters different from me in that respect.

But hey, you just keep up with the mantras about there is no liberal media establishment, and The American Conservative endorsed Kerry.

I'm sure everyone will come to see the rightness of everything you say is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 12:27 AM

Mudcatters - 1

Guest - 0

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 12:28 AM

OK, Guest. Deal.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Nerd
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 01:56 AM

GUEST,

judging from your hatred of both Republicans and Democrats, you have probably never voted for a winner.

This time you will vote for someone who will get less than 2% of the vote.

Claiming that most other voters use the same decision-making process as you is a bit much.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry concedes California
From: Genie
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 03:24 AM

First off, what the heck does "conceding" a state BEFORE the election MEAN???!!

What possible import would that have? Do you mean if Kerry "conceded" California, that would somehow override the actual election result?


Secondly,

ROTFLMFAO!!!