Vote
Lindsey Metta
liberal enough to energize the Dem base."
How dumb do you have to be to skip out voting b/c you don't feel moved
enough by the eventual Dem contender? After 4 yrs of Bush and still
unwilling to bother to go vote, anyone 'too liberal' deserves another 4
yrs of Bu$h and Company. Even in a state such as NC, which likely will go
to Bush, you have to have yr head way, way up yr ass to avoid the polling
booth.
-- ch-scene: the mailing list that mirrors a.m.c-h --
http://listserv.unc.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=ch-scene
John Eyles
>liberal enough to energize the Dem base."
>
>How dumb do you have to be to skip out voting b/c you don't feel moved
>enough by the eventual Dem contender? After 4 yrs of Bush and still
>unwilling to bother to go vote, anyone 'too liberal' deserves another 4
>yrs of Bu$h and Company. Even in a state such as NC, which likely will go
>to Bush, you have to have yr head way, way up yr ass to avoid the polling
>booth.
Perhaps you are aware of the fact that only roughly 1/2 of the
electorate votes in the typical presidential general election.
Assuming that turn-out rates are roughly similar among likely-
Democratic and likely-Repupublican voters, this suggests that if a
Democratic candidate could energize the likely-Democratic voters
enough that their turnout is 3/4 instead of 1/2, then the Democrat
has a very good chance of winning ! Get it ?
If a candidate can bring enough fire to do this, then to hell with
those centrist/swing voters ! Hopefully that's what happens if
Dean is the nominee. If not, I wonder if any states besides
Massachusetts will go Blue ?
John
Cox Moakur
"John Eyles" <j...@cs.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:bgc14j$ee9$1...@capefear.cs.unc.edu...
> >"There's a balancing act a Dem candidate must perform between being
> >liberal enough to energize the Dem base."
> >
> electorate votes in the typical presidential general election.
> Assuming that turn-out rates are roughly similar among likely-
> Democratic and likely-Repupublican voters, this suggests that if a
> Democratic candidate could energize the likely-Democratic voters
> enough that their turnout is 3/4 instead of 1/2, then the Democrat
> has a very good chance of winning ! Get it ?
>
So are you saying the energizer Dem candidate needs to get another 25 mil
off the couch to go vote?
grady
howzabout, 5 million centrist "swing" voters. He'd then need to motivate
an additional 10 million (plus one) apathetic/alienated leftists to get
off the couch (or out of the Nader/whomever line). Which seems like a
lot. But then you think of it this way: each of 40 million voters only
need to motivate one-quarter of one person who didn't vote in 2000 to
vote in 2004.
So if I, and three of my friends, "adopt" a single Nader voter & get
him/her to vote Democratic, we win. Thinking about it that way, it's
practically child's play ;-)
Ross
p.s. which is why Dean's strategy of really working hard to mobilize
people on the ground in every city/state, via meetup.com and from there
through the individual meetup groups to other social groups & public
gatherings, will be so crucial. 200 million Republican bucks spent on TV
saturation advertising will only sway a few million centrist swing
voters. A few million dedicated Democrats on the ground, each
responsible for rounding up a couple of stray friends apiece & getting
them to the polls, will more than make up that difference. All we need
now are a few million dedicated Democrats . . .
p.p.s. Honestly, if there's one thing we should be working for, it's a
National Voting Holiday by 2004. Would make a *huge* difference. Write
yr congresspeople, please. Nobody should have to even consider whether
or not to vote due to something stupid like their work schedule.
> 100 million people voted in 2000? 50 million were Dems, the other 50 Reps.
> So are you saying the energizer Dem candidate needs to get another 25 mil
> off the couch to go vote?
>
-- ch-scene: the mailing list that mirrors a.m.c-h --
http://listserv.unc.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=ch-scene
John Eyles
>> >liberal enough to energize the Dem base."
>> >
>> Perhaps you are aware of the fact that only roughly 1/2 of the
>> electorate votes in the typical presidential general election.
>> Assuming that turn-out rates are roughly similar among likely-
>> Democratic and likely-Repupublican voters, this suggests that if a
>> Democratic candidate could energize the likely-Democratic voters
>> enough that their turnout is 3/4 instead of 1/2, then the Democrat
>> has a very good chance of winning ! Get it ?
>
>100 million people voted in 2000? 50 million were Dems, the other 50 Reps.
>So are you saying the energizer Dem candidate needs to get another 25 mil
>off the couch to go vote?
I'm not saying the Dem needs to get 25 million to change their votes.
I'm saying that IF the Dem could get a significant chunk of the NON-voters
off the couch, then he'd win.
Basically, since the Dem base and Rep base (that is, the voters
very likely to vote Dem or Rep no matter what) are roughly equal in
size, a candidate has to get more of the swing voters (the uncommitted
ones that don't decide who to vote for until the Fall) in order to
win.
My fear is that even though many of those swing voters may be pretty
unhappy with Bush's rush to war in Iraq, his attacks on civil liberties,
and his for-the-rich tax cuts, they may be even more uncomfortable
with a Democratic candidate they perceive as "too liberal". Then
Bush gets more of the swing voters and it's 4 more years (likely
worse than the first 4 have been, since he need no longer worry
about re-election).
However, if the Dem can get bunches of those likely-Democratic
voters off the couch, then he can win without winning the
swing vote. The way to do that is to really get people fired
up - folks who don't normally vote because they're so disgusted
with politics - and other folks who work hard on his campaign.
Unfortunately, these two paths to victory are mutually-exclusive
to a large extent. The policies and rhetoric that get the base
fired up tend to alienate the swing vote. It's a balancing act
that a successful candidate must perform. Bush did it masterfully
in 2000 - reassuring the right-wingers, Christian right, and
big business that he was their man - while simultaneously keeping
the swing voters from realizing what a right-wing administration
he would run.
John
John Eyles
> saturation advertising will only sway a few million centrist swing
> voters. A few million dedicated Democrats on the ground, each
> responsible for rounding up a couple of stray friends apiece & getting
> them to the polls, will more than make up that difference. All we need
> now are a few million dedicated Democrats . . .
And maybe Dean is more likely to motivate those few million
dedicated Democrats. He's certainly doing an awesome and
virtually unprecedented (because of the internet) job of
grass-roots organizaing. Maybe the Internet is the populist
answer to big campaign money. Sounds good to me.
How do we decide whether or not North Carolina has a chance
of going Democratic, due to angry military families (they are
getting PISSED about the soldiers staying longer in Iraq) and
laid-off factory workers, or if we have to concede NC and
move to somewhere like maybe Florida for the Fall ?
John
Karl Lietzan
death, but is anyone aware of similar hard work done on non-voters? Given
that 'get out the vote' campaigns are generally pushed by dems and ignored
by reps, seems that they're at least 51% likely democrat voters.
karl
gr...@ibiblio.org
Actually, if get-out-the-vote campaigns are pushed by Dems, that would imply that maybe the Dems have already rounded up more of theirs, so maybe the non-voters are all republicans who're so confident their man is going to win that they don't bother.
Or, if you recall the 1992 election, maybe they're Perot voters, just waiting for the next fiscal conservative pseudo-populist weirdo to mount a presidential campaign. We could only be so lucky.
But John or somebody alluded to Bush's masterful playing of the right-wingers *and* the middle-of-the-roaders in 2000 -- I get the feeling that there are a lot of those wacko hardcore right-wing types who're pretty fed up with Bush not being right-wing freaky enough.
Is there a charismatic right-wing nutjob waiting in the wings to split the right-winger vote? Please?
Ross
> karl
>
>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- ch-scene: the mailing list that mirrors a.m.c-h --
Cox Moakur
"grady" <gr...@ibiblio.org> wrote in message
news:3F299406...@ibiblio.org...
>
> p.p.s. Honestly, if there's one thing we should be working for, it's a
> National Voting Holiday by 2004. Would make a *huge* difference. Write
> yr congresspeople, please. Nobody should have to even consider whether
> or not to vote due to something stupid like their work schedule.
>
while i'm sure there are some people whose work schedule or tyrannical boss
prevents them from voting during the workday, i think that the majority of
people who don't vote don't vote because they don't give a damn.
i would bet that if there was a voting holiday, or voting on saturday
instead, even LESS people would vote. why stand around in line at the polls
when you can take the day off and go to the beach or whatever. i think
voters vote and nonvoters don't vote.
do they still have "rock the vote"? I remember that was a semi-big deal back
in '92 or so and so you had Lenny Kravitz and others telling everyone to
register and vote. A follow up after the election revealed that most of the
spokespeople involved didn't bother to vote. "Oh, I was on tour", etc.
Absentee voting is so easy (easier than going to the polling station) that
there's just no excuse.
Cox Moakur
"science" of winning an election which is what you're alluding to. I
remember him talking about Shrillary when she was running against Lazio and
they broke the vote down into people who vote 1. for Shrillary, 2. for
Lazio, 3. against Shrillary, 4. against Lazio. By breaking it down, you were
better able to target the group you wanted to go after. Why go after the
"for Lazio" crowd when you could spend time working on the "against Lazio"
crowd and maybe get some people to leave the "against Shrillary" crowd.
<gr...@ibiblio.org> wrote in message
news:20030801002050.8385720020@happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu...
scotjohn
Minnesota. They'd been very apathetic about the governor's race, and
wouldn't have voted at all if Ventura hadn't entered.
Why'd they vote for Ventura? "He was the antithesis of politics as
usual," they said. "For example, during a three-way debate, someone
asked about funding for fellowships at the U of M. The democrat and
republican both went off on tangents about 'the value of education.'
Ventura said 'I believe your question was about fellowships at the U
of M' and proceeded to give a straight answer of what he thought. We
loved it."
Reminds me of Howard Dean's frankness. I think he'll have the same
effect.
I know, people said Nader would have this effect in 1996 and 2000, and
it didn't happen. But there's a big difference -- everyone knew Nader
wouldn't win in a million years, and having no chance in hell tends to
dampen your ability to mobilize non-voters. But Ventura had a clear
shot. And if chosen as the Democratic candidate, I think Dean will
too.
This also reminds me of a very different article in Salon.com from the
one quoted by Rat Race... Ended along these lines: "Swing voters
don't choose the candidate who positions themselves in the political
center. They make an emotional decision about who they feel they can
trust to lead the country." So attacking Bush's trustworthiness makes
perfect sense. And establishing Dean as a straight-talking, "I'll
tell you what I really think" candidate seems wise as well.
Karl Lietzan <li...@ils.unc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.030731...@ruby.ils.unc.edu>...
Duncan Murrell
> what are non-voters like? I'm sure likely swing voters are polled to
> death, but is anyone aware of similar hard work done on non-voters?
> Given
> that 'get out the vote' campaigns are generally pushed by dems and
> ignored
> by reps, seems that they're at least 51% likely democrat voters.
> karl
I don't know if it's "hard" work, but I can vouch for these people
being competent, at least:
d
Ruby Sinreich
>
> How do we decide whether or not North Carolina has a chance
> of going Democratic, due to angry military families (they are
> getting PISSED about the soldiers staying longer in Iraq) and
> laid-off factory workers, or if we have to concede NC and
> move to somewhere like maybe Florida for the Fall ?
>
I think the decision is whether to make it happen or not. It's up to us.
Let's get off our couches!
= Ruby
--
Ruby Sinreich ru...@lotusmedia.org http://lotusmedia.org/blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"One day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal
that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal."
- Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr
mel
Why?
For the first time members of my family agree with me politically and hate Bush as an idiot/devil that needs to be ejected from office as fast as possible. These are people who have always voted Republican and who are totally pissed about the extended deployment & re-deployment of reservists not to mention the other issues. If nothing else - most "conservative" people understand what this particular policy and other Bush administration policies are doing to the economy. I think Americans in general are getting angrier as troops get ticked off daily in Iraq while the Bush admin. maintains their sancitimonious posture.
That frustration and anger will come out in this election.
Ruby's right - everyone just needs to make sure their ass is in gear for this one. Keep that email pounding into Edwards and Dole's offices too.
Mel
--
Melissa Adams
The PressGang Media Group
www.pressgangrocks.com
P: 919-225-0289
--
Chris Toenes
> On 7/31/03 6:39 PM, "John Eyles" <j...@cs.unc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > How do we decide whether or not North Carolina has a chance
> > of going Democratic, due to angry military families (they are
> > getting PISSED about the soldiers staying longer in Iraq) and
> > laid-off factory workers, or if we have to concede NC and
> > move to somewhere like maybe Florida for the Fall ?
> >
>
> I think the decision is whether to make it happen or not. It's up to us.
> Let's get off our couches!
>
> = Ruby
>
Speaking of which, can someone describe the goings-on (musically and non-) at
Ringside last night for those of us unable to attend?
Chris Toenes
grady
building thus hard to estimate crowd size, but I will say that every
time I wanted to go somewhere, great masses of people assembled in the
narrow walkway between me & my destination, wherever it happened to be.
I missed Farblondjet but Christine told me that it was all-instrumental.
When oh when will I get to see Sandra Covin sing?
I dunno if the Sames just keep getting better or if I'm just used to
them, but whatever it was, they could do very little wrong. There was a
time a year or two ago when I'd leave a Sames show scratching my head
because somehow the songs that I loved so well on CD had been mooshed &
flattened & had wound up kind of, yes, same-y in the live context. Too
many blurry strummed guitars and extended outtros, or something.
That is emphatically no longer the case, for me at least. Sure, there
are still a lot of guitars, and some extended outtros, but it all works
together, and there are quite a few Sames songs whose live versions I
like as well as or better than their already-stellar recorded versions.
Cold Sides have all these new songs that involve lots of sampling of
Neill barking, and Zeke yelling into the back of a melodica, and Biggie
holding a single note on his fancy new 2-octave boogie keyboard while
sitting on the floor & working his knees like he has to pee. I think I
could have done with about 5 minutes less of that & about 5 minutes more
of their massive postpunk-guitar-funk thing, but overall there were a
large number of moments where I was standing there oscillating in place
& thinking to myself "holy shit, these guys are so totally my favorite
band." Those were usually moments when Prewitt's bass & Cantwell's drums
were locked into a massive earth-destroying outerspace groove, just for
future reference.
I talked politics with a few people--I was both surprised and gratified
to see that folks had come out even if they weren't already rah-rah Dean
supporters. Mostly I just chatted & rocked out, though. Calloway did get
up & tell the story of Erica Derr, a Greensboro single mother who
endorsed her George W. Bush $400 blood-money bribe/"tax rebate" over to
the Dean campaign. She tells her story here:
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000891.html
I hear everything sounded really great down on the street in front of
the building (the windows were open on the 3rd floor). Something to
consider next time.
xoxo
Ross
Ben Spiker
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paula Simone Cook [SMTP:paula....@duke.edu]
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 1:09 PM
> To: Chapel Hill Music Lovers
> Subject: Re: Vote
>
> regarding the "principles" and "high moral purpose" of the republicans
> and the democrats who enable them to empty those words of content so
> they can use them as trophies:
> http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/08/01_conason.html
>
> Paula Simone Cook wrote:
>
> > oh, and add to that list of reclaimed words - "principles" and "high
> > moral purpose".
> > http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/08/01/dean/index.html
> >
> > it's crazy that these are things we don't hear about from the dems
> > typically, but we damn well should. principles and high moral purpose
> > - people of all political leanings want a leader & a party that stands
> > for these things. defending the logic of your policies won't get the
> > people to vote for you no matter how damn "centrist" you are, whereas
> > asserting your principles and moral purpose - that's what makes people
> > want you to be their *leader*. dean has the guts and the smarts to
> > invoke these things, calling bush & co out on their after all
> > egregious lack of principles and high moral purpose and restoring
> > those words to the post-clinton dems (if they're smart enough to have
> > him.)
> > Paula Simone Cook wrote:
> >
> >> John Eyles wrote:
> >>
> >>> My fear is that even though many of those swing voters may be pretty
> >>> unhappy with Bush's rush to war in Iraq, his attacks on civil
> >>> liberties,
> >>> and his for-the-rich tax cuts, they may be even more uncomfortable
> >>> with a Democratic candidate they perceive as "too liberal". Then
> >>> Bush gets more of the swing voters and it's 4 more years (likely
> >>> worse than the first 4 have been, since he need no longer worry
> >>> about re-election).
> >>>
> >>> However, if the Dem can get bunches of those likely-Democratic
> >>> voters off the couch, then he can win without winning the
> >>> swing vote. The way to do that is to really get people fired
> >>> up - folks who don't normally vote because they're so disgusted
> >>> with politics - and other folks who work hard on his campaign.
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately, these two paths to victory are mutually-exclusive
> >>> to a large extent. The policies and rhetoric that get the base
> >>> fired up tend to alienate the swing vote. It's a balancing act
> >>> that a successful candidate must perform. Bush did it masterfully
> >>> in 2000 - reassuring the right-wingers, Christian right, and
> >>> big business that he was their man - while simultaneously keeping
> >>> the swing voters from realizing what a right-wing administration
> >>> he would run.
> >>>
> >> i think Dean is doing a somewhat similar operation here - firing up
> >> the activists, grass-roots left right now to get the nomination, and
> >> then exploiting what Todd et al have rightly pointed out as his after
> >> all truly moderate views & record to appeal to the
> >> swing/centrist/darewesaymoderaterepublican vote.
> >> there seems to me to be a number of "swing" voters who are such
> >> because they believe themselves to be rational above party politics.
> >> dean's language and positioning are actually quite well-suited for
> >> these folks to identify with him. he speaks plainly, with a
> >> common-sense rationale - we've already seen how much voters
> >> appreciate that, even when it's a load of crap, as in bush's case.
> >> but what i think is huge is he has managed to do what the democrats
> >> as a whole have failed to do, to their peril - reclaim certain
> >> language and ideas appropriated and lately abused by the republicans
> >> - "conservative", "state's rights", even the idea of patriotism. i
> >> know i've harped on this before, but it's a war of words, right -
> >> this shit counts big. the ease with which he's done this should be
> >> an embarrassment to the dem party.
> >> take how he unhesitatingly bills himself a "fiscal conservative".
> >> this is pretty revolutionary stuff - it accomplishes a lot - first of
> >> all it exposes one of the ways (i.e. profligate spending on corporate
> >> welfare, preemptive [pervertedly progressive?] warfare) the
> >> republicans have let down, mightily, the folks who vote rep because
> >> they identify as "conservatives". it also simultaneously defuses the
> >> "tax and spend liberal" stereotype. finally, it pulls "conservative"
> >> back over to the left where it aptly describes dem's attitudes
> >> towards, for instance, paying down the deficit, as well as
> >> environmental issues. he essentially restored meaning to the word
> >> "conservative", making folks reconsider its actual significance,
> >> rescuing it from being an empty synonym of "republican" or "right
> >> wing". this is no mean feat. the dnc should be kissing his ass.
> >>
> >> dean seems somehow attuned to the ways folks have been let down not
> >> only by the dems (energizing the grassroots lefties, nonvoters) but
> >> ALSO by the republicans (garnering some of the swing votes). like
> >> the folks bush & party have abandoned who vote rep b/c of its
> >> historical connection to "state's rights", for which bush has shown
> >> at best intermittent respect. i have to laugh when i see dean being
> >> dismissed by rightwing pundits & leftwing pundits right now, saying
> >> he's not viable b/c of the gay marriage thing or being "anti-war".
> >> the gay marriage "vulnerability" dean has deftly turned into an
> >> opportunity (a crIsi-tunity if you will :) to profess his respect for
> >> "state's rights", accomplishing the same 3pronged linguistic feat i
> >> described above. and the only actual anti-war candidate in the
> >> running is Dennis Kucinich "god bless him" (to whom i've adopted the
> >> same loving giving strategy ross has). whether dean's strategy is
> >> conscious or not, mobilizing the lefties to create grassroots base &
> >> raise money, then taking that money to spread word of his commonsense
> >> moderation sounds like a damn genius idea to me, and the one tailor
> >> made to beat bush. i'll say it again Dean is the candidate with the
> >> *best shot* of beating bush.
> >>
> >> i take as a bellwether the case of my mom, who watches NASCAR
> >> incidentally (we had a summer trailer, ooh la la, at Lake Lanier in
> >> Awesome Bill's hometown of Dawsonville), who has always voted
> >> republican to my knowledge, and who i've never heard utter a kind
> >> word about a democrat, even her fellow rural-Georgian-farmer Jimmy
> >> Carter. unkind (and salty) words, re: clinton especially, had she in
> >> overabundance. HOWEVER, shockingly, she has *good* things to say
> >> about dean. !!! it is apparent that a big part of this is she
> >> thinks he's sensible and, crucially, respects him because he is not,
> >> how do we say, a pussy. my mom is a strong woman - she would not
> >> take kindly to being led by a weenie like Gore or a pussy like
> >> daschle. and lieberman - give me a break.
> >> i believe, though my dear mom is one of a kind, she is also
> >> representative of a great many other hardworking Americans who are
> >> not as stupid as either the republicans or the democrats take them
> >> for. Dean's got a damn good shot in the center/swing. i saw some
> >> video of dean where, maybe someone goaded him about his supposed lack
> >> of viability in the south, in any case, he said okay, there's the guy
> >> in the pick up with the confederate flag in his back glass, right?,
> >> well i want to talk to him, too, because his kid doesn't have health
> >> insurance either! that impressed me. this guy dean is not writing
> >> off any American because he sees they all have problems with the way
> >> things are. this is a winning strategy. i think his biggest
> >> challenge is the nomination.
3.2.3
"state's rights"
anti-federalism. there's a difference. nothing linguistic about it.
reclaim language carefully.
thanks for all the support at the house party. the the music was all
stupendous. special thanks to dj's cooper and slipstream who kept it
going until late late. one thing i forgot to tell about erica derr, the
full time employee/part time grad student/single mother/dean volunteer
in greensboro who endorsed her child credit check over to dean for
america and sent a press release to the associated press about it:
howard dean himself personally called her from san francisco yesterday
on her cell phone. she was just beside herself. blandings and i met
erica early last month and she's a shining example of what we must
become: force multipliers.
3
Lumpy J. Onion
"wacko hardcore right-wing types"....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=128&ncid=128&e=5&u=/030717/45/4pc8z.htmlapparently
Bush isn't conservative enough for good ole Bill.
-lumpy
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Lumpy J. Onion
that link should be...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=128&ncid=128&e=5&u=/030717/45/4pc8z.html
Cox Moakur
Since May 1, 52 U.S. soldiers have been killed in hostilities in Iraq
Since May 1, 66 Americans killed in Washington, D.C.
"Lumpy J. Onion" <lumpy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2003080120382...@web14308.mail.yahoo.com...
z
i've had anything to do with recently. just enough political stuff to
feel worthwhile without being annoying. it was hotter than hell on the
third floor, but the music and the mood were sweet. farblondjet/sandy
played a mesmerizing, endearing, and inspirational set of instrumental
songs (though i tried desperately beforehand to convince her to sing a
hitherto unknown song of unearthly beauty called "the man who lived on
the tarmac"). i can't comment on the sames' set, since i was in it,
but it felt pretty good. and cold sides, despite some mysterious
technical difficulties, were better than ever. i'm terribly jealous of
all of their little keyboards and noises. it's all about the rhythm.
the rumor i heard was that the howard dean folks managed to earn a
decent little bundle for their cause. so everyone left happy.
i vote for more shows at ringside. i'd forgotten how much fun it can
be.
-zeno
John Eyles
For example, getting to decide for themselves how their
votes are counted in a presidential election, maybe ?
A wiley Democratic candidate might harp on how Bush was
originally "elected" because the US Supreme Court (with all
its Republican-nominated members) trampled over Florida's
"states rights". But, maybe it's too subtle a point ...
John
Cox Moakur
"John Eyles" <j...@cs.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:bgmbm6$r4s$1...@capefear.cs.unc.edu...
> >"states should get to decide for themselves"
>
> For example, getting to decide for themselves how their
> votes are counted in a presidential election, maybe ?
>
they made a law and the law was that you have 1 week to count the votes and
turn them in to the secretary of state and then the supreme court of florida
(with all its democrat members) said "you won't be able to dig up enough
votes in a week to give gore a victory so ignore that law, take as much time
as you want."
Fred Stutzman
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20030804&s=schrag
Also, this Krugman op/ed is also pretty intresting:
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/060603.html
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Paula Simone Cook wrote:
> huh? can you enlighten me? i was just referring to how he said gay
> unions, gun control (for the most part) are matters best left up to the
> states individually. so that's anti-federalism, right? does "state's
> rights" have a bonus unsavory implication? if so, that's a shame
> because touting "anti-federalism" idn't necessarily gonna get across to
> the appropriate audience...is there a plain way to say "states should
> get to decide for themselves" cuz that's pretty much the language dean
> was using & that's why it got through my skull, for one.
>
> 3.2.3 wrote:
>
> >Paula Simone Cook wrote:
> >"state's rights"
> >
> >anti-federalism. there's a difference. nothing linguistic about it.
> >reclaim language carefully.
> >
> >thanks for all the support at the house party. the the music was all
> >stupendous. special thanks to dj's cooper and slipstream who kept it
> >going until late late. one thing i forgot to tell about erica derr, the
> >full time employee/part time grad student/single mother/dean volunteer
> >in greensboro who endorsed her child credit check over to dean for
> >america and sent a press release to the associated press about it:
> >howard dean himself personally called her from san francisco yesterday
> >on her cell phone. she was just beside herself. blandings and i met
> >erica early last month and she's a shining example of what we must
> >become: force multipliers.
> >
> >3
> >
> > -- ch-scene: the mailing list that mirrors a.m.c-h --
> >http://listserv.unc.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=ch-scene
> >
> >
>
>
> -- ch-scene: the mailing list that mirrors a.m.c-h --
> http://listserv.unc.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=ch-scene
>
--
Fred Stutzman
Desk: 962-5646
Cell: 260-8508
www.ibiblio.org
Walter Davis
>
> Consider:
>
> Since May 1, 52 U.S. soldiers have been killed in hostilities in Iraq
>
> Since May 1, 66 Americans killed in Washington, D.C.
>
Population of Washington, DC (just the city, not the metro area) in
2000: 572,000
Population of US Troops in Iraq: approx. 150,000
which gives us:
Fatalities per 10,000 population in DC since May 1: 1.15
Fatalities per 10,000 US Troop Population in Iraq since May 1: 4.4
Good comparison!
And let's not even think about the Iraqi fatality rate.
Walter Davis
Ack! Sorry, I used the wrong fatalities number in the numerator for the
US troops. The US troop # should be 3.47 per 10,000 population.