RCow

I fully admit Kerry is not my ideal candidate. Never was and I certainly don't think he's without fault. Much about him drives me crazy but I also think he'll make better decisions and will do more things that I agree with. I also truly believe Bush is a disaster and I don't have any respect or faith in the man. Not because he's a bad guy but he's a bad president. Bush seems to believe he's infalliable and his supporters never, ever admit to a mistake. I've said it before, Bush's greatest blunder is not to admit mistakes or point to lessons learned. This unsettling position is exascerbated by what appears to be a messiah complex, that God wanted him to be president and he is doing the Lord's work. Is he just extremely disingenuous or does he truly believe he's infalliable. That puts his supporters in a tough spot, to admit what he himself won't: Iraq is a mess, mistakes were made and perhaps, just perhaps, there are a few lessons learned. Instead it's unproductive arrogance bordering on a frightening air of infalliability.

You're absolutely right, if Kerry doesn't win PA he's dead. But that ain't gonna happen. Keep dreaming. Kerry only has to break even in the Philly suburbs to win. I know this is hard to take but a Kerry win will have nothing to do with imagined shenanigans. I know you see things differently but what else would we expect a partisan to say?

Oh my Lord! Zell Miller! You're kidding me! Next thing you'll know he'll Keynote the Republican convention! Now Kerry will never win Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina! Kerry is billsfanone! Dick Morris! Oh, NO! Perhaps he'll do hatchet job commentary on Fox then Kerry will never get elected. I mean, Dick Morris, a man of impectable integrity and trust among all Americans. This is worse than a slap in the face from Jesus. Ed Koch. Say it ain't so!!! The man is still a political juggernaut, perhaps he can push Bush over the top in New York. The man always had a rock solid reputation as a yellow dog Democrat, who only every other election endorses a Republican. Wow, Randy Kelly. It just may appear as if he's not well respect in Minnesota but don't be fooled, this man can carry the state for Bush. I'm way too upset to talk about the betrayl of Democratic icons like Sarah Baxter and George McKelvey.

You tell me. As I see it to each their own. The truth is usually in between. Personally, I don't look to Washington Times and Mother Jones for news, just a perspective on their agenda. Same goes for all commentary, I want to know the agenda of the person or organization who espouses that opinion. That's why I sound harsh in my condemnation of posts that link to supposed "news" and "journalistic" articles that are no more than political hatch jobs (more politely known as "commentary." (Yes, I'll often rip the GOP/Conservative ones, but I won't comment or support the Democratic/liberal articles - Ivens, Dowd, etc. - the right on the board usually stomps on them effectively). One of the few people I look to for a "fair and balanced" commentary is Friedman and a few others on either side of the aisle who are just as apt to criticize their "side" than lambast the other. Not that I always agree, but they do provide a healthy, productive perspective. Paul Gigot used to one of my favorite Conservative commentators because he often made me cringe not because of propogandist rhetoric but because I thought he may be right; however, now I often feel he's be run out of town by the fanatics. I used to have great respect for George Will, but now he's nothing more than a hack (I used to cringe, now I just say "oh, please, give me a break"). There is a big difference between wanting something to be true and being persuaded it is true.

Lots of people have been to Iraq. Funny thing, they all come back with a remarkably different outlook. Of course it seems he also believes Bush can do no wrong. Perhaps Bush is doing the Lord's work. Did anyone say "Crusade?"

If that's true, doesn't that blow the whole "Kerry-is-not-literally-fit-to-be-president -because-he-didn't-carry-his goose" theory? Damn, the choice for president was becoming so clear.

Los Angelas Times? I've almost given up explaning that because a commentary piece is in a so-called liberal newspaper it doesn't mean it's friggin journalistic news. It's the same as pointing to a Molly Ivins piece in the Washington Times and someone says "this is what the conservative Times said." Commentary is commentary. The guy is a Republican political hack who's "opinion" is straight out of the RNC. You and others trip all over yourself to say it's all the media's fault and that the Democrats have made up the fact that Bush's Iraq policy is a disaster. When "evidence" to the contrary is presented it is NEVER qualified -- posters never admit that the piece has a political campaign agenda to re-elect Bush (though Kerry supporters do the same). That's what most commentary pieces do -- and those we don't know by name even try to disquise their opinion as journalistic fact. VERY few commentators have credibility (Friedman is one). You no doubt have a lot of defense experience and knowledge but there are just as many people I personally know and respect on security and national defense who have a very different opinion than you. That doesn't make you wrong and them right but it certainly doesn't help when you post articles written by a Republican political hack as evidence that the Iraq policy is an overall positive. It's just not credible. Moreover, it's a bit bewildering to hear that reason you think Kerry is dangerous is because he cares what people think. My Lord, the Apocolypse is upon us. President's who care what people think -- don't we all know that Republican president's are infallible gods, a defacto Sons of the Almighty, all knowing with the devine hand that will guide us through difficult times. I fear Bush because he truly believes God wanted him to be president. He's incapable of introspection, he is "resolute" because he does not have the ability to reason. He's the proverbial captain of the Titanic who stands with great resolve to stay the course and not listen to those limpwrists who suggest a new heading. Bush cannot admit a mistake or say he has learned a single lesson. I want a President who does value the opinion of others and is strong enough to admit when they are wrong. Bush: Strong, resolute and dead wrong.

Yep, blame the media. Guess I didn't see all those cringing reports from FOX every day for a year and a half. Guess I didn't see Republican senators Lugar, Hagel, Graham and McCain recently call the Iraq policy a mess and a failure. They had the gall to not to follow the Adminstration's daily talking points. I guess they were snowed by the liberal media and the propogandist Kerry. You've caught on to the massive conspiracy of fake bombings, beheadings, body bags, torn limbs, dead children, missing money, civil war, and the largest terrorist recruiting effort in history. "Remain calm! Everything is under control!!!!" If the President admitted mistakes or the reality of the situation he'd win in a cakewalk. His two biggest gaffes: Press Conference a few months ago (you'd have to remember, he barely has one a year) he was asked what mistakes he's made and what lessons he's learned. For a few embarrassing minutes he hemmed and hawed then said couldn't think of any. Months later and after dozens of hours of debate prep he was asked the question a second time and would only say he hired the wrong people a few times. Bush has put his supporters in a bind. They can't even admit to themselves that Iraq is fukked up because their own candidate refuses to acknowledge any mistakes. This demostrates he either doesn't get it, is totally out of touch or he's got a messiah complex. It's bad no matter how you slice it.

From the Adminstration's mouth. We are there to help the Iraq people and make them happy, remember? That was after the excuse of WMDs, ties to Al Quada, a imminent threat and a dozen other reasons were disproven and discarded. You can't seriously contend this Adminstration message not on the news every frickin day. Oh, by the way, that entire article is straight out of the RNC message center.

Penalty. Ten yards for inserting words in another's mouth. I did NOT say anything regard to what Iraqis think of the US. That is not the issue here. The reason to invade Iraq to spend untold billions and sacrifice thousands of American lives to improve the Iraqis standard of living. Bush is now claiming the war of terror is on track because the standard of living in Iraq went from a D minus to a C minus. If Bush really wants to make a nation's citizens happy and improve a standard of living he would invade Sudan.

1. A world leader is someone who can persuade others to follow. Bush has failed. 2. Democrats support the war on terror and say Bush's Iraq war hurt that effort and likely made it worse. Moreover, the current Bush Iraq policy has yet to prove it is helping the war on terror. 3. Minorities can't (shouldn't?) be Republicans? Are they not welcome? Please explain. Also, you made no case that Bush has helped SB, families, etc. 4. If that is your view, you don't even know what Patriotism is. Appalling. 5. Consistent, eh? Please provide concrete examples of each. 6. Bush: steady, confident and wrong. Many American and world leaders were steady and confident -- and many were also disasters for their nation and the world. Ah, losing jobs and people during the 90s economic boom? Come again? You last paragraph is at best mind numbing. You accuse others of being close-minded yet a sentence later admit your not open-minded?

Touche, my mistake. Still, who cares what Iraqis think? Is that how you will measure the success of US foriegn policy? Is that our litmus test? Do you really think the Administration has done a good job for America?

That piece is mess. Who is Stephen E. Moore? Looks like a RNC intern slapped it together. So, it's the media's fault it that Bush's Iraq policy looks like a disaster for the US? Bush should be re-elected because the people of Iraq are "better off"? That's not what many Republican senators have said lately. Are we to measure the success of US security and foriegn policy because Iraqis say they are better off? Would the people in Sudan be better off if we sent troops and billions in aid? Should we poll the Sudanese people and ask them if they want our help? What about a few other nations? BTW, did you notice he proudly proclaims 60% of Iraqis say the interim Gov't is doing a "good job" but rated the UN "only" 2.9 on a scale of 4. That's 72.5% approval rating.

This just in: Pats = football Sox = baseball Celtics = basketball I checked, the Bills are not scheduled to play the Red Sox or Celtics anytime soon.

I agree. I have more respect for Rich, Wacka, stickincincy et al for their defense of Bush (come to think of it's usually only Kerry bashing, but no matter) than someone who will not (or cannot) offer an alternative and then stand up to defend that choice.

Except for not reading "Jane's" we have a very similar source pool. Kinda of blows the "way you think" dig, don't it? Or is there another explanation? (he asked knowing it was a hanging curveball . . .)

"Whine to courts?" The people are to blame? You can't be serious. You're doing extreme gymnastics on this one, Tom. "Bad" argument, eh? If that's the case I don't see how you can be very proud of the stuff pounding out on your keyboard today.

I suppose of much more of a libertarian than the so-called libertarians on this board. I believe the goal is to do whatever we can to preserve an individuals right to vote over the state's possible "silly" rules. The "well, that's the way it is" argument should make libertarians choke.

And your source for news is . . . ? Any recommendations from the well informed and "right" thinking people?

I find it incredible that the same people who always say government can do NOTHING right continue to side with government over personal rights in discussions regarding voting processes.

With all due respect, you really haven't addressed the question. Where is the burden of proof? Are you assuming the voter screwed up or the state? How are these cases rectified? I can only assume you believe there is a low standard of state "good faith" and almost entirely place the burden of proof on the voter; in other words, the voter is guilty and his voting rights are taken away unless they can prove they were given erroneous information or at the very least, not adequate information. What if they simply said "I was told to go to this place" and it was wrong? How can they prove it? Phone records, taped conversations? What IS the good faith effort? Very few people (other than, say, you) subcribes and/or reads the paper from cover to cover everyday; how many mailings should the state/county send? Are the pieces accurate, clear? How do you know someone recieved it? What if they don't have access to the internet or don't have the skills to locate the correct information? In most parts of the country the polling place is obvious. There simply aren't many places to vote and in some cases there is only one within miles. Not so in heavy suburban and urban areas where a polling place could change very often. The point of a provisional ballot is to ensure that every vote is counted in the event of a questionable voter (not registered, noncitizen, accidently kicked off the rolls, etc) and to sort it out later. It's much more democratic to challenge the voters status and toss the vote than to turn someone away and not have a chance to vote. As an aside, I believe we should always do whatever we can to count a vote and make voting as convienent and easy as possible. Hopefully there will come a time when we have nationwide early voting, be able to cast a ballot anywhere in a state (very important to commuters) and other ways to encourage participation. That's not babysitting it's encouraging democracy.

The issue here is whether or not a provisional ballot should be counted even if someone a voter casts their provisional vote at the wrong precinct in the same county. Many here agree with NewsMax that the vote should be thrown out simply because the vote wasn't at the correct precinct. Others, like myself, would count the vote because it's an easily correctable and verifiable error. (BTW, the idea that someone can cast ballots in a number of precincts undetected is nearly impossible and certainly cannot succeed on a wide scale). You, if I am correct, would say that if the state is at fault then count the ballot, if the voter is at fault, discard the ballot. Who is to determine the validity of each case? Shouldn't the vote count unless there is undeniable proof that the voter has sole blame? Who has the burden of proof -- the state or the voter? You talk about responsibilities and rights but which carries more weight? Does the blame lie with the voter who must fight for their right for their vote to count? Or does the state have the responsiblity to uphold that right unless they prove the voter lost the privilege due to clear irresponsible conduct? Do we hold a court case for each voter? What if they each claims they called the local board of election and they were verbally told the wrong polling place? Who's side would you take? How are we to determine if someone has readily accessible information? Do we know for certain? Perhaps we should have a test - that seemed to work well during the Jim Crow days.

Economic Left/Right: -3.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.25

If something is easily correctable, and quite possibly not the fault of the voter, it makes NO sense and quite un-democratic to take away what is a perfectly legitimate vote. Very often a voter will not be notified of the correct polling place, particularly after redistricting in suburban and urban areas. This country should do whatever it takes to protect the right, not look for technicalities to take it away. The article makes a very poor case for not taking the step to count the vote. It's frightening that so many people here will not side with the voter. It smacks of elitism.

Nearly everywhere a signature is the only verification. That's all that is needed. An election supervisor can challenge the authenticity of the voter but this is rare (except in minority areas). No matter what the voter is allowed to cast a provisional ballot that will later verify the voter. This type of fraud is very rare and is difficult to pull off on even a small scale. As to the NewsMax "article" (do you really read it for news?): how come everytime the courts rule in favor of allowing a vote to be cast the Republicans go nuts? If someone is an eligble voter their vote should count. That's what a provisional ballot is supposed to ensure. The vote doesn't count until the person's ID is verified anyway. Isn't it unAmerican and undemocratic to toss someone's vote on a technicality?