|
20 Oct 00 - 01:15 PM (#323380) Subject: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Rick Fielding During our sojurn in New England last week, Heather and I drove through many towns in New York State. (half of them 'cause we got lost) We were remarking on how completely one-sided the election for Senator must be going, considering we saw (probably) well over a thousand Rick Lazio (republican) signs and 2(both defaced!) Hillary Clinton ones. Being (politically) a nosey sort at times, I asked a few people along the way their impressions about the up-coming election, and was a bit surprised at how vehemently anti-Hillary they were. Today I hear on the radio that all the polls have her winning in a landslide! Something sounds fishy here. I know that conservatives might think that the polls are trying to affect the outcome, but even the right-wing surveys seem to agree that she's a lock. Are ALL her votes coming from New York City (where we weren't)? Not a very profound thread, I admit...plus being Canadian, I ain't votin (in the U.S.) but I'm curious if anyone has any feedback. |
|
20 Oct 00 - 01:28 PM (#323397) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: MMario well rick, I can't think of anyone I know that is pro-hilary. |
|
20 Oct 00 - 02:10 PM (#323441) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: catspaw49 I dunno' Rick.......I live here in the home of Taft Republicanism where Mike DeWine will win by a landslide for a second term in the Senate. Of course, oddly enough, he replaced the late Howard Metzenbaum, a Democrat, and one of the most liberal members of the Senate in history. I hate the polls. Watching the debates, those post debate polls made little sense and often seemed contradictory. Th NY Senate race is getting so much coverage that everybody is chiming in with a new poll. It obviously must be the wording of the questions sometimes, because nothing can be so erratic otherwise. I'll be glad when this particular one is over. Spaw |
|
20 Oct 00 - 04:56 PM (#323533) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Rick Fielding I think you may have a point Spaw, about the "wording". On the amazing TV show "Yes Minister" (which quite a few folks, including myself, think is the finest TV ever) one hilarious scene has the new Minister being told by his advisors how they consistantly manipulate the polls. Naievely he asks, "Why can't we just ask the people a straight question about whether they support this policy (a National military draft) or not"? The advisors start chuckling, and soon begin howling with laughter, until they start falling on the floor, one by one. After about five minutes, the chief advisor struggles to his feet and stutters "Ask the PEOPLE a straight question"? They all go hysterical again. My sense also is that a great many people SECRETLY admire Hillary and aren't being candid with pollsters. The Dems in NY are certainly acting smug right now so it SEEMS they know something that's not reflected in the signs (or the talk radio shows). Rick |
|
20 Oct 00 - 05:16 PM (#323551) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Burke I work in an academic library probably getting close to where you were, Rick. It is dangerous to talk politics in the staff room. Most of the professional librarians are democrats & most of the staff are republicans who can't stand either Clinton. I think you are correct that much of Hilary's support is coming from New York City & possibly other urban areas such as Buffalo & Albany. The rural areas tend to be much more conservative. There's a lot more rural to New York State than most people realize. |
|
20 Oct 00 - 05:53 PM (#323578) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Greg F. Its cognitive dissonance. The perennial, wailing cry of conservative upstate New Yorkers is that everything they don't like is the fault of those 'down-state politicians who don't know that anyone lives north of Albany'. So who's their darling? A guy from Long Island. Then, these same folks don't like Hillary's "character"- when Rick Lazio is the creation of "Honest Al" D'Amato, George (the crooked real-estate devloper) Pataki & "Uncle" Joe Margiotta's corrupt Republican machine. Ya gotta wonder. Best, Greg |
|
20 Oct 00 - 06:02 PM (#323582) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Jim Dixon Why wouldn't people be candid with pollsters? If they don't like her enough to say so to a pollster, what makes you think they like her enough to vote for her? I know you're not making this up. I heard a pollster on the radio today talk about how they are afraid people aren't honest with pollsters, but I just don't understand the mentality of people who would do this. |
|
20 Oct 00 - 06:11 PM (#323591) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: McGrath of Harlow How signs work in my part of England is that, come an election, out in the countryside you get farmers or landowners putting up lots of signs along the roads, which looks quite impressive - till you realise that all those signs along a stretch of road just mean that maybe one farmer (and maybe his or her family)has decided to vote that way, or want peopole to think they have.
I don't know how far you can read much into signs. Whether people put a sign up for one party or another is as much as to do with if they want to annoy or soothe a neighbour as anything. Our MP's dad lives in a house across the road, and at the election the most unexpected neighbours stuck up posters for his son, because he's a nice old bloke. Whether they all voted for him, God knows.
|
|
20 Oct 00 - 06:16 PM (#323598) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: katlaughing Rick, my friend was in politics for upteen years. Her specialty was media coverage and writing up and executing polls. EVERY QUESTION IS SKEWED. It is one reason I refuse to take part in a poll if they solicit me. They spend BIG money on crafting those questions , knowing exactly the answer they want and getting it from the idiots who can't see through their machinations. There's been so much crap about the presidential election, we've scarcely heard a word out here on the lonesome prairie about any other races. For all we know there "tain't nobody runnin' fer nuttin' 'cept Dumbya and Kalaega(sp- that wooden guy, cain't rahmembah how Hank spelt it!)"
|
|
20 Oct 00 - 07:05 PM (#323645) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Midchuck Why signs? How many people are so stupid that they vote for the person who has the most signs? On second thought, maybe I don't want to hear the answer to that question. Peter. |
|
20 Oct 00 - 07:17 PM (#323651) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Ebbie I have observed here in town elections that the candidate who has the most signs stuck up tends to carry that district. Of course, it doesn't mean that it will carry the town itself. Downtown Juneau is a good deal more liberal than it is out in the valley- a good 7 miles away. (!)And the valley has more people. Kawliga, I think, kat. Ebbie |
|
20 Oct 00 - 07:41 PM (#323663) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: katlaughing Thanks, Ebbie! The same thing goes here. If they have the bucks to put up the signs, it usually means they own it. I was appalled listening to NPR the other day and talk of the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on campaigning. It is sickening. I'd rather see the candidates in a real pissing contest, in the wind, as is seems that is what happens to the money they spend. There would, of course, be accomodations for women candidates, deepest hole in the dust, largest splash, etc. There has to be campaign finance reform and apparently, on an encouraging note, young people agree: "YOUNG PEOPLE CHOOSE CAMPAIGN REFORM AS TOP ISSUE GenerationNet.org Urges Candidates to Take its Pledge SAN FRANCISCO - At the height of an election season awash in money,America's young people have chosen campaign finance reform as their top priority issue in a national online vote, selecting it as the focus for a new grassroots campaign. GenerationNet.org, the new, web-based advocacy group that held the vote, now urges Congressional candidates of all parties to take a serious, two-part pledge: 1. Ban so-called "soft money" -- unlimited contributions to political parties - by July 4th, 2001, the 225th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 2. Hold a roll-call vote by July 4th, 2004 on a comprehensive package of campaign reforms, including: * Tighter regulation of independent expenditures and issue advertising, * State-of-the-art electronic disclosure of large contributions, * Overhaul of the Federal Election Commission to assure timely and strict enforcement of the laws, * Free or reduced-cost TV advertising for candidates who abide by spending limits, * And the establishment of a voluntary "Clean Money" public funding option for candidates who wish to be free of the compromising special-interest money chase. GenerationNet.org members throughout the country will now press their candidates to sign this pledge, showing their commitment both to the issue of campaign finance reform, and to the importance of young people having a voice in shaping the laws that affect their lives. "It's time to get the big money out of our elections, time to level the playing field and free our lawmakers from the constant money chase. America's young people have spoken, and we're asking the politicians to take our pledge: ban soft money now, and clean up our elections," said Peter Schurman, Executive Director of GenerationNet.org. GenerationNet.org is a new, national, non-partisan, non-profit campaign using the Internet to give young people a voice in shaping the laws that affect our lives. The group was recently endorsed by Chuck D of Public Enemy in a public service announcement available on the group's website. GenerationNet.org addresses the problem of young people's alienation from politics, which undermines our democracy. Less than one-third of 18- to 24- year olds voted in the last presidential election. Yet more than two-thirds of young adults surveyed by the National Association of Secretaries of State believe that "our generation has an important voice, but no one seems to hear it." Politicians' attitudes toward young people were illustrated in 1992 when then-Senator Wyche Fowler (D-GA) asked young activists, "Students don't vote... do you expect me to come in here and kiss your ass?" (as quoted in Newsweek). GenerationNet.org's two-stage campaign combines online organizing and offline activism. In stage one, from August 29th to September 22nd, members voted at the group's website, http://www.GenerationNet.org, democratically choosing campaign finance reform as their top issue. Stage two, which is now underway, is an offline, grassroots campaign, pressing politicians throughout the country to sign the GenerationNet.org campaign finance reform pledge. "There are 131 million people in generations X and Y, and that's almost half the American population," said Stacey Abrams, the group's President. "More than 40 million of us are active Internet users. Together our voices can have a huge impact." GenerationNet.org's campaign is based on a 1992 campaign for deficit reduction, in which its founder, Peter Schurman, played a key role. The campaign asked candidates for Congress to pledge cut the US budget deficit in half in four years or leave office. In districts nationwide, young activists urged candidates to sign the pledge, demonstrating the scale of the national debt by pouring out 4,200 pennies, each representing $1 billion, at the candidates' feet, while TV news cameras rolled. Nationwide, 106 candidates signed the pledge in just a few weeks. GenerationNet.org is a new nonpartisan, nonprofit, web-based advocacy organization for young people. The group sets no age boundaries for membership, but appeals primarily to those born after the baby boom, because prior generations already have a strong history of political participation. Generations X and Y are defined by demographic historians Strauss and Howe as beginning in 1960." (Gee, I only missed my kids' generation by 7 years!)
|
|
20 Oct 00 - 08:11 PM (#323684) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Jim Dixon Kat: I disagree that polls are always skewed. I myself was polled on the phone a week or so ago. They only asked six questions: 1. Who are you going to vote for for president, Bush or Gore? 2. Are you sure? 3. Who are you going to vote for for Senate, the Republican or the Democrat? [They didn't name the candidates. I assume this was to save time. They wouldn't have to wait while people said "Who?"] 4. Are you sure? 5. Who are you going to vote for for Representative, the Republican or the Democrat? 6. Are you sure? They identified themselves as a polling company. I didn't recognize the name. They didn't say who was paying for the poll. I didn't ask. They were very quick and businesslike. I don't see how you can get any more unbiased than that. (OK, if you're a Nader fan, I suppose you could complain.) |
|
20 Oct 00 - 11:04 PM (#323759) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Hotspur Speaking as an upstate New Yorker, I have to agree with Greg F. There is a definite feeling among upstaters, conservative OR liberal, that downstaters don't have a clue about upstate problems. In fact, a lot of people feel that there are two New Yorks--one consisting of rich obnoxious and probably immoral City people and one of hard working everybody elses. (What can you expect from a mentality that only acknowledges one City--NYC of course--to begin with?) I have no idea how the polls are going and I doubt they're realistic anyway. But I do think the rabid Hillary-haters are giving the impression of greater numbers than they really have. This is just perception on my part, possibly biased, since the idea of a junior Al d'Amato in the Senate is more than my stomach will stand... |
|
20 Oct 00 - 11:25 PM (#323763) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: katlaughing Thanks, Jim, I think yours was the more unusual of polls, but it is good to know there are some out there like that. I don't know if it is still this way, but when I was growing up in Western Colorado, there were always rumblings about seceding and becoming another state as the "Eastern Slope" i.e. Denver (said with great disdain) was always viewed as snotty and not really Western (even though we called it "nothing but an overgrown cowtown"), knowing nothing about the Western Slope at all, thus governing in complete stupidity!**BG** wonder how many other states have such a divide, and I don't mean Continental!**BG** kat |
|
20 Oct 00 - 11:33 PM (#323769) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: catspaw49 I've made a lot of jokes about it, but I'd love to see a whole new state setup. For instance, you take a strip 25 miles inland from Virginia Beach to Savannah and make it a state. The people there have a lot more in common with each other than they do the rest of their states. Spaw |
|
21 Oct 00 - 12:16 AM (#323781) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Sorcha I won't allow any signs for anybody on my property. Who I vote for is nobody's bidness but my own, and I agree with kat about polls. The few times I have actually been called, the questions were so skewed that I answered all of them with "Undecided", or "None of your bidness". Where are the "folks" who are actually polled? In the 21 years I have been eligible to vote, I have recieved only 3 Poll calls, and none while living in Wyoming.
I have about decided, that in reality, only a few very large population centers matter in the US, and of course, we do not really have a "popular" Presidential election--we have an Electoral College election. The more populous states have more Electoral College votes than the small ones so nobody really pays attention to what people in places like Wyoming or Nebraska really want. Reference Hillary--I'm undecided. Glad I don't have to vote in the NY election. The woman is human, just like the rest of us. |
|
21 Oct 00 - 04:46 PM (#324110) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Hollowfox 'Spaw, we have to share DeWine, but you don't have Trafficant. (Oog) |
|
21 Oct 00 - 06:10 PM (#324179) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: catspaw49 True.....and thankfully I only border on Kasich Country. Spaw |
|
22 Oct 00 - 12:25 AM (#324305) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: raredance Jim, even your simple poll could be a potential source of bias. All of the questions led with the same political party ( or its candidate), in this case the Rupublican. Being first on a list often confers an advantage whether it's ballot position, a list of web site links, phone book listings (AA Plumbing Service)etc. It could also generate a false coat tail effect with those who choose a named presidential candidate tending to choose the same party for the other offices even though there may be a very popular member of the opposite party. Becasue the names are not listed, that conncetion may not be made. There was an interesting article on the web magazine Slate today about polling. In the past few years, more and more people are refusing to answer polling questions (partly because there are more and more surveys being conducted). As a result the pollsters have to call many more people to get their 500 or 1000 sample size. If people of one political persuasion have a less favorable view of the media and pollsters, they may disproportionately refuse to participate, and skew the results. As for upstate New York consider: 1) It could reflect reality; 2) It could be the Republicans in that area choose to spend their money on yard signs and the Democrats spend it on something else such as fliers or newspaper adds; 3) It could be the Republicans have so much money that they don't worry about wasting it on yard signs. rich r |
|
22 Oct 00 - 05:32 PM (#324761) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Rick Fielding Thanks for the feedback folks. I think one of the obvious problems is New York City (Like Toronto) is a completely different kettle of fish than New York State (or Ontario). Anyone living in Toronto would get the impression that the provincial leader Mike Harris is LOATHED by everyone. The rest of the folks in this HUGE province (many times larger than Texas) are the ones who voted Harris in and seem to approve of his super-conservative views. There really should be two goverments (both provincial, rather than one municipal and one Provincial) Serious issues in Toronto are things like Art Galleries, Food Banks, a new Opera House, homeless folks, racial harmony, overcrowded schools and basketball stadiums. In the rural areas, tax rebates, union-bashing, creeping multiculturalism, Jesus, and livestock and crop prices are what concern people. They (generally) think the right wing are the saviours, and the city folk (generally) think the right wing are Phillistines. Hard to have ONE Government represent both sides so there's a lot of hostility. It strikes me that in New York State, those that like Lazio are enthusiastic, but those who hate Hilary (have I finally got the spelling right?) REALLY hate her! Oh, and by the way, since I started this thread, the radio says Lazio is now ahead!! Polls are for Poland! Rick |
|
22 Oct 00 - 05:36 PM (#324763) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: bflat Rick, That would be Poles are for Poland. My Polish ancestors would have been Proud Poles of Poland. bflat
|
|
22 Oct 00 - 05:38 PM (#324764) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: catspaw49 So Rick.....How about a "re-provincing" in Canada? As soon as I get done with the US, I'll be happy to help. Spawgerrymander |
|
22 Oct 00 - 09:05 PM (#324957) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Rick Fielding Sorry Bb, no offence meant, but I won't touch that line with a ten foot Hungarian. Spaw, not a bad idea actually. Toronto and New York have a fair amount in common. Other than gang wars and funny accents both cities have a lotta people, a lotta restaurants and museums, a lotta pro sports teams, and enough music stores and libraries to keep me happy. I've lived in both, but I'm much less afraid of 12 year old kids here. Since the U.S. has been trying to take us over for 250 years (all they've managed so far is natural resources and Marshall McLuhan....we didn't want Shatner back!) I'm all for capitulating and making the whole continent one big damned mess. 'Course it means that on Saturday morning I'll be going to 46th street rather than the Twelfth Fret. Since I won't be back til Sunday evening, Heather will have to do ALL the chores! By the way, re the NY election: Hilary may well be smart slick and slippery, but I doubt she's any less ethical than her opponent Lazio. He was a Gingrich buddy from the get-go, and that's a little too holier-than-thou for my tastes. Rick |
|
23 Oct 00 - 04:24 PM (#325547) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Kim C I still don't see how she can feasibly run for an office in a state where she has never lived for any length of time. It may be legal, but I don't think it's very smart to allow people to run who haven't lived in your state (whichever state you live in) for at least five years. |
|
23 Oct 00 - 04:29 PM (#325556) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: mousethief Turnabout is fair play. This is payback for Reconstruction.
Alex |
|
23 Oct 00 - 06:37 PM (#325687) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Holier than thou is equated with unethical, Rick? You're gonna hear from the religious right as well as the Poles on that one! :>) DougR P. S. Sorry. I should have said EXTREME conservative religious right. P. S.2. Evidently the builder of the subdivision was so taken with Hilary he named a street after her. Hillery Drive, and I live on it. I think Hilary said one time that she was named for the famous mountain climber, explorer, Sir Edmund Hillary after he reached the summit of Mount Everest in 1953. Some sharp-eyed historian pointed out, however, that Hilary was born in 1947. Hmmm. That does call to question Hilary's veracity, does it not? I wonder if that's where Al got his penchant for ...aw naw, they're not that close according to the NY Times. I guess it just comes naturally. **GRIN** |
|
23 Oct 00 - 08:15 PM (#325749) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Jim Dixon Rich R: Yes, the poll I described above COULD BE administered in a way that would tend to produce biased results, but I don't see any evidence that it actually WAS being administered that way. To repeat my previous observation, I don't see how you can get any more unbiased. The only thing I can think of that might wipe out the (small) advantage in being listed first (considering that SOMEBODY has to be first) would be to make sure that Republicans were listed first in half of the polling calls, and Democrats were listed first in the other half. For all I know, maybe they were doing that. Maybe I just happened to hear the Republican-first version. (Honestly, my memory isn't that good. Maybe the Democrats WERE listed first. Don't take my transcription THAT literally.) On the other hand, doesn't the same advantage exist in the election itself? Does the election board in your state print half of the ballots listing Republicans first, and the other half listing the Democrats first, and then distribute the ballots randomly? I doubt it (although it is technically feasible). And I'm not even beginning to consider the complications involved in having 3 or more parties on the ballot! At any rate, the purpose of a poll is (usually) NOT to find out what the people really want, but to predict the results of the election. Therefore, arguably, if there is any bias in the election, then there ought to be EXACTLY THE SAME bias in the polls. |
|
28 Oct 00 - 07:19 PM (#329387) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Greg F. A follow-up on Rick's original post about defaced Hillary signs in upstate NY There has been increasing mention in lots of papers in NE New York of Hillary signs being stolen and vandalized- so much so that County Democratic Chairpersons have been commenting on it, and individuals whose property has been trespassed on and signs stolen have been reporting it to the police & writing letters to the editor. I think this speaks much more eloquently than I possibly could to at least one element that Mr. Lazio seems to attract. Best, Greg |
|
29 Oct 00 - 08:03 AM (#329687) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: kendall Can someone tell me what those Hillery haters really have against her? I mean, besides the fact that she is intelligent? I know that strikes terror into the hearts of jealous women and redneck men. |
|
29 Oct 00 - 09:28 PM (#330077) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Rick Fielding Ya know Kendall (and Doug...'cause I like talkin' politics with you) I'm not really sure why all the vitriol. There are obvious things like...she ain't a New Yorker, she may have used inside influence to score on the stock exchange, and she justs radiates total ambition. But Lazio is also someone who looks like he'll do anything to get to the top as well. He appears to be VERY well connected. I think it boils down to her NEVER showing vulnerability. Her hubby really did make her look like a jerk, and whatever arrangement the two of them had (Surely they MUST have..) I'm sure it didn't involve public humiliation. The fact that she soldiered on publicly, attacking the Repubs. and never once implied that perhaps Bill had done wrong, just got up people's noses. Politics these days is STRICTLY and TOTALLY SHOWBIZ. Remember, the polls fluctuated wildly after each candidate's appearance on Oprah. Am I being too cynical to suggest that whoever gets that last prime time TV shot, may gain the extra 2 percent needed to become President? I truly think (at least I THINK I think) that had Hillary gone on Oprah during the Monica/Gennifer/Paula/ etc. period and had a good old fashioned cry on national TV ("REAL TV" in the extreme) her popularity would have soared.....and less of her signs would be being defaced in New York State. As to what the result will be for New Yorkers, no matter which one wins? Simple. Same as always. Downstate NY will get the bucks and the prosperity, and the Buffalo area (near us in Toronto) will continue to crumble and die. Rick |
|
30 Oct 00 - 05:28 AM (#330229) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: kendall The statue of liberty at the entrance to NY harbor has welcomed immigrants for over 100 years. Maybe they should either knock it down, or, move it inland. As it stands, it looks like Europeans are welcome in NY, but, if you are from Arkansas, you are a Carpet Bagger. |
|
30 Oct 00 - 03:53 PM (#330549) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Jim Dixon Rick Fielding: Your observations make a lot of sense. Now can you explain why some people (Republicans) hate Bill so much? It started long before Monica. |
|
30 Oct 00 - 04:43 PM (#330584) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Rick, can't find a thing you said to disagree with (darn it!). Jim: I don't hate Clinton and I'm a Republican. I would never vote for him however. He is probably the finest professional politican to come down the pike in our life-time (except mebbe FDR). "Slick" Willie is an apt name for him, I think. He is the most partisan man in Washington, yet he can point at any Republican in the Congress and scream partisan, with a straight face. Folks criticize the Republicans because Clinton is the most investigated President in our history. The critics somehow don't recognize that those investigations took play on HIS watch! And the investigators were supervised by a panel of federal judges, and HIS Attorney General! He never acknowledges responsibility for his own actions, and his lack of cooperation with the Special Prosicutors stretched out the investigations far longer than it should have taken. Evidently, in the December edition of "Esquire" magazine Clinton is interviewed and has the gall to suggest that the Republicans should apologize for impeaching him. He's just lucky that the Republicans didn't turn him out of office. For those of you who will wholeheartedly disagree with my posting I leave you with this reminder..."I did not have sex with that woman ...Monica Lewinsky!" Have you ever seen anyone on national television look into the camera and lie with more conviction? DougR |
|
30 Oct 00 - 04:45 PM (#330586) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: mousethief People have hated Hillary since 1992 and before. I think it's because she is a powerful and aggressive woman, which in our society just isn't allowed. Remember those "Impeach Clinton and Her Husband" bumper stickers? Those came out very early in C's tenure in the oval office, if I recall. I think it's the "uppity woman" syndrome all over again. We say we believe in equality, but when somebody like Hillary comes along, we show our true colors as a nation. No?
Alex |
|
30 Oct 00 - 04:52 PM (#330594) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Greg F. Yes, Doug, I did; you did, too. Many times. Nixon: "I am not a crook" - Reagan: "I did not trade arms for hostages". Joe McCarthy: "I have in my hand..."- and these are only a few examples. There's lots more.. And in each case they were talking about something much more significant than a blow-job. Best, Greg |
|
30 Oct 00 - 05:01 PM (#330599) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: mousethief You all forget that Clinton is a lawyer. If in his mind "have sex with" means intercourse, and a blow-job is not "having sex," then he could say "I did not have sex with that woman" and not be lying at all. Obscuring and obfuscating, yes, but lying, no. Despicable? Sure. Disgusting? Definitely. Impeachable? Please.
Alex |
|
30 Oct 00 - 05:20 PM (#330620) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Rick Fielding Jim, I honestly don't think they hated Clinton (or her husband) per se. I simply think that the stakes have been raised tremendously in the last few years. Politicians (and the press) at least TRIED to be polite in former days, but now the gloves are off for EVERYTHING in our lives that turns into a disagreement. It even shows up on Mudcat (which is a hell of a good representation of a mainstream community) I'm sure if my father (who was probably pretty liberal) had a political discussion with his neighbour Al Christie (who I think would have been very conservative) they'd have argued, disagreed, and then would have gone out and played golf on Sunday as they always did. I doubt if Al would have called my dad "baby killer, Commie, bleadin' heart pinko" or whatever. I KNOW that my father wouldn't have called AL "Nazi, bigot, gun crazy" or whatever. In fact neither of them would have even THOUGHT that of each other. Today there are battle lines drawn on so many issues, and it can be dangerous to even voice an opinion if you're in the wrong bar or on the wrong turf. My guess is that whoever becomes President will be treated with vitriol by the other side, and that there'll be hardly anyone in Congress who'll have the nerve to actually praise the other side for making a good decision. Rick |
|
30 Oct 00 - 07:59 PM (#330773) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: kendall By the Prosecutors own definition of "sex" he did not lie. Lawyers do that all the time..they are paid to make black look like white. It's their profession. He didnt do anything that most men havn't done. The big difference is where he did it.The creep really degraded the Oval Office with that bit of dalliance. Now..if he is all that bad as President, how come his approval rate is so high? |
|
30 Oct 00 - 11:59 PM (#330936) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Rick Fielding Well from my prejudiced position, he was an excellent President. Reasonably young, reasonably progressive, and VERY well thought of overseas. Same things I thought about Pierre Trudeau...who was also Loved AND hated. Also, unlike the two guys vying for the office now, he could actually make a speech and not look like he was reading from cue cards. Oh and by the way...a small confession... I thought Monica was a dish! An ambitious airhead...but really cute! I'm afraid his "fatal flaw" lay more in courting danger than girls. Too bad. Rick |
|
31 Oct 00 - 12:50 AM (#330960) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Troll If what Clinton did to the office of President can be excused theres hope for every sleazeball that ever walked.Why is he so popular? Because the public thinks he's responsible for the economy. As long as their living well, they don't care about his morals or lack of them. Regarding Hillary, I heard a man on a talk show last week who knows the Clintons> He likes Bill, says he's the kind of guy you watch football with and ogle the cheerleaders. But he said he didn't even like to be in the same room with Hillary; that she's a power-hungry barracuda and as cold as a ddep-freeze unless she wants something from you. Then she can be charming, but it's all fake. I don't believe that the Coumo machine will let her win to become the power broker she wants to be. It's already come out that, if Bush wins, she will run for President in 2004. Big surprise! NOT! troll |
|
31 Oct 00 - 01:19 AM (#330972) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Well, Greg, I guess we all have different standards, and we certainly have a right to our own opinion. Kendall: I may be wrong, but I think Clinton was relying on rules set by the Judge when he was deposed, not the prosecutors. At any rate, anybody who does not know the meaning of the word, "is", well ... And you folks who think receiving a blow job is not having sex; I wonder if your SOs and wives feel that way. Have you seen anyone giving or receiving one in chruch lately? At the Mall? I assume if you have daughters, you would approve of them giving them to their boyfriends because it is merely an expression of casual friendship. Yes? DougR
|
|
31 Oct 00 - 10:15 AM (#331130) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: kendall Look.. reality check ok? All of these birds are politicians, most are lawyers, the lowest form of life on the planet except for used car salesmen, right? OK, we elect them to the highest offices because they are the ones with enough balls or ego to expose themselves to the vitriol of the public. Suddenly, they become president and we expect them to change into a paragon of virtue! Does that make sense? As I said before, there are those who can not stand Hillery, and, IMO, it is mostly because she is bright and ambitious. Qualities in a man, faults in a woman. The knuckle draggers and mouth breathers are scared to death of her because they are afraid she will be able to do the job as well as any man. It's the same siege mentality that caused the young woman to quit the military academy a few years ago.Firemen, policemen and airline pilots, ,any are afraid that if a woman can do his job, that they are somehow less of a man. To them I say "Come on fellas, the dark ages are past, grow up" |
|
31 Oct 00 - 12:32 PM (#331262) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Rick Fielding Sometimes I wonder if my objectivity about politics negates my opinions entirely...unless I'm talkin' to someone else who finds the process more fascinating than the results. Take Hillary for instance. Let's say she's either a cold eyed lyin' ambitious bitch..... .OR...A tough hard workin' woman tryin' to operate with authority in a man's world. (by the way guys, doesn't Streisand go through the same thing?) Would her defeat or victory REALLY make you happy or sad? Bet it would. I hope she wins simply because it will be more INTERESTING with her in there. I have this huge difficulty in believing that the big picture (or even the smaller one) is affected by the views of those in office. Once elected, Liberals become more conservative, and conservatives become more liberal. I see it as a kind of natural balance that evolves, remains static, and then after a while crumbles. It usually takes a radical "accident" to shake people up, then they come to their senses and it's back to that "moderate" leadership for another twenty years. Here in Ontario, (which could objectively be described as a VERRY economically wealthy area) we've been governed by (mostly) the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party for over 150 years. The local prosperity has never varied much. A few years ago (7) the complacent Liberals got ousted in a completely mind boggling election. The Socialists won!! (the New Democratic Party) They are the Ralph Naders of Canada...acting more as a "conscience" than anything else. I guess everyone did their "protest" vote all at once, never believing that their neighbours would as well. The end result was a Government (virtually) no different than the last 140 years. Primarily because moderation KEEPS the status quo...and even the Socialists knew that they wanted to keep the wealthy, wealthy. After four years they were soundly turfed out, and probably won't be back ever, unless by accident, or deliberate shakeup...but the system will never allow them to be more than marginally radical. I think it's the same in the States. Bush would want to be SEEN pushing for anti-abortion...but watch, he won't push too hard. Gore will make grand noises about conservation...but not to the extent that it could cost him votes in a re-election bid. I'm not saying these are bad men (bad speechmakers maybe) but I feel that they are part of a system that prevents either one from making any REAL change. When I'm feeling like Che Guevarra, I think that's a shame. When I'm thinking about my taxes and Mortgage...I think, hmmm guess it's ok. Boy if THIS doesn't bore the rest of our catter friends outta here completely, nothing will! Rick |
|
31 Oct 00 - 12:36 PM (#331266) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: kendall I never find someone who makes sense boring |
|
31 Oct 00 - 12:43 PM (#331275) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: mousethief DougR, you're apple-and-oranging. Just because something isn't "having sex" doesn't mean you do it in public or want your daughters to do it. Heavy petting isn't "having sex" on anybody's definition, nor is going nude in public. That doesn't mean I want my daughter doing it. What a strange definition of "having sex" -- If you don't want your daughter doing it on a date, it's "having sex." Somehow I expected something a little more rational from you, Doug.
Alex |
|
31 Oct 00 - 02:44 PM (#331278) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Jim Dixon Mousethief/Alex: Try seeing it from the other point of view: the daughter's. (Anybody's daughter.) You know your father doesn't want you "having sex" but YOU want to do EVERYTHING BUT "having sex." How would you define it THEN? Here's another what-if: Say a woman gets married, and later discovers her husband refuses to have any kind of sex but oral sex. Would she be eligible for an annulment? |
|
31 Oct 00 - 02:47 PM (#331280) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Jim Dixon Woops! I see I may have addressed that last message to the wrong person. |
|
31 Oct 00 - 04:17 PM (#331358) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Oh, Alex, I kind of doubt that. Obviously, Alex and Jim, you buy Clinton's definition of sex. Okay by me. I just don't. DougR |
|
31 Oct 00 - 04:34 PM (#331372) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: kendall That creep has done irreparable harm to the office he holds, but, I just dont see that Texas lightweight being able to restore the dignity that Clinton lacks. We need a hero right now, Dubbya aint it. |
|
31 Oct 00 - 05:09 PM (#331406) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Jim Dixon Whether I "buy" Clinton's definition of sex is immaterial. It's just that when a definition is vague, a defendant in a criminal case ought to be allowed to use any reasonable interpretation that is in his favor. It's part of the presumption of innocence that is the basis of our civil liberties. |
|
31 Oct 00 - 05:11 PM (#331407) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: mousethief I don't know about irreparable harm. The office is bigger than one man's sperlonga. I think it's funny that people can't imagine that one could really dislike Clinton, and think he's a moral reprobate, a disgusting slimeball who gives all men a bad name (not unlike Mark Hatfield) -- but still not think that getting your wally wetted in the oval office (or even lying about getting your wally wetted) is an impeachable offense. I'm sure that's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind with the impeachment clause. I'm just sure of it.
Alex |
|
31 Oct 00 - 07:04 PM (#331484) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR I'm equally confident that the Founding Fathers never dreamed that anyone elected to that high office would do such a think, Alex. Only my opinion, of course. DougR |
|
01 Nov 00 - 08:21 AM (#331799) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Troll That the America Public did not rise up in a body and demand his resignation is, to me, the most saddening and disgusting thing of all. troll |
|
01 Nov 00 - 08:29 AM (#331802) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: kendall Why Troll? do you really think that what he did was that much worse than "The Actor" on TV lying about Iran-Contre AND Arms for Hostages? Fact is, they are ALL self serving bastards except, maybe, Nader, and he cant win. |
|
01 Nov 00 - 08:55 AM (#331820) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Troll Yes, Kendall, I do.Regan was wrong, but I believe that he felt that what he was doing was right for the country.HE certainly got nothing out of it. But Clinton broke his marriage vows for something that was PURELY personal and then lied about it even under oath. Had he said "Yes, I did it. And It's between me and Hillary and no one else.", then it would have been over. Regan could have done the same thing.Why neither of them didn't, I don't know. But my question was, and is, WHY did not the public react with enough indignation at the shaming of the Office of the Presidency to force his resignation? troll |
|
01 Nov 00 - 09:40 AM (#331851) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: GUEST,Stackley The virulent hatred of both Clintons by certain segments of the population stems largely from envy. Simple political differences of opinion or moral indignation would NOT by themselves produce the hysterical, foaming-at-the-mouth response conservatives display. There's personal jealousy operating here- and these folks need psychiatric help. Its also amusing to see the same folks prattle on about the 'sacredness of the constitution' and then equate Nixon's and Reagan's clearly criminal acts and subversions of it with fellatio. Cheers |
|
01 Nov 00 - 10:39 AM (#331883) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Envy? Guest, Stackley, surely you jest! DougR |
|
01 Nov 00 - 11:40 AM (#331941) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: kendall Its our Victorian attitude. A blow job is far more serious than subverting the constitution, lying to congress and the American people, making a deal with the Iatollah to keep the hostages until after the election. I dont understand why the people didnt rise up and demand Ronald Ray-Guns resignation. Clinton gets tarred and feathered, Ray-Gun gets an airport named after him. No wonder foreign people dont understand us. |
|
01 Nov 00 - 11:48 AM (#331946) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: mousethief I think you're deluding yourself, Doug. We know that Ben Franklin, one of those precious Founding Fathers, wrote a very popular underground pamphlet on how to have a successful extramarital affair. And Jefferson was boinking his "negro" maid. I don't think they'd be quite as shocked as you think about the Lewinski thing -- except maybe that it was made so public and such a big stink was made about it. Kendall, don't forget the deal Nixon did with the Viet-Cong to scuttle the peace talks until after the 1968 election! That's not nearly as bad as getting a blow-job, of course, but it was pretty low.
Alex |
|
01 Nov 00 - 12:02 PM (#331962) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Troll Kendall, I don't either.Lying under oath is a serious business and I'm glad that you feel that it should be dealt with harshly. As for "hysterical foaming-at-the-mouth" responses,check your posting of 27-oct-oo @ 6:33pm, Stackley. I guess that you are not used to people having strong opinions that run counter to yours. I happen to believe rather strongly in a philosophy of individual responsibility and of a government that does not interfere too much in the everyday lives of the people. I am JUST as opposed to corporate welfare and the greed that seems to be the big corporations main reason for existance. Just because I beleive these things does not mean that I am a wild-eyed right-wing reactionary nor does it mean that I am necessarily a Republican. As for MY remarks about Hillary, I simply reported on what I heard said on a talk show by a man who knows both Clintons. If you feel that disagreements with your views constitute a need for psychiatric care, you may be a litle TOO involved in the election. I would suggest a rest. Take a walk in the park. Play some music. Relax. troll |
|
01 Nov 00 - 02:13 PM (#332075) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Mousethief: I am not opposed to blow jobs. The fact that Franklin, Jefferson, anybody else you want to name, had extra-marital affairs has nothing to do with what Clinton did. Perhaps Jefferson fooled around with his maid in the oval office, it might be so. If so, though, history has not recorded it else I'm sure some apologist for Clinton would have dug it up during the impeachment proceedings (JEFFERSON DID IT! WHAT'S WRONG WITH BILL DOING IT? THEY WERE BOTH PRESIDENTS!) Obviously, Jefferson did not look directly into a television camera and tell the American people, I did not have sex with that woman ...Sally Hemmings! I'm surprised, however, some Clinton supporter hasn't suggested that TJ stepped out on the front porch of the White House, and screamed a similar message to the passer-by. Clinton looked squarely into the camera, however, and said most ernestly, well, you know what he said. Now he wants an apology. Have those of you who feel he was wronged, sat down and penned your note of apology to him yet? DougR |
|
01 Nov 00 - 02:41 PM (#332097) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: GUEST,Stackley Whoa,there, Troll buddy! You need to take your own advice."I would suggest a rest. Take a walk in the park. Play some music. Relax." I never suggested your observations on Hillary were hysterical; clichéd and childish, maybe. Of course if you feel you were foaming at the mouth, I'll have to defer to your opinion. "...check your posting of 27-oct-oo @ 6:33pm..." Just did- what's your point? Cheers - |
|
01 Nov 00 - 03:03 PM (#332115) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: kendall Been looking for that thread Troll, dont see anything on the 27th..was it in another thread? |
|
01 Nov 00 - 11:03 PM (#332481) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Kendall: Guest Stackley may be having some difficulty finding the thread on the 27th, because Guest Stackley, in my humble opinion has some problems. Vision? Don't know. Judgement, possibly. DougR |
|
01 Nov 00 - 11:45 PM (#332494) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Troll Guest Stackley, since mine was the last anti-Clintons post before your posting and the only anti-Hilary posts that I could find on this thread were from me and DougR, I figured that it was a pretty good bet that you were talking about one of us. Your posting of 27-Oct-00 @6:33pm was, in my opinion, hysterical and foaming-at-the-mouth. Don't look for the mote in your neighbors eye until you have first removed the beam from your own. troll |
|
01 Nov 00 - 11:46 PM (#332495) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Tinker Talk about thread drift.... As the nation drifted from Ozzie and Harriet, and Jack and Jackie on to Ricki Lee and Jerry Springer and Bill and Hilary. What was known and what was concidered appropriate to report has changed. Political power, money and sex have been bedfellows through out history. It's the distribution of information that has changed the game, not the game itself. The demand for public officals to be above any appearance of reproach and to be willing to expose their families to the microscopic scrutiny of todays media will continue to cost us untold lost opportunities as highly qualified people refuse to run rather than go through the muck. Tinker |
|
01 Nov 00 - 11:49 PM (#332496) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Troll Kendall, that posting was on the Government...Bigger and Better thread. Sorry for any confusion. troll |
|
02 Nov 00 - 12:05 AM (#332505) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Tinker, you are right. It takes a bold person (or a very amtitious one) these days to run for public office. DougR |
|
02 Nov 00 - 12:13 AM (#332513) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Troll, I don't want you to feel too exclusive. Guest Stackley (or whatever other name Guest Stackley chooses at the moment) has taken pto shots at me for quite a spell. Perhaps his therapist told him he was getting too wound up! "Get rid ...I say get rid, of those pent up emotions! They backing up on you!" I can just imagine his therapist counseling him thus. DougR |
|
02 Nov 00 - 12:27 AM (#332523) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Troll DougR, far be it from me to horn in on your territory. But I disagree about the therapist. I don't believe he needs one.I think he does need a good dose of manners but if he hasn't learned them by not, it's probably too late. When I checked him out on forum search, I found that he only goes back about a week. I'd say he'll disappear after the election. I'd like to say that dealing with him has been fur but really he's too easy; no real challenge. It's almost all flame and, while he's ok at it, he's no expert. troll |
|
02 Nov 00 - 01:21 AM (#332543) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Aw, Troll, don't sweat it. What's his/her name is just having fun. Thanks, though, for your comments. DougR |
|
02 Nov 00 - 07:23 AM (#332619) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Troll It's not a problem. It's just that I like a good challenge and Stackley is becoming boring. troll |
|
02 Nov 00 - 07:45 AM (#332627) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: GUEST,Stackley Well, Doug, that's just one narrow-minded old man's opinion. But thanks for your comments, though. |
|
02 Nov 00 - 08:19 AM (#332647) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: GUEST,Stackley Troll, if you'll back up a little more in the thread, you'll see postings about the unreasonable hatred for the Clinton's, pre-dating the Monica business. That's what I was referring to. Is Douger's paranoia contagious? Take care. Cheers |
|
02 Nov 00 - 12:40 PM (#332840) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR You're welcome, Guest, Stackely. DougR |
|
02 Nov 00 - 01:33 PM (#332879) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: McGrath of Harlow But in spite of all this, I've been reading that polls indicate that if Cliton were able to run for President this time, as well, he'd probably walk it.
Which suggest that most Americans don't think it such a big deal. What amazes me is that everyone doesn't crack up with laughter everytime he appears in public. That's what would guarantee that, for example, Tony Blair couldn't get away with an equivalent frolic. I can just imagine Question Time in the House of Commons. Every time anyone said "Does the Honorable Member..." it would reduce the place to hysterics. |
|
02 Nov 00 - 02:10 PM (#332895) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: DougR Interesting comments, McGrath. I'm not sure that I agree with the polls, though. There are certainly lots of people who would vote for Clinton again, if he could run (and he would if he could). Those that think the whole thing he got himself into was like a little boy's prank would probably be in that group. He is very popular with the African-American community and would certainly get their vote. Whether he could draw enough to win the election, though, is debatable in my opinion. DougR |
|
02 Nov 00 - 03:43 PM (#332969) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: kendall This thread has become too personal for me.. I'm out of here. |
|
03 Apr 01 - 01:08 PM (#432175) Subject: RE: NY. Election sign dichotomy.Any thoughts From: Devilmaster I know this is a dead thread, but I'd just like to mention that I ran in the windsor municipal election, nobody really knew me, and I had signs vandalized also. I do believe its happens to anyone who puts up signs. I lost 10% of my signs to vandalism. I don't know about anyone else's amount, but when I was paying for my own election, I was understandably dissapointed. |