Posted on 11/08/2006 11:30:36 PM PST by tcrlaf
You're right of course. I had meant to add that those percentages were minimums; it just slipped my mind before I posted.
Has your local congressman had anything interesting to say? Just curious.
We've neem saying the same thing since 2000 and nothing changes.
I know, I know, this time we should really, really mean it, stomp our feet and count to three very slowly;)
Nothing that I know of. He said he's done a great job for Western NC and will continue to work for the community. Basically, the usual.
12. Require all registrants to pass a basic 20-question multiple choice test on U.S. History and Government. If a written test is required by the freaking DMV, it may as well be required to make voting decisions that affect the states and the country.
Why is the third vote the magic number? If you're only entitled to one vote, isn't the second vote just as illegal as the third?
If it can be proven that a person has voted illegally they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Prosecuted immediately and punished immediately.
I am standing with you.
If the Republicans had done this, they would still be in power. Instead, they refuse to take voter fraud seriously.
Are you a paid agent? Or are you just a perverse lover of hurling insults at people you don't know? Whichever, I object to your bad humor and churlish manners.
Probably the one where Eric Dickerson lost.
Precisely.
Iraq is only brought up so the Dems can bash the military and beat the 'Bush-Failure' drum louder.
They really would have a hard time tying the President into the Congressional election otherwise.
You took this personal.
I am not a paid agent. Do you work for the GOP?
You have tried to insult my intelligence since your first response on this thread yet offered virtually nothing of substance to either support your assertion or refute mine. You flat refuse to engage in civil debate on the merits of either congress' accomplishments or even the bill you cited. When I responded, you said I am ignorant when in fact I am smart enough to know that the bill you cite was a boondoggle. It did not reform elections or eliminate voter fraud or secure the franchise from the dilution of duplicate voting, dead voting, fake registrations, ballot stuffing, ballot box stealing or the like. Yet you do what they wanted you to do, wave it around as an example of an accomplishment. I'm not fooled. I demand substance.
So carry on posting one liners if you wish. It changes nothing. The GOP wasted virtually every opportunity since 2000 to prove that they stood for anything. They lost because of their hubris and betrayal of the ideals of the party.
Indeed.
The GOP is held to a higher standard. When they rise to, speak to, and stand for their principles they win. When they don't...
Democrats can have cash in the freezer, drive young women into rivers, run gay prostitution rings from their apartments and spend like there's no tomorrow without a blemish. But if the GOP merely doesn't stand for and deliver Republicanism (e.g. the Republican Revolution) or conservatism (e.g. the 2004 elections) they can't win.
So if they don't responsibly manage Congress and its powers when they control it, its hard to come up with reasons to get out and vote for them. That, in my opinion, is why they lost. In a way they seemingly had no platform to run on. Incumbents disease. They could have run even on the Iraq issue, but didn't do enough oversight to claim credibility. They had the reins of power but accomplished so little they had nothing to stand on in an election year. As a lifelong (R) and (r) republican it makes me mad, but as a thinking person I'm amazed they only are down by 15 seats. The democrats nearly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory (or as Bush said, they were thumped but in most of the races they lost they only lost by a small margin).
I won't say local politics had nothing to do with it. Many of the districts they lost have softened economically, but obviously all that pork the GOP spent couldn't even save them. To be most cynical one could say they didn't allocate the pork well enough to win - but still...
The Democrats had an energized fringe and some tie-dyed sense of an anti-war movement. But for example much in the same way that Leiberman lost his primary due to a lack of moderate voters turning out to vote for him, the middle of the road didn't have enough reason to get out and vote FOR their Republican candidate, and that's why I am surprised (yet relieved) they didn't lose even more seats.
I am mad at them for it, too. It's a question of principles. They worked really hard to avoid all the labels Democrats typically try to pin on them - and did a very good job of it acting out of principle. But when it came to governing, they were pretty aimless on just about everything.
I like President Bush. Congressional Republicans could have run on almost any platform they wanted to. Instead they just tried to downplay criticism. That is a losing strategy. They need to stand for something, which is why some of these pundits think losing Congress will end up making the party stronger. Now they have to work for something.
Hopefully in 2008 they will have a coordinated strategy such as the one Newt and the GOP put together in 1994. A domestic agenda.
Sure, that's politics and will happen on every issue. But they still had right and justice on their side. Nobody except crooks would fault them for cleaning the voter rolls and tightening the process. But they caved and came up with a boondoggle for voting equipment makers instead of doing things that would protect the franchise from fraud and dilution. It is a civil rights issue to protect the sanctity of the ballot box.
I just read in the news that my congressman (I never have or will vote for him) Henry Waxman is gloating over his new chairmanship. He says his committee oversees "everything" and that his problem is figuring out how to "pick and choose" what to investigate. After 2000 our Congress just cowered and ducked at the fraud charges of that election, when they could have "picked and chosen" any number of issues to investigate, playing off the charges of a "stolen election". They could have investigated whether "dimpled chads" was actually the result of one person trying to punch 500 ballots at a time, whether there were felons voting, non-citizens voting, whether the registered voters still lived in those districts... And they should have at least attempted to mandate a cleansing of the voter rolls. Instead, they basically just wrote checks to buy electronic voting machines (from Venezuela :-0).
I agree that its time to see voting laws improved. I sat there this year....having been a Colorado resident for several years, and then four years ago...switched to Alabama (I live and work overseas but pay US & state taxes). As I received my Bama license...I registered to vote in Bama. So about six weeks ago...I get a nice little card in the mail from Walsenburg, Colorado...reminding me that I am registered to vote there. I sat there and started laughing. I haven't been back to Colorado in seven years. My Colorado license ran out in 2002...yet they still keep me on the voting rooster.
I'm willing to bet...that with $12k in pocket money to cover traveling expenses...over a 2-month period...I could probably register in 40 states. Anybody want to take me on for this bet? Of course, at the end of this episode...I couldn't advertise myself too far or there would be some kind of charges for this kind of stuff...but then I don't see Uncle Benny who lives in Jersey four months out of the year and in Florida the other eight months...and votes in both states....getting into much trouble. In fact....I can't recall many people ever getting into much trouble for dual voting, yet we know they all do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.