Apparently there was an election of some importance today?

Our election-day ritual has been to take the 10-minute walk to our polling place before work. We tend to get there around 30 minutes after the polls open. They give us a number when we walk in, and prior to today, my highest number was 11 - as in the 11th person to vote that day, which you'd expect 30 minutes after the polls open, right?

Today, I was number 61. There are two polling districts at our polling place, and the poll worker said that when they got there to open up, there were already 50 people in line.

Pundits that tell you that a long primary are damaging to the party are lying. I'd say it'd be bad if it goes all the way to the convention, but if it goes to June 3rd, that's not a bad thing. People are excited and heading to the polls. How is that hurting the party?

-pb

I absolutely hate the word "electability." Seriously. It gave is John Kerry, because a bunch of people though "sure, this guy is electable, whereas Howard Dean is just a lunatic." So, instead of going with the more progressive candidate, the one who fit in better with the party's ideals and had the youth vote fired up, Democrats chose the more "electable" candidate. It was important to win. Too bad the "electable" candidate lost and then couldn't even be bothered to count the votes (which, regardless of whether or not that would have swung the decision, he still would have been virtually tied).

So, why do I bring this up? Because it's happening all over again, but this time, both sides are plagued with it. Is Clinton more "electable?" Is Obama less "electable?" Is the same true of John McCain and Mitt Romney/Mike Huckabee? Allow me to prognosticate and pontificate...

Hillary Clinton: Dems love her. Though she polls at essentially 50% against Barack Obama, 84% of Democrats say that they'd be happy with her as the nominee. But in the general, no one gives a flying fuck what Democrats think, because she'll get their votes. What we're worried about is independents and moderate Republicans. Can she steal them?

I think the answer might be "yes," but the caveat here is "will it matter?" She's such a polarizing factor, the Conservative's bugbear, that she might create a bigger Republican turnout for her opponent (regardless of who it is), nullifying her support among independents and moderates. That, and she's not likely to energize the Democratic faithful. I can almost guarantee that the campaign isn't going to be about issues, either. Mudslinging will be the order of the day for three months between the convention and the election. You're not likely to hear her enumerate one thing about herself. All the information you get on her will come from her opponent. Of course, all the information you'll get from him will come from her, so it'll come down to (once again), the lesser of two evils. Electable? Probably. Going to collect a broad array of support and win convincingly? Not likely.

Barack Obama: Dems love him. Though he polls at essentially 50% against Hillary Clinton, 84% of Democrats say that they'd be happy with him as the nominee. But in the general, no one gives a flying fuck what Democrats think, because he'll get their votes. What we're worried about is independents and moderate Republicans. Can he steal them? (This sounds strangely familiar)...

I think the answer is "yes." Caveat? I think he might rile up the "racist" vote in the South. Of course, that cuts both ways. He's likely to drag every Bobby Ray, Emmy Sue and Roscoe in white-hood-and-burning-cross territory, but he's just as likely to have the African-American vote out in droves. I don't want to sound racist here, so please don't get me wrong. I'm not buying into that myth that white folks won't vote for him (because my flist is filled with people who would love to prove you wrong, as is North Dakota), and I'm not buying into that myth that black people will only vote for him because he's black. The fact remains, though, that there will be a segment of the white population that votes against him because he's black, and there's no denying that blacks will turn out for him - but they're just as likely to turn out for Clinton... they'll just probably be even more ready to turn out for Obama.

I think Obama is likely to cause Republicans who are unhappy with their choices to just stay home. Not that I'm big on a disconnected and disaffected segment of the population, but this isn't for shits and giggles here. If Obama manages to whip more than 1/2 of the "I was actually going to vote" population into voting for him, and 1/10 of the rest just throw up their hands and say "fuckit, let's wait until 2012," then that's just padding the margin. As for that "I was actually going to vote" population, I think Barack Obama stands a much better chance of getting out the vote. He's an energizer, and I don't mean bunny. He walks into a room, talks for five minutes, and people stream onto the street ready to spread the Gospel of Obama. Seriously. I've been there. I've seen it. He wasn't even running yet when I heard him talk, and seriously, people just wanted to touch him. They wanted to vote for him right there. I did.

And, while I assume most candidates elicit that sort of response from throngs of their own faithful, I point to the polls that show that where Obama goes and campaigns, his numbers rise drastically. Take Washington's caucuses, for example. Back in October, Hillary Clinton held a 48% lead over the entire field of Democrats. Obama had a 22% share. Flash forward a few months and some campaigning, and Obama mops the floor with Clinton, 53%-40%.

Electable? Probably. Current polling says that he'd go up almost 10% on McCain. "Electable" really isn't good enough here, though. "Recount-proof win" is what we're looking for.

John McCain: The presumptive front-runner for the Republican nomination, McCain seems to be the John Kerry of 2008. Plenty of buyer's remorse from Republicans, and the primaries are only jsut past the halfway mark. Allow me to enumerate a list of who hates John McCain:

1. Anti-abortion fanatics. McCain apparently doesn't blow up clinics himself, so he's got no cred.
2. Anti-gay fanatics. McCain hasn't called for the lynching of every homosexual, so he must want to marry your ass off to some queer.
3. Evangelicals. Aside from not being anti-abortion and anti-gay enough, these people think he's not Christian enough, because he's divorced, and that's apparently worse than supporting abortion before it became politically expedient to oppose it.
4. Fiscal conservatives. He opposed Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy before he supported them. Remember, if you supported a position at one point, but you are now against it, that means you actually support the former position (unless you're Mitt Romney).
5. Neo-Cons. These people chugged gallons and gallons of McCain's "I'm a Maverick Liberal who votes my conscience and party be damned" Kool-Aid. Funny, considering he's one of the most conservative Senators in Congress and supports Bush more than most of the Republican delegation. Sometimes, when you lie, the people you wanted to know it was a lie actually believe it.
6. Moderate Republicans. Now, I know that a lot of them still like McCain, but there's a segment of them who haven't drank his Kool-Aid and see him as the Bush crony that he is. They're pretty much tired of looking at their party and hanging their head in shame. They're ready to bolt... but maybe not for Hillary Clinton.

There are some prominent Neo-Con movers and shakers who, when asked "are you willing to throw this and wait until 2012?" say "Well, we're, uh... that's not an unforeseeable scenario..."

Electable? Probably, but it would likely take a gaffe from his opponent or some sort of October Surprise... which isn't unlikely, either. So, regardless of the fact that his own party isn't so happy with him, he's still in this thing. Although, one can hope that McCain is this generation's George McGovern or Walter Mondale...

Mitt Romney: He's out, but he's still on ballots, and there's still the chance that the delegates he's received could go to Huckabee if this thing gets close... Look for him coming this November to a Vice Presidential ballot near you!

Mike Huckabee: He's got a long way to go to get into this thing, but he's won everything since Super Duper Trogdor Omega Supreme Tuesday (except for Washington, but the jury's still out on that, and at the very least, he was damn close). Even if he manages to pull this off, what does he have going for him? Neo-Cons aren't exactly in love with him, but Romney on the ticket might help with that. Evangelicals are still a bit wary of him, but in the general, they'd be a huge force for him. Like McCain, however, his lack of Conservative Cred can be used against him. He's weak on immigration, foreign policy, taxes, and pretty much everything but praising Jeezus.

Electable? Let's put it this way: If he manages to win the primary and wins the general, we've entered the fucking Twilight Zone. Because if it happens, that means that some serious shit happened and a whole lot of Americans got replaced with Rapture-happy pod people who staggered to the voting booth. If it's Huckabee, seriously, Europe? Please liberate us.

So that's that. Electable? Yeah, most of them. Only one of them gets to look back and say that they were really, truly electable, though.

-pb

I think I'm getting scandal fatigue.

Fuck that, I have scandal fatigue.

Let's recap 1992-2000, shall we? Feel free to point out things I miss.

Whitewater
Waco
Ruby Ridge
Monica Lewinsky

That's the four major cock-ups of the Clinton years. What was the end result? An impeachment proceeding.

Now, 2000-2007:

Katherine Harris
9/11
Afghanistan
Iraq
More time spent cutting brush than presidenting
Ken Blackwell
Warrantless Wiretapping
Katrina
Secret prisons
Abu Ghraib
Military tribunals
Harriet Miers
Jeff Gannon
Cheney's Got a Gun
Scooter Libby
FBI Patriot Act abuses
Prosecutor dismissals

And that's just the shit I can name off the top of my head. Two stolen elections, two wars, countless violations of the Constitution.

End result? One convicted staffer and a president who thinks that a 30% approval rating is a mandate to ignore the other two branches of government.

I keep thinking "maybe this is the scandal that brings it all down", but I know that it's not. The man was caught lying about a justification for a war that has cost over 3,000 American lives and just south of a million Iraqi lives and over two million refugees. The greatest security breach in American history happened on his watch because he didn't feel like reading a memo, and then any lessons that could have been learned from that were promptly forgotten, leading to the destruction of an entire city.

So no, the scandal du jour is not going to be the one that brings it all down. The only thing that we (hopefully) have to look forward to is January 20, 2009. That is, assuming, that 50.1% of the ballots counted aren't in favor of someone equally as repugnant.

-pb

Ok, folks, we've only got a few days left to get petition signatures in! Please let me know PRONTO if you want to sign a petition to get Chuck Pennacchio on the ballot!

I've been informed by HQ that you do not need to be a Montgomery County resident to sign my petition! Although, at this point, you must be a Montco, Bucks or Chester resident AND a registered Democrat.

Let me know! I need to get these things in the mail!

-pb

If you're a registered Democrat in Montgomery County, PA, let me know.


-pb

Petitioning to get candidates on the 2006 ballot in Pennsylvania starts next week. meekay and I will be collecting petition signatures for Democratic candidate Chuck Pennacchio, who is running for US Senate. However, in order to sign a petition for a candidate or participate in a primary election, you must be registered as a member of their party.

If you are a resident of Pennsylvania and would like to register to vote, or change your party affiliation, fill out the form on the PA Department of State's website, print it, and mail it in.

http://www.dos.state.pa.us/voting/lib/voting/02_voter_registration_applications/online_english/VoterRegistrationApp2.html

I'm told that the turnaround for voter applications is about two weeks, so if you do it today, you should receive your confirmation in time to sign a candidate petition.

-pb

In 1993, Republicans made large gains against democrats in state and local elections. In 1994, shortly before the election, they came out with the Contract with America, and have dominated Congress ever since.

John Corzine leaves the Senate to lead New Jersey. Now, this state is Dem controlled, but it's a big win in a tight race, and Corzine gets to name his own successor to the Senate. He'd better be as good as Indiana Jones in the 'choose wisely' category, because that person will have to face an election next year against a likely powerful Republican.

Time Kaine wins in Virginia. Again, another state with an outgoing Dem governor. However, this is the first time in ages and eons that two Dems have won back-to-back elections. More indicators that Virginia is starting to move away from Mauve and into Indigo. That would be a decisive state for Dems to win in 2008. Clark could certainly flip Virginia.

California says no to Arnold's crazy initiatives. His stock is falling quicker than Enron. He's sinking with the Bush ship, and re-election is looking like a dream.

Voters in Maine overwhelmingly vote to keep their gay-rights legislation. Take that, Dobson.

And last, but not least....



Voters in Dover, PA tell Intelligent Design whackjobs to pound sand. That's right, folks. Looks like the people most directly impacted by this ongoing legal battle voiced their opinions: Keep your church out of our schools. Interestingly, the Dems that won the election support teaching ID in school... in an elective Comparitive Religion class, where it most certainly belongs. Bravo!

This is likely to be the Dem's 1993. Dean had better unveil something just as powerful as the Contract with America before the '06 election, though. I'd hate to see these gains pissed away yet again. We can take back the Senate. We can take back the House. And in 2008, we can completely restore Democracy to America, just as long as they get on the ball.


In other news, everyone I voted for in Norristown won by a good margin. The guy I was in the debate with garnered... 11.92%.

Guess if I had handed out those two flyers, he'd have hit 12. Oh well.

-pb

So, victoria_fusion and I handed out a few flyers for Chuck Pennacchio at our polling place this morning. It was pretty cold out, but hey, it's 60° now. Don't like the weather in Pennsylvania? Wait a few minutes.

Anyway, it was very early, and we were not on the top of our respective games when we got into an abortion and tax debate with the local Republican School Board candidate who was handing out his own flyers. Of course, using his long-learned Republican tactics, he just kept hammering on "killing babies", regardless of anything else.

"As poverty rates go down and education rates go up, abortions go down. We need to reduce poverty and raise education."
"So you think killing babies is ok?"

"Outlaw abortion, and you're going to fill prisons with women. You're going to fill hospitals with women. You're going to fill cemeteries with women."
"So that justifies killing babies?"

He then equated abortion to heroin use, arguing that if one is legal, the other should be too, and that's a bad idea.

He also argued that it's unfair (for example) to tax someone who makes $10,000,000 a higher percentage than someone who makes $10,000 per year, pointing out that the first person, at a hypothetical 10% rate is paying $1,000,000, and the other is paying only $1,000, and that's not fair.

We had some pretty good arguments, but not the big guns that all came rushing to me on the ride to work. My best too-late comeback was on his heroin argument: Heroin is a substance that the government is fully within its rights to regulate. Women's bodies are not a substance to be regulated.

He also didn't seem agreeable to the idea that Election Day should be a national holiday or perhaps be held over a weekend. He didn't give any argument to it, he just didn't seem to like that idea. Why do Republicans hate voters?

V. posited that it's likely Democrats have such a hard time arguing against Republicans, because we have a hard time wrapping our brains around the nonsense that they're spewing.

I was too nice to refuse to hold his campaign sign while he took a bathroom break. We didn't hand out his flyers, though. I still feel dirty from holding his sign.

-pb

"In one of the grandest events in the history of the world, millions of Iraqis risked death on Sunday to vote in a free, democratic election."

-Ann Coulter, for once displaying a sense of humor.

It's not so much that it's Ann saying this, because she's really saying it tongue-in-cheek (because that's all the action her cheek ever gets), it's that people are actually saying it seriously.

Ok, people, for the record: The Iraqi elections were about as meaningful as Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. It's not so much that the outcome was a foregone conclusion (it was), but the sheer complexity coupled with lack of explanation was astounding.

The media tells you that they voted in a free and democratic election. Ok, well, when we think 'free and democratic', we usually think 'two guys and maybe some third party candidates'. Well, that's not the case here.

This election was not actually for governance. It was to determine the people who get to sit around and smile for photo-ops while we write their Constitution for them (And don't think we won't, because we did it to the Afghans). There were 111 names on the ballot. ONE HUNDRED ELEVEN. We had Kerry (D), Bush (R), Nader (I), Cobb (G), Petrouka (C), and Badnarik (L). Various states had more or less, but those were the six. The Iraqis had 111. Now, that's not 111 candidates, nooooo. That's 111 POLITICAL PARTIES. Each political party represented a group of people, in some cases, as many as 270+ candidates EACH.

And when the Iraqis went to the polls, did they know who to vote for? Nope, because there was no campaign. Why? Because it's hard to campaign when you're a) pinned down by hostile fire, b) being anally violated with a flashlight, or c) already dead. So, no one campaigned because they didn't want to get raped. Or killed. Or raped then killed. Or killed then raped. Some of them didn't even list their name on the ballot.

So, let me summarize: You go to the polls on Election day, and there's a good chance that someone might shoot you or drive a bomb-laden car into the building. Not a good start to the day. Then, you see the ballot. On the ballot are six names:

The Patriotic Front for America
Blessed Christian Council
American People's Union
Pride and Freedom United
Christian Patriotic Organization
American Democracy Action Council

Who do you vote for? Quick, the guy behind you has something in his hand and he's fidgeting.

George Bush keeps pointing out how there was like a 72% turnout for the election. I've got a good theory as to why: Under Saddam, they had elections all the time. The choices were "Saddam: Yes" and "Saddam: No". The guys with guns gave you a clear indication as to which way you should vote. They also made it clear that you better get to the polls. This is old hat to them. "Hey! It's election day! Let's go vote!"

"Who do I pick?"

"No idea. Just go, vote, and maybe we won't get killed."

A whole bunch of people voted for candidates they knew nothing about for reasons they didn't fully understand. Iraq, welcome to American-style democracy.

-pb

On November 3rd, 2004, voters in 11 states decided that a minority group was not entitled to the same rights and privileges that they, the majority, take for granted. They used wildly hypocritical catch-phrases, and obscure bits from the religious law of a nation 10,000 miles away to justify this decision. I am, of course, referring to the referendums in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Let’s be perfectly clear: The issue is religious. Plain and simple. The only argument that cannot be shot full of holes is that in the Bible, specifically, Leviticus 18:22, it clearly states “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination”. Sounds pretty concise. It’s a specific prohibition against one man having vaginal intercourse with another man.

Wait, let’s back up there. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Ok, so, if we expand this definition to include intercourse of any kind, we’ve got a prohibition against men having intercourse with other men. Interestingly, enough, women are not specifically told to keep their hands to themselves around other women.

So, voters in 11 states decided that people who have a different sexual alignment from themselves were not fit to enjoy certain rights, they were using a few choice verses from Judaic Law to legitimize their positions. Interestingly enough, the Bible is a great place to start.

God’s Word describes homosexual intercourse with a particular term: Abomination. God’s Word also describes consumption of shellfish with that same term. Abomination refers to something worthy of or causing disgust or hatred, or something detestable. God refers to the act of two men having sex, whether it be in the context of wanton lust or lifelong commitment, with the same exact word he uses to describe enjoying Red Lobster’s Lobsterfest. Certainly, someone has missed a memo.

Of course, with the overturn of Lawrence v. Texas, it’s not about men having sex with other men anymore, is it? No one can legitimately claim that those 11 referendums were about enforcing biblical law upon gay men (the punishment for homosexual intercourse is, of course, death), because those referendums were not about curtailing sexual activity. They were about limiting the rights of people.

The term “defending the sanctity of marriage” came up a lot. I’m not certain how sacred a less than 50% success rate is, but I can guarantee you that the ‘sanctity’ has less to do with the thought of two people getting married than it does with what to do with their assets after one of them dies. No marriage, no merger of assets. If two men who have committed themselves to one another purchase a house jointly, and one is hit by a bus, the other has to pay an inheritance tax on half of the property value. Interesting, that.

There are a number of parallels to racial bigotry from our past here. Slaves were denied most rights under our own Constitution, counted as only 3/5ths of a person, and all of this was reinforced by Colossians 3:22 “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God”.

Bigotry, plain and simple. Having no logical arguments against something that they disapprove of, people turn to a religious document and strip things out that make their case for them. If we’re going to start legislating from Leviticus, I have a few suggestions:

Kill anyone that works on Sunday. Women are to be inspected to determine if they are menstruating, and if so, anyone who comes in contact with them must be required by law to cleans themselves in the proscribed manner. Women who have been widowed but remain childless must be forced to marry their oldest single brother-in-law, and conceive a child with him.

And that’s just for starters.

Few, if any, of the Judaic Laws discussed in Leviticus are relevant or even on our books now. In fact, the of the ten big ones, the Ten Commandments, only two are points of legality in America. And speaking of the Ten Commandments, notice that none of them involves homosexuality? God felt necessary to give his Holy Laws straight to man, and he left any mention of homosexuality out. He mentions marriage (adultery and covetous), but stops short of defining it. Ironically, a great deal of people feel that the Founding Fathers would have written in a marriage clause had they foreseen the issue coming up in 250 years or so. Do these same people think that God would have put this stuff in if he’d though for even a minute that in 4-5000 years, people would make an issue out of it?

Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we? Voters in 11 states didn’t define marriage as a union between a man and a woman because God told them to, they did it because they have an irrational hatred for homosexuals, and used their power of majority to attack them in a manner that they could not be held accountable for: an anonymous ballot. It’s bigotry, it’s hate, it’s intolerance, and it’s all there waiting in the Holy Bible. All you’ve got to do is look, and find a verse that fits what you want to say.

-pb

Democracy Costs Money.

Regardless of who you voted for, regardless of what your ideologies are, this is important. There is evidence of massive misrepresentation in this election. The Green Party and the Libertarian Party have joined forces to get a recount in Ohio, but they need to raise roughly $150,000 (Because simply being a candidate isn't enough anymore), and they're a third of the way there. I pitched in $10 via PayPal. The link above goes right to their donation site.

Ten bucks is a small price to pay to make sure that people's votes are actually counted.

They've got until November 15th to get their recount bid in. That's three days. They got almost $50k in one. Just skip the dollar menu at MickDick's for ten days.


-pb

So, to all the people on my friends list who are still miffed over November 2nd, I ask you to take heart:

Four more years of Bush may seem suicidal, and he may lead us into chaos, but there is hope. No matter what he does, as long as the 22nd Amendment remains intact, we'll be rid of him in four years. The worse they screw things up, the easier it will be for a Democratic challenger to win.

Of course, you don't want to hear that. Neither do I. You want a stop to this madness now. Well, folks, hope is still alive. Bush hasn't been sworn in for a second term, so the ball is still in play. And here's why.

There is evidence of massive electoral fraud. Keith Olbermann may be the only one in the media talking about it, but his voice is just loud enough to fly under the major radar. And that's a good thing. Ralph Nader is working on a recount in New Hampshire. If Ralph can prove that Diebold machines caused a significant swing for Bush in NH, then they'll have a case to crack open bigger eggs, like Ohio (Which didn't use Diebold, but did use other EV machines that have already shown glaring errors).

There's rumors that North Carolina may be forced to re-vote because of countless glitches. Florida has reported massive errors.

John Kerry may have conceded the race, but there's nothing legally binding in that. He's got his legal team looking into things, and (like a good former DA) if he finds enough evidence, he'll crack it wide open.

Kerry may yet prevail. So, don't give up hope. Write to your senators. Write to your congessman. These people are there for YOU, not the other way around. Tell them to have Congress launch an investigation. GET HEARD.

And if you need more cheering up, check out stolen_election, and this article.

It's not over until the fat lady sings, and she's still in the back sipping her scotch.

-pb

Dear Senator Specter,

I would like to begin by thanking you for your position on federal court justice appointments. I understand that you have come under fire for speaking your mind and making it known that you will not simply rubber-stamp anything without giving it a fair look. That took a lot of courage. I will freely admit that I did not vote for you, however, I do sincerely thank you for considering the welfare of all your constituents, not just those who support you.

Knowing that you work for the good of all Pennsylvanians, indeed, all Americans, I call upon you to consider what many in America would consider a pressing matter. I urge you to take every effort to investigate the growing allegations of electoral fraud in a number of states. It does this country no good to have a leader who gained his office illegally, be they Republican, Democrat, Conservative, or Liberal.

Our democracy is not served when people are denied the right to vote, votes are discarded, or results are manipulated.

You have it within your power to support an investigation. Please, for the sake of all that this country was founded on, exercise that power. Even if such an investigation does not change the outcome of the election, it will be time well spent if even if one more vote is counted. We cannot allow our government to subvert the voice of the people.

We have a government by the people, for the people. Once it becomes a government by the government, the people become little more than slaves. Please do not let our electoral process be marred by fraud

Thank You

Paul Bagosy
Norristown, PA

(I sent this via his website)

Dear Senator Kerry,

I urge you to take every effort to investigate the growing allegations of electoral fraud in a number of states. It does this country no good to have a leader who gained his office illegally, be they Republican, Democrat, Conservative, or Liberal.

Our democracy is not served when people are denied the right to vote, votes are discarded, or results are manipulated.

You have it within your power to demand an investigation. Please, for the sake of all that this country was founded on, exercise that power. Even if such an investigation still shows George W. Bush to be the victor, it will be time well spent if even if one more vote is counted. We cannot allow our government to subvert the voice of the people.

We have a government by the people, for the people. Once it becomes a government by the government, the people become little more than slaves. Please do not allow a compromised election to stand twice.

Thank You

Paul Bagosy
Norristown, PA

Democrats are at it again!

Democrats have heinously defiled World Net Daily's unscientific presidental poll. They've been logging on and VOTING FOR KERRY!

Kerry is up from 1.63% to around 25%. Some WND readers are crying 'foul'.

Uhm, hello? If you didn't want Dems to log onto your site and vote for Kerry, why didn't you just leave his name off there?

Who are you going to vote for on Nov. 2nd?
[ ] George W. Bush


There you go. No pesky Democrats.... or thinking.

-pb

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has thyroid cancer

It's not just a President you're voting for. It's an ADMINISTRATION.

So you want to vote your conscience. You don't care that your candidate doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. You want your voice to be heard on the national scale.

Let me remind you of what's at stake:

It's not just four more years of Bush. It's not just four more years of Dick Cheney.

It's four more years of Donald Rumsfeld and his horrific mishandling of the military.

It's four more years of Condoleeza Rice and her disregard for our security.

It's four more years of Tom Ridge using terror as a political tool.

It's four more years of John Ashcroft stripping away your civil liberties.

So, you think you can sacrifice four years on a vote for Nader or Badanarik? Here's the clincher:

Two, maybe three(perhaps more) new Supreme Court Justice appointments will be made by the next president. They may serve twenty or more years. They will determine the course of our government for far longer than Bush or Kerry.

I understand the desire for a third party. I understand your frustration with two primary parties that have been hijacked by outside elements. I understand your anger and your desire to vote for someone who talks the talk you want to hear. It's not the time. This one is far too important. It would be different if it was Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani, where you get about the same either way.

You get a choice: Vote for Bush, get a dangerous neo-con that's plunged us into a war and raped the Constitution. Vote for Kerry, and get a guy who's not going to fix everything he claims to be able to fix.

Vote for a third party, and you get dragged along with whoever wins. Who do you want to win more? There's only two answers:

Bush or Kerry. No 'neither of the above'. No 'Cobb'. No 'Brown'. Bush or Kerry. Take your pick.

-pb

'How Democrats
steal elections'

According to Bob Haueter, who served as chief of staff for former California Assembly Minority Leader Scott Baugh, and who is an expert on manual recounts, a Democrat lawyer intimately involved in "stealing" elections from Republicans through hand recounts admitted to the process and even shared the techniques involved

OH MY GOD DEMOCRATS ARE CHEATING BY ACTUALLY COUNTING VOTES.

We all know that in a Republic like ours, a representative democracy, the individual man is a moron, and realistically shouldn't be allowed to vote. These subversive Democrats are trying to UNDERMINE AMERICA by actually COUNTING THE VOTES THAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY TOO STUPID TO BE CASTING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

It's time we put a stop to these treasonous people. Their 'Constitution' is a document that has bred nothing but discontent. I URGE ALL OF YOU TO RISE UP AND TAKE BACK THIS REPUBLIC. If you truly love America, you WON'T GIVE THESE GODDAMNED DEMOCRATS A VOTE TO COUNT.

-pb

So, here in Norristown, we've had a bit of a scandal. The town's voters just approved a vote to dissolve the office of Mayor and give his power to the council. Now, I voted 'yes' on this, because it's common sense. Past and present council members came out to talk this up. The mayor did not come to defend his office(although it was announced he would). The council said 'doesn't matter who's right or wrong, we argue with the mayor all the time, and there's no clear power structure past the mayor'. So, we said 'screw the mayor'. I said 'screw the office of mayor', while, apparently, a majority of voters were actually digitally saluting Mayor Ted LeBlanc. Whatever. Doesn't matter why people voted, the point is, they did, and the new system has obviously advantages. His office will be phased out over the remaining two years of his term as the new council takes power. He will, for all intents and purposes, be a baby-shaking, hand-kissing, ribbon cutter.

So, onto the scandal.

A scant two days after this vote, the FBI raided City Hall, the mayor's house, a business that he owns (Morley's 21st Amendment Pub. I love Morleys. It's shut down now because they took all the computers and logs.), the business and home of a local towing company owner, and some other places. Apparently, our mayor has been dealing shady with city towing contracts (allegedly, I may add, innocent until proven guilty and all, unless you're an enemy combatant), and the feds have been watching.

However crooked and/or guilty he may be, there's something that disturbs me. The FBI watched Mr. LeBlanc, and when he left for work in the morning, (He's a part-time mayor, he has a day job. We're a small city.) they raided his house.

They waited until he left. So, they could have been there without a warrant. We don't know. Mr. LeBlanc didn't know. That sounds like a gross violation of some statute or another. Hrm, what was that. It's right on the tip of my... Oh, yeah, the FOURTH AMENDMENT.

How's that go?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So, I would consider it to be unreasonable if someone WATCHED ME UNTIL I LEFT MY HOUSE and then RANSACKED THE PLACE. I'm sure Ted felt the same way. But, it's all good. Because tossing his house IS KEEPING US ALL SAFE FROM TERRORISTS.

Thank you Mr. Ashcroft (don't arrest me). Thank you Mr. Bush (I love USA, no enemy combatant), thank you spineless members of congress who allowed this bill to be rammed down your throats beacuse your patriotism was threatened.

Thank you all. Because of you, I can't grab a Guinness at my favorite bar. I might need that beer to calm my nerves, because as I drink it, the FBI might be ransacking my home.

-pb

I typically hate these things as chain letters, but that's because chain letters promote spam, and I hate spam.  Spam costs me money (in a Reganomic way, but it's enought for me to get pissed off about)

However, this isn't promoting spam (at least, not any more than filling my gas tank is promoting terrorism...  wait, no, filling my gas tank IS WORSE THEN FILLING MY ARM WITH TURKISH BLACK TAR HORSE in terms of terrorism finance.)  HERE'S THE MEME.  (stolen from systris)

1. Go into your LJ archive
2. Find your 23rd post ( or close to it )
3. Find the 5th sentence ( or close to it )
4. Insert below

"I used to claim that since I didn't like either candidate, I wasn't going to vote."

 

Now, this is my 25th post, so we're not going back in time too far.  As for the comment, well, you get to wait until November for another harranguing from me about voting.

I almost got into what would have been a pretty nasty accident on the way home, so I'm all keyed up right now.

-pb

So, V. and I went down to Center City for a Dennis Kucinich rally, and wouldn't you know it, kylecassidy  was there, snapping away.  He caught us shaking hands with Rep. Kucinich.

So, tomorrow is voting day in PA, and none of you have an excuse for staying home.  Even my old excuses are no excuse!  I used to claim that since I didn't like either candidate, I wasn't going to vote.  My vote didn't matter, so why bother?

Bullshit.  Get out there.  And do a little research first.  You get bitching rights when you vote.  "I voted for the other guy, and I was apparently right!"  or "I voted for this guy, and he did a 180 on me!".

So do it!

Our local (Norristown) elections hold additional significance, as there's a vote up to change the entire scope of the town government.  Exciting!  I GET A VOICE IN THE FUTURE!

Our Democracy may be completely fucked, but that's just another reason to VOTE WHILE YOU CAN.  It's like when you look back and think "shit, I could have bought that $15 ticket to see Nirvana, but I figured they'd be back around again".  You may never get another chance.

One last thing:  Me and the Stanley Cup:  Pictures to be posted shortly.

-pb