Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning buchanan

Bush Leaves GOP in Crisis

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted Nov 10, 2005

With the rout of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's initiatives, Democratic victories in New Jersey and Virginia, and President Bushï¿½s free fall in national polls on job performance, credibility and character, the Republican Party is in imminent peril of losing the country.

Indeed, since 9/11, the party has indulged in a willful self-delusion that it has become Americaï¿½s Party. The Bush triumph in 2004, talking heads brayed, settled the matter: Red State America has triumphed over Blue State America. The future belongs to us.

This was always hyperbole. Where Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan rolled up 49-state landslides in re-election runs, Bush won 31 states, losing every state north of the Potomac and east of Ohio, two of the three great industrial states of the Midwest, Michigan and Illinois, and he was skunked on the Pacific rim. Had Kerry hammered him on trade and lost jobs in Ohio, Bush would be a one-term president.

What killed the first Bush presidency and is ruining the second is the abandonment of Reaganism and his embrace of the twin heresies of neoconservatism and Big Government Conservatism, as preached by the resident ideologues at The Weekly Standard and Wall Street Journal.

Under Bush I, taxes were raised, funding for HUD and Education exploded, and a quota bill was signed under which small businesses, accused of racial discrimination, were made to prove their innocence, or be punished, in true Soviet fashion.

Under Bush II, social spending has exploded to levels LBJ might envy, foreign aid has been doubled, pork-at-every-meal has become the GOP diet of choice, surpluses have vanished, and the deficit is soaring back toward 5% of GDP. Bill Clinton is starting to look like Barry Goldwater.

Both Bushes abandoned the economic patriotism that had put America and Americans firstï¿½for free-trade globalism. Result: the most massive trade deficits in U.S. history, the gutting of our industrial base, the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, and the largest wealth transfer of all time with technology, factories, high-tech and high-skilled jobs pouring out of America into Asia.

Working America and the middle class have been sacrificed on the high altar of the Republican Moloch of Free Trade. And how have our Chinese brothers reciprocated our magnanimity?

Both Bushes embraced the ï¿½open bordersï¿½ immigration policy the Wall Street Journal has trumpeted for two decades. Result: We have 10-15 million illegal aliens in our country, among whom gangs like the murderous Mara Salvatrucha are proliferating. Native-born California taxpayers are fleeing the Golden State, as Third World tax consumers pour in. So great is the crisis on the Mexican border even the liberal Democratic governors of New Mexico and Arizona have declared states of emergency. Meanwhile 35,000 U.S. troops stand guardï¿½on the border of South Korea.

The late editorial editor of the Journal, Robert Bartley, once said, ï¿½I believe the nation-state is finished.ï¿½ He and his progeny have surely done their level best to bring that about.

As the country we grew up in becomes unrecognizable, we still hear the Journal, that good and faithful servant of the U.S. Business Roundtable, warning us not to oppose open borders. Meanwhile, our very own Dr. Pangloss, Ben Wattenberg, warbles on about our being the ï¿½first universal nationï¿½ and, in echo of M. Dominic de Villepin, burbles, ï¿½Isnï¿½t diversity wonderful!ï¿½

In foreign policy, Bush I was an internationalist out to build a ï¿½New World Orderï¿½ after the Cold War. However, post-9/11, Bush II converted to a neoconservatism that calls for unilateral American intervention in the Middle East and the Islamic world, to bring down dictators and establish democracy.

Thus, in March, 2003, Bush, in perhaps the greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history, invaded an Arab nation that had not attacked us, did not want war with us, and did not threaten usï¿½to strip it of weapons we now know it did not have.

Result: Shia and Kurds have been liberated from Saddam, but Iran has a new ally in southern Iraq, Osama has a new base camp in the Sunni Triangle, the Arab and Islamic world have been radicalized against the United States, and copy-cat killers of Al Qaida have been targeting our remaining allies in Europe and the Middle East: Spain, Britain, Egypt and Jordan. And, lest we forget, 2055 Americans are dead and Walter Reed is filling up.

True to the neoconservative creed, Bush launched a global crusade for democracy that is now bringing ever closer to power Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, and Shia fundamentalists in Baghdad and Basra.

Democratic imperialism is still imperialism. To Arab and Islamic peoples, whether the Crusaders come in the name of God or in the name of democracy, they are still Crusaders.

When Ronald Reagan went home to California, his heirs said, ï¿½Goodbye to all that,ï¿½ and embraced Big Government conservatism, then neoconservatism. If they do not find their way home soon, to the principles of Taft, Goldwater and Reagan, they will perish in the wilderness into which they have led us all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright ï¿½ 2004 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

It's amazing how much the left and Buchanan agree....I'd vote for this guy, or
Nixon, if he were alive and running, over the current crop of Democrats.

Too bad he's a true conservative "socially-speaking".

-Aaron.

On Thursday 10 November 2005 7:35 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> Bush Leaves GOP in Crisis
>
> by Patrick J. Buchanan
> Posted Nov 10, 2005
>
> With the rout of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's initiatives, Democratic
> victories in New Jersey and Virginia, and President Bush’s free fall in
> national polls on job performance, credibility and character, the
> Republican Party is in imminent peril of losing the country.
>
> Indeed, since 9/11, the party has indulged in a willful self-delusion
> that it has become America’s Party. The Bush triumph in 2004, talking
> heads brayed, settled the matter: Red State America has triumphed over
> Blue State America. The future belongs to us.
>
> This was always hyperbole. Where Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan rolled
> up 49-state landslides in re-election runs, Bush won 31 states, losing
> every state north of the Potomac and east of Ohio, two of the three
> great industrial states of the Midwest, Michigan and Illinois, and he
> was skunked on the Pacific rim. Had Kerry hammered him on trade and lost
> jobs in Ohio, Bush would be a one-term president.
>
> What killed the first Bush presidency and is ruining the second is the
> abandonment of Reaganism and his embrace of the twin heresies of
> neoconservatism and Big Government Conservatism, as preached by the
> resident ideologues at The Weekly Standard and Wall Street Journal.
>
> Under Bush I, taxes were raised, funding for HUD and Education exploded,
> and a quota bill was signed under which small businesses, accused of
> racial discrimination, were made to prove their innocence, or be
> punished, in true Soviet fashion.
>
> Under Bush II, social spending has exploded to levels LBJ might envy,
> foreign aid has been doubled, pork-at-every-meal has become the GOP diet
> of choice, surpluses have vanished, and the deficit is soaring back
> toward 5% of GDP. Bill Clinton is starting to look like Barry Goldwater.
>
> Both Bushes abandoned the economic patriotism that had put America and
> Americans first—for free-trade globalism. Result: the most massive trade
> deficits in U.S. history, the gutting of our industrial base, the loss
> of millions of manufacturing jobs, and the largest wealth transfer of
> all time with technology, factories, high-tech and high-skilled jobs
> pouring out of America into Asia.
>
> Working America and the middle class have been sacrificed on the high
> altar of the Republican Moloch of Free Trade. And how have our Chinese
> brothers reciprocated our magnanimity?
>
> Both Bushes embraced the “open borders” immigration policy the Wall
> Street Journal has trumpeted for two decades. Result: We have 10-15
> million illegal aliens in our country, among whom gangs like the
> murderous Mara Salvatrucha are proliferating. Native-born California
> taxpayers are fleeing the Golden State, as Third World tax consumers
> pour in. So great is the crisis on the Mexican border even the liberal
> Democratic governors of New Mexico and Arizona have declared states of
> emergency. Meanwhile 35,000 U.S. troops stand guard—on the border of
> South Korea.
>
> The late editorial editor of the Journal, Robert Bartley, once said, “I
> believe the nation-state is finished.” He and his progeny have surely
> done their level best to bring that about.
>
> As the country we grew up in becomes unrecognizable, we still hear the
> Journal, that good and faithful servant of the U.S. Business Roundtable,
> warning us not to oppose open borders. Meanwhile, our very own Dr.
> Pangloss, Ben Wattenberg, warbles on about our being the “first
> universal nation” and, in echo of M. Dominic de Villepin, burbles,
> “Isn’t diversity wonderful!”
>
> In foreign policy, Bush I was an internationalist out to build a “New
> World Order” after the Cold War. However, post-9/11, Bush II converted
> to a neoconservatism that calls for unilateral American intervention in
> the Middle East and the Islamic world, to bring down dictators and
> establish democracy.
>
> Thus, in March, 2003, Bush, in perhaps the greatest strategic blunder in
> U.S. history, invaded an Arab nation that had not attacked us, did not
> want war with us, and did not threaten us—to strip it of weapons we now
> know it did not have.
>
> Result: Shia and Kurds have been liberated from Saddam, but Iran has a
> new ally in southern Iraq, Osama has a new base camp in the Sunni
> Triangle, the Arab and Islamic world have been radicalized against the
> United States, and copy-cat killers of Al Qaida have been targeting our
> remaining allies in Europe and the Middle East: Spain, Britain, Egypt
> and Jordan. And, lest we forget, 2055 Americans are dead and Walter Reed
> is filling up.
>
> True to the neoconservative creed, Bush launched a global crusade for
> democracy that is now bringing ever closer to power Hamas in Gaza and
> the West Bank, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and
> Syria, and Shia fundamentalists in Baghdad and Basra.
>
> Democratic imperialism is still imperialism. To Arab and Islamic
> peoples, whether the Crusaders come in the name of God or in the name of
> democracy, they are still Crusaders.
>
> When Ronald Reagan went home to California, his heirs said, “Goodbye to
> all that,” and embraced Big Government conservatism, then
> neoconservatism. If they do not find their way home soon, to the
> principles of Taft, Goldwater and Reagan, they will perish in the
> wilderness into which they have led us all.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Copyright © 2004 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

🔗monz <monz@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> Bush Leaves GOP in Crisis
>
> by Patrick J. Buchanan
> Posted Nov 10, 2005
>

> ... <snip> Had Kerry hammered him on trade and lost
> jobs in Ohio, Bush would be a one-term president.

The fallacy with that argument is that Bush never was
and still isn't a "president".

As defined by the Constitution of the United States
of America, the "president" is the top official of the
executive branch of government, DULY ELECTED BY THE
MAJORITY OF VOTES IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

That's not how Bush got into office in 2000.

Plain and simple, he's a dictator. What happened in 2000
is what history books usually call a "bloodless coup d'etat".
For some reason, i seem to be the only person calling it
that this time around ... i have never heard one other
person refer to it as a bloodless coup, not even the
extreme leftie radicals i know or listen to on the radio.
But that's exactly what it was.

Do people know history? Do people realize that just
because someone calls himself "president" and lives in
the White House, it doesn't *make* him one? This is the
kind of thing that has happened over and over again in
other countries, and if you read those histories you'll
see that those men who called themselves "president" are
referred to as dictators.

-monz

🔗ambassadorbob <peteysan@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:

sorry joe, you're not alone, but I guess I haven't been very vocal
about it since it happened.

That's what I called it the next day, a coup d'etat.

But I left out bloodless, and turns out it wasn't , huh?

> i have never heard one other
> person refer to it as a bloodless coup, not even the
> extreme leftie radicals i know or listen to on the radio.
> But that's exactly what it was.

[The thing I've never heard asked, among the many reports of funny
business around it is, "Who benefitted from 9-11? Who gained the
most, materially? Who's getting rich off of it? But nevermind
about that. In 50 years (?) maybe, the truth will start to trickle
out...Damn! I'll most likely be dead by then. But I think
Bush's "presidency" would have been a *lot* shorter if that hadn't
happened.]

Nobody has a monopoly on astute observation (or good ideas), but
Buchanan's just an xtian fundamentalist AND pseudo-libertarian in
pragmatists' clothing. Make no mistake! He might run again. Yikes!

🔗monz <monz@...>

Hi Pete,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <peteysan@s...> wrote:
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> sorry joe, you're not alone, but I guess I haven't been very vocal
> about it since it happened.
>
> That's what I called it the next day, a coup d'etat.
>
> But I left out bloodless, and turns out it wasn't , huh?

Hmm ... yes, it was bloodless up until September 2001,
but you're right, a whole lot of blood has been spilled
since then for the purpose of propping up the Bush regime.
The bloodletting really kicked into high gear in April 2003.

> Make no mistake! He might run again. Yikes!

Yep, that's exactly what i've been expecting all along.
And for awhile, it looked like he might even get away
with it. Dictator is generally a lifetime job, unless
there's a force which deposes.

But popular opinion of Bush is so low now that i think
if it stays this way (or sinks lower) by 2008, and he
tries it, that will be the last straw for the general
American populace (i.e., those of us in the bottom
99.9 percent tax bracket), and it really will start the
second American Revolution.

-monz

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

I think lots of people realize and have verbalized that he got in by voting tampering in ohio.
They are already planning the same thing again with ohio failing to fix it election processes this recent election.
while he should probably thrown in prison for two many things, this could only happen in a violent way, and lot is innocent people would get hurt, so until the hot water that we find us frogs in gets a little too scalding , we will be in a system of perpetual election frauds.
regardless in Calif with 45% voter turn out this means that 8% ofthe eligible voters voted.. this is little different than the election s in the USSR with about as many choices.
Popper rightly points out that historically more revolutions fail than are successful, so be warned

monz wrote:

>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> >
>>Bush Leaves GOP in Crisis
>>
>>by Patrick J. Buchanan
>>Posted Nov 10, 2005
>>
>> >>
>
> >
>>... <snip> Had Kerry hammered him on trade and lost >>jobs in Ohio, Bush would be a one-term president.
>> >>
>
>
>The fallacy with that argument is that Bush never was
>and still isn't a "president".
>
>As defined by the Constitution of the United States
>of America, the "president" is the top official of the
>executive branch of government, DULY ELECTED BY THE
>MAJORITY OF VOTES IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
>
>That's not how Bush got into office in 2000.
>
>Plain and simple, he's a dictator. What happened in 2000 >is what history books usually call a "bloodless coup d'etat".
>For some reason, i seem to be the only person calling it
>that this time around ... i have never heard one other
>person refer to it as a bloodless coup, not even the
>extreme leftie radicals i know or listen to on the radio.
>But that's exactly what it was.
>
>Do people know history? Do people realize that just
>because someone calls himself "president" and lives in
>the White House, it doesn't *make* him one? This is the
>kind of thing that has happened over and over again in
>other countries, and if you read those histories you'll
>see that those men who called themselves "president" are
>referred to as dictators.
>
>
>
>-monz
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

i posted buchanan more for comic relief than anything BTW

ambassadorbob wrote:

>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
>sorry joe, you're not alone, but I guess I haven't been very vocal >about it since it happened.
>
>That's what I called it the next day, a coup d'etat.
>
>But I left out bloodless, and turns out it wasn't , huh?
>
> >
>>i have never heard one other
>>person refer to it as a bloodless coup, not even the
>>extreme leftie radicals i know or listen to on the radio.
>>But that's exactly what it was.
>> >>
>
>[The thing I've never heard asked, among the many reports of funny >business around it is, "Who benefitted from 9-11? Who gained the >most, materially? Who's getting rich off of it? But nevermind >about that. In 50 years (?) maybe, the truth will start to trickle >out...Damn! I'll most likely be dead by then. But I think >Bush's "presidency" would have been a *lot* shorter if that hadn't >happened.]
>
>Nobody has a monopoly on astute observation (or good ideas), but >Buchanan's just an xtian fundamentalist AND pseudo-libertarian in >pragmatists' clothing. Make no mistake! He might run again. Yikes!
>
>P >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

well it would be at least the third if you count the civil war.
remember though the first casualty of all revolutions are the artist.
And considering the status artist hold among these scientist, imagine what politicians think of them!

monz wrote:

>Hi Pete,
>
>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "ambassadorbob" <peteysan@s...> wrote:
> >
>>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>>
>>sorry joe, you're not alone, but I guess I haven't been very vocal >>about it since it happened.
>>
>>That's what I called it the next day, a coup d'etat.
>>
>>But I left out bloodless, and turns out it wasn't , huh?
>> >>
>
>
>Hmm ... yes, it was bloodless up until September 2001,
>but you're right, a whole lot of blood has been spilled
>since then for the purpose of propping up the Bush regime.
>The bloodletting really kicked into high gear in April 2003.
>
>
> >
>>Make no mistake! He might run again. Yikes!
>> >>
>
>
>Yep, that's exactly what i've been expecting all along.
>And for awhile, it looked like he might even get away
>with it. Dictator is generally a lifetime job, unless
>there's a force which deposes.
>
>But popular opinion of Bush is so low now that i think >if it stays this way (or sinks lower) by 2008, and he >tries it, that will be the last straw for the general >American populace (i.e., those of us in the bottom >99.9 percent tax bracket), and it really will start the
>second American Revolution.
>
>
>
>-monz
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

I hate Bush, and yes the Supreme court was crooked in getting him in, but the
truth is this, as well, the Democrats lost because they put a weak candidate
in *twice*; and after they did the count in Florida, Bush apparantly still
came out ahead.

Let's face it---the conservative trend in this country is alive, well, and
alarming, and the fact that both elections were as close as they were were a
shameful thing for the Dems. And, plus, the 2004 election showed a wider
margin of victory for Bush. As Jon Stewart said "Don't you miss the days of
voter fraud in 2000?"

This clearly shows the suceptibility of the American populus to 'Orange terror
alerts' and the fear of 'hot man on man action'.

-Aaron.

On Friday 11 November 2005 1:34 am, monz wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > Bush Leaves GOP in Crisis
> >
> > by Patrick J. Buchanan
> > Posted Nov 10, 2005
> >
> >
> > ... <snip> Had Kerry hammered him on trade and lost
> > jobs in Ohio, Bush would be a one-term president.
>
> The fallacy with that argument is that Bush never was
> and still isn't a "president".
>
> As defined by the Constitution of the United States
> of America, the "president" is the top official of the
> executive branch of government, DULY ELECTED BY THE
> MAJORITY OF VOTES IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
>
> That's not how Bush got into office in 2000.
>
> Plain and simple, he's a dictator. What happened in 2000
> is what history books usually call a "bloodless coup d'etat".
> For some reason, i seem to be the only person calling it
> that this time around ... i have never heard one other
> person refer to it as a bloodless coup, not even the
> extreme leftie radicals i know or listen to on the radio.
> But that's exactly what it was.
>
> Do people know history? Do people realize that just
> because someone calls himself "president" and lives in
> the White House, it doesn't *make* him one? This is the
> kind of thing that has happened over and over again in
> other countries, and if you read those histories you'll
> see that those men who called themselves "president" are
> referred to as dictators.
>
>
>
> -monz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗ambassadorbob <peteysan@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗monz <monz@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> well it would be at least the third if you count the civil war.

Yes, i guess you're right about that.

> remember though the first casualty of all revolutions
> are the artist.

Mostly true i guess ... but there's at least one case
where social and political turmoil surely *enhanced*
a great artist's stylistic evolution: Beethoven.

Beethoven was a teenager during the French Revolution,
and in his late 20s, 30s, and 40s when Napoleon changed
the face of Europe.

Because of the length of time it took for Beethoven to
compose his 5th Symphony, a lot of people don't realize
its proper chronological place in Beethoven's output.

The 3rd Symphony ('Eroica') was originally inspired
in 1803 by Beethoven's perception of Napoleon as a
liberator, freeing Europe from the outmoded old
monarchies. But as things developed, in a famous series
of events illustrating Beethoven's dramatic rage so
typically, when Napoleon crowned himself Emperor in
1804, Beethoven:

* scratched a hole in the title page erasing Napoleon's
name from the dedication,

* composed the grand funeral march "in memory of a hero"
as the slow movement, to bury his own idealistic dreams,

* and as a final slap in the face to Napoleon, had the
symphony listed upon publication with a long title in
*Italian* rather than French (or even German).

Then immediately after finishing the 'Eroica' in 1804,
he started work on what we know today as the 5th Symphony.

In 1805, Napoleon occupied Vienna, Beethoven interrupted
work on the symphony and composed his opera _Leonore_
(later renamed _Fidelio_), and several other major works,
finally completing the symphony only in 1808.

The following year, Napoleon's armies besieged Vienna,
and Beethoven was actually hiding himself under a table
to dodge the cannonballs.

Anyway, i hope that if and when the revolution here occurs,
it's as "velvet" as possible, because violence really
bothers me, in more ways than just those which affect my
own personal safety.

-monz

🔗monz <monz@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Friday 11 November 2005 3:32 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > I hate Bush, and yes the Supreme court was crooked in getting
> > him in,
>
> I thought: Florida declared Bush the winner, giving him a
> plurality of electoral votes, the democrats asked for a recount,
> and the Supreme Court decided there would be no recount.
> Maybe someone can tell me if this is wrong.

Yes, they stopped the recount, but independently it was done, and I think Bush
still came out ahead. But many blacks were cheated out of votes...

> >but the truth is this, as well, the Democrats lost because
> >they put a weak candidate in *twice*; and after they did
> >the count in Florida, Bush apparantly still came out ahead.
>
> Bush was also a weak candidate. But he has a sense of humor.
> That's one key advantage he had over both democratic candidates.
> Gore was a "statue" and Kerry looked about to snap the few
> times he smiled.

Yup.

> The dems lost because "anything but" is not a platform.
> You can't win on a negative.

Agreed.

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

I remember gore coming out ahead by independent counters.
but yes those same blacks were not able to vote in 2004 BTW

Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

>On Friday 11 November 2005 3:32 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >
>>>I hate Bush, and yes the Supreme court was crooked in getting
>>>him in,
>>> >>>
>>I thought: Florida declared Bush the winner, giving him a
>>plurality of electoral votes, the democrats asked for a recount,
>>and the Supreme Court decided there would be no recount.
>>Maybe someone can tell me if this is wrong.
>> >>
>
>Yes, they stopped the recount, but independently it was done, and I think Bush >still came out ahead. But many blacks were cheated out of votes...
>
> >
>>>but the truth is this, as well, the Democrats lost because
>>>they put a weak candidate in *twice*; and after they did
>>>the count in Florida, Bush apparantly still came out ahead.
>>> >>>
>>Bush was also a weak candidate. But he has a sense of humor.
>>That's one key advantage he had over both democratic candidates.
>>Gore was a "statue" and Kerry looked about to snap the few
>>times he smiled.
>> >>
>
>Yup.
>
> >
>>The dems lost because "anything but" is not a platform.
>>You can't win on a negative.
>> >>
>
>Agreed.
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

well you and szanto have a whole navy you don't want to unlease their patriotism on the neighborhood

monz wrote:

>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> >
>>well it would be at least the third if you count the civil war.
>> >>
>
>Yes, i guess you're right about that.
>
>
> >
>> remember though the first casualty of all revolutions
>>are the artist.
>> >>
>
>
>Mostly true i guess ... but there's at least one case
>where social and political turmoil surely *enhanced*
>a great artist's stylistic evolution: Beethoven. >
>Beethoven was a teenager during the French Revolution,
>and in his late 20s, 30s, and 40s when Napoleon changed
>the face of Europe.
>
>Because of the length of time it took for Beethoven to >compose his 5th Symphony, a lot of people don't realize
>its proper chronological place in Beethoven's output.
>
>
>The 3rd Symphony ('Eroica') was originally inspired >in 1803 by Beethoven's perception of Napoleon as a
>liberator, freeing Europe from the outmoded old >monarchies. But as things developed, in a famous series >of events illustrating Beethoven's dramatic rage so
>typically, when Napoleon crowned himself Emperor in
>1804, Beethoven:
>
>* scratched a hole in the title page erasing Napoleon's
>name from the dedication, >
>* composed the grand funeral march "in memory of a hero" >as the slow movement, to bury his own idealistic dreams, >
>* and as a final slap in the face to Napoleon, had the
>symphony listed upon publication with a long title in
>*Italian* rather than French (or even German).
>
>
>Then immediately after finishing the 'Eroica' in 1804,
>he started work on what we know today as the 5th Symphony.
>
>In 1805, Napoleon occupied Vienna, Beethoven interrupted
>work on the symphony and composed his opera _Leonore_
>(later renamed _Fidelio_), and several other major works,
>finally completing the symphony only in 1808.
>
>The following year, Napoleon's armies besieged Vienna,
>and Beethoven was actually hiding himself under a table
>to dodge the cannonballs.
>
>
>Anyway, i hope that if and when the revolution here occurs,
>it's as "velvet" as possible, because violence really
>bothers me, in more ways than just those which affect my
>own personal safety.
>
>
>
>-monz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > > As defined by the Constitution of the United States
> > > of America, the "president" is the top official of the
> > > executive branch of government, DULY ELECTED BY THE
> > > MAJORITY OF VOTES IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
> > >
> > > That's not how Bush got into office in 2000.
> >
> > I thought that it was.
> >
> > > Plain and simple, he's a dictator. What happened in 2000
> >
> > What about what happenned in 2004?
>
> I've still seen no definitive analysis of what happened
> in 2004. But it's crystal clear that voter fraud was
> instigated by the Republican Party in Florida in 2000.
> So no, he was *not* "duly elected" in 2000.
>
> Yes, he did win the majority of electoral votes -- but
> there were many Floridians who were legally allowed to vote
> in that election, who were illegally prevented from doing so
> -- and the election was close enough and the number of
> uncast ballots was large enough to tip the electoral vote
> in Bush's favor.

In the excerpt of the Constitution you posted above there is
no mention of citizens voting. You have to establish that
the methods prescribed in Florida law for specifying their
electoral votes were not followed.

There may also be an Const. ammendment about blacks not
being blocked from polls. You'd have to show that they
were. Apparently a NYT article showed this, but I haven't
checked it out. Then you'd have to show that the number
of missing votes would have made the difference in Florida's
electoral college. When you do all this, I'll join you
in calling the 2000 election a bloodless coup.

While a fraudulant win in 2000 certainly casts doubt on
the validity of Bush's entire presidency, a legitimate win
in 2004 adds some trust. Ballot fraud is nearly impossible
to prove, but the true ballot was probably within the
margin of error of the system. So the outcome is probably
random, or was perhaps tipped by Diebold in Bush's favor.
But a massive manipulation didn't happen. So you can't
get away from the fact that 50% of Americans wanted the
guy (and a preponderance of the country's area was red).

For me, elections aren't 'legitimate' anyway, so I have a
hard time getting carried away about Bush's. There have
been a few other questionable ones in US history. But
there's no doubt that Bush's presidency is rather unique
in many ways.

-Carl

🔗monz <monz@...>

Hi Carl,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > Yes, he did win the majority of electoral votes -- but
> > there were many Floridians who were legally allowed to vote
> > in that election, who were illegally prevented from doing so
> > -- and the election was close enough and the number of
> > uncast ballots was large enough to tip the electoral vote
> > in Bush's favor.
>
> In the excerpt of the Constitution you posted above there is
> no mention of citizens voting. You have to establish that
> the methods prescribed in Florida law for specifying their
> electoral votes were not followed.
>
> There may also be an Const. ammendment about blacks not
> being blocked from polls. You'd have to show that they
> were. Apparently a NYT article showed this, but I haven't
> checked it out. Then you'd have to show that the number
> of missing votes would have made the difference in Florida's
> electoral college. When you do all this, I'll join you
> in calling the 2000 election a bloodless coup.

What happened in Florida in 2000 is that the Republican
Party instructed county voting officials in Florida to
prevent convicted felons from registering to vote. As
far as that goes, that's legal under Florida law.

The problem is that the Republicans also stressed that
this policy was to extend to persons who had been convicted
of a felony in another state, served their jail time, and
been reinstated as eligible voters in that state before
moving to Florida. It was blatantly illegal to prevent
those people from voting in Florida in 2000.

Furthermore, the Republican Party also stressed that
anyone whose name was the same as *or even resembled*
the name of a convicted felon, was also to be denied
the right to register to vote. So some Florida residents
*who had NEVER been convicted of any crime* and were
100% legally eligible to vote, but who happened to share
a name similar to someone who was not eligible, were
prevented from casting a ballot in the 2000 election.

Some of these people showed up at the polling station
on November 7 to cast their vote and only found out at
that moment that they were not able to do so. The vast
majority of them were African-Americans.

After all the recounts had been completed, it was found
that Bush's margin of victory in the popular vote in Florida
was only 527 votes. IOW, he won all of Florida's electoral
votes because he got only 527 more popular votes than Gore.
There were *tens of thousands* of eligible voters who were
illegally denied the right to vote.

Therefore, Bush did not legally win the 2000 election,
neither by popular vote nor by electoral vote. The
Supreme Court simply stopped the recount and declared
him President before any of this information was revealed.

From Wikipedia's article about the 2000 election:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000

>> "... several irregularities are thought to have
>> favored Bush. These included the notorious Palm Beach
>> "butterfly ballot", which produced an unexpectedly
>> large number of votes for third-party candidate
>> Patrick Buchanan, and a purge of some 50,000 alleged
>> felons from the Florida voting rolls that included
>> many voters who were eligible to vote under Florida law.
>> Some commentators still consider such irregularities
>> and the legal maneuvering around the recounts to cast
>> doubt on the legitimacy of the vote, but as a matter
>> of law the issue was settled when the U.S. Congress
>> accepted Florida's electoral delegation."

Here's Greg Palast's full account of the alleged-felon
story ... interestingly, i had to use Google's cache
because the original link is now broken.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:UVuTpHpzQz0J:www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm%3Fartid%3D27%26row%3D2+election+2000+florida+felon&hl=en&client=firefox-a

(delete the line-break if there is one)

You can read a very full account of what happened
in Michael Moore's book _Stupid White Men_.

-monz

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> What happened in Florida in 2000 is that the Republican
> Party instructed county voting officials in Florida to
> prevent convicted felons from registering to vote.

Does anybody know who in the party made this call?
Why would Floridy county officials listen to them?

> The problem is that the Republicans also stressed that
> this policy was to extend to persons who had been convicted
> of a felony in another state, served their jail time, and
> been reinstated as eligible voters in that state before
> moving to Florida. It was blatantly illegal to prevent
> those people from voting in Florida in 2000.

In California, my understanding is that you can never
vote again if you go to prison, even if you get out.
Maybe all States aren't that way. But was this really
enough voters to tip the scales?

> Furthermore, the Republican Party also stressed that
> anyone whose name was the same as *or even resembled*
> the name of a convicted felon, was also to be denied
> the right to register to vote. So some Florida residents
> *who had NEVER been convicted of any crime* and were
> 100% legally eligible to vote, but who happened to share
> a name similar to someone who was not eligible, were
> prevented from casting a ballot in the 2000 election.

Ok, I had heard this. But if someone like this was
refused access to the polls, couldn't they sue?

> After all the recounts had been completed, it was found
> that Bush's margin of victory in the popular vote in Florida
> was only 527 votes. IOW, he won all of Florida's electoral
> votes because he got only 527 more popular votes than Gore.
> There were *tens of thousands* of eligible voters who were
> illegally denied the right to vote.

Tens of thousands of people can't afford a lawsuit?

> Therefore, Bush did not legally win the 2000 election,
> neither by popular vote nor by electoral vote. The
> Supreme Court simply stopped the recount and declared
> him President before any of this information was revealed.
>
> From Wikipedia's article about the 2000 election:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000
>
> >> "... several irregularities are thought to have
> >> favored Bush. These included the notorious Palm Beach
> >> "butterfly ballot", which produced an unexpectedly
> >> large number of votes for third-party candidate
> >> Patrick Buchanan, and a purge of some 50,000 alleged
> >> felons from the Florida voting rolls that included
> >> many voters who were eligible to vote under Florida law.
> >> Some commentators still consider such irregularities
> >> and the legal maneuvering around the recounts to cast
> >> doubt on the legitimacy of the vote, but as a matter
> >> of law the issue was settled when the U.S. Congress
> >> accepted Florida's electoral delegation."

Hmm.

> Here's Greg Palast's full account of the alleged-felon
> story ... interestingly, i had to use Google's cache
> because the original link is now broken.
>
> http://66.102.7.104/search?
q=cache:UVuTpHpzQz0J:www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm%3Fartid%3D27%26row%
3D2+election+2000+florida+felon&hl=en&client=firefox-a
>
> (delete the line-break if there is one)

Thanks!

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Carl there were 70,000 democrats and minorities taken out of the ability to vote by the kathleen harris who is now running for senate.
what do you want , a sign confession.

Carl Lumma wrote:

>>>>As defined by the Constitution of the United States
>>>>of America, the "president" is the top official of the
>>>>executive branch of government, DULY ELECTED BY THE
>>>>MAJORITY OF VOTES IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
>>>>
>>>>That's not how Bush got into office in 2000.
>>>> >>>>
>>>I thought that it was.
>>>
>>> >>>
>>>>Plain and simple, he's a dictator. What happened in 2000
>>>> >>>>
>>>What about what happenned in 2004?
>>> >>>
>>I've still seen no definitive analysis of what happened
>>in 2004. But it's crystal clear that voter fraud was
>>instigated by the Republican Party in Florida in 2000.
>>So no, he was *not* "duly elected" in 2000.
>>
>>Yes, he did win the majority of electoral votes -- but
>>there were many Floridians who were legally allowed to vote
>>in that election, who were illegally prevented from doing so
>>-- and the election was close enough and the number of >>uncast ballots was large enough to tip the electoral vote >>in Bush's favor.
>> >>
>
>In the excerpt of the Constitution you posted above there is
>no mention of citizens voting. You have to establish that
>the methods prescribed in Florida law for specifying their
>electoral votes were not followed.
>
>There may also be an Const. ammendment about blacks not
>being blocked from polls. You'd have to show that they
>were. Apparently a NYT article showed this, but I haven't
>checked it out. Then you'd have to show that the number
>of missing votes would have made the difference in Florida's
>electoral college. When you do all this, I'll join you
>in calling the 2000 election a bloodless coup.
>
>While a fraudulant win in 2000 certainly casts doubt on
>the validity of Bush's entire presidency, a legitimate win
>in 2004 adds some trust. Ballot fraud is nearly impossible
>to prove, but the true ballot was probably within the
>margin of error of the system. So the outcome is probably
>random, or was perhaps tipped by Diebold in Bush's favor.
>But a massive manipulation didn't happen. So you can't
>get away from the fact that 50% of Americans wanted the
>guy (and a preponderance of the country's area was red).
>
>For me, elections aren't 'legitimate' anyway, so I have a
>hard time getting carried away about Bush's. There have
>been a few other questionable ones in US history. But
>there's no doubt that Bush's presidency is rather unique
>in many ways.
>
>-Carl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles