Jeffrey Toobin

Call me naive fellow posters but I agree with Toobin's incompetence theory of ill designed ballots verses conspiracy.

Voting is SO central to our democracy this entire issue should not and will not go away. We will never achieve perfection but the Arc of history bends toward justice said Martin Luther King.

Dr. Rick Lippin
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

Like Rick, I think the butterfly was stupidity. But of course turning away black voters in Florida in 2000 was deliberate, partisan, and malicious, and here they go again.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

I'll say two contradictory things, so bear with me.

1. The election of a Dem majority won't change much. The powerful forces in this country remain pretty much the same regardless of who is in control. These are runaway militarism, the unholy alliance of government and media, and the imbalance between labor and capital.

Currently 50% of the discretionary federal budget is spent on militarism. If you look at the CBO figures for the past 50 years you will be hard pressed by just looking at the numbers to guess which party was in control.

CBO (PDF)

Federal Pie Chart

There have been several writers such as Chalmers Johnson who have detailed the current state of the military/industrial/congressional complex. The most thoughtful critics are at a loss at how to change this dynamic.

The media needs the government to provide favorable rulings on things like tax breaks, copyright and consolidation. The pols need the media to get their messages out. Instead of the media being the gadfly it's now the cheering section. This is not a good thing for a functioning democracy.

The decline of labor has had just the results that were predicted. Despite the utopian language the law of the jungle still operates: "might makes right". As labor has weakened so has the share of the national pie given (taken?) by labor. The result has been the widely-noted growth in income disparity. This is also not a good thing in a democracy. The few wealthy have too much power.

2. (The contradictory point of view). The election of a veto-proof Dem majority will change several important things, but they will only be marginal. We will see an improvement in social services and, perhaps, some tweaking of the marginal tax rates. This will help the common worker somewhat and, incidentally, defuse the budding neo-populist movement.

What we won't see are any fundamental changes. Both parties are still committed to a muscular foreign policy. Each tries to show how they will best enhance our militarism. Neither is willing to discuss an evaluation of whether the US should be the world's policeman. The amount of military money that flows into congressional districts is designed to buy congress's acquiescence. This can't change. Just look at what happens when even a small change such as a base closing in proposed.

Both parties are wedded to a consumerist/capitalist model. They only differ in how they think this can best be achieved. Neither side is willing to address the idea that the world is finite and that growth can't continue forever. Neither is willing to address moderating demand to a level where consumption equals renewable resources. Currently the world is consuming 1.5 planet's worth of resources. By 2050 there will be an additional 3 billion people and the expected rate of consumption will be 2 planet's worth of resources.

The capitalist model depends upon growth. This is unsustainable over the long term, but there is no discussion of what could replace it. Even all the various economic schools take it as an axiom that a market economy is the only viable model. Any politician who came out in favor of sacrifice now for the benefit of future generations wouldn't get the time of day. Given that for most of human history and in most societies even today, people live in a sustainable relationship with their environment the lack of willingness to explore this social arrangement is remarkable.

In the past if a society consumed more than it could produce it would starve. Why is this lesson so hard to understand?

So, will the Dems be better than the GOP? Yes. Will they be much better? No.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

"Or, to put it more cynically, voter fraud suppression may be – and sometimes clearly is – an attempt to suppress minority (i.e. Democratic) votes."

Mr.Toobin: in your effort to avoid saying ANYTHING you have constructed a self-contradicting sentence. If it "sometimes clearly is" than I do not think "it may be". Please work on your conditionals.

You can blame the ballot, you can blame the Republicans, you can blame the Supreme Court but in the end, this election fell into the "too close to call" category because of the electorate. In particular, if all of those voters who voted for Nader, because there was "no difference" between Bush and Gore, had voted for Gore, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

“I despise idealogues masquerading as objective journalists.” - Bill O'Reilly, March 30, 2007

Re: The election of a veto-proof Dem majority will change several important things, but they will only be marginal.

Such a result (including a Democratic president) will bring about universal health care-- the single most significant domestic reform since Social Security. Millions will benefit, and the economic effects will be highly positive for middle and working class persons. That's not "marginal"! Beyond that too a Democrat in the White House will mean that no rightwing judges will be appointed to the Supreme Court. Then there's global warming: Democratic leadership on this issue will be crucial (Yes, there will be disputes and complaints about the specifics of what gets done, but it will still be a huge improvement over the Bush administration!) That too is hugely important. I think you're focusing way too much of foreign policy matters and giving too little importance to things at home. And even abroad I do not foresee any Democrat continuing the Bush/NeoCon Amerika Uber Alles agenda. Rather I foresee a return to the multi-lateral internationalism of the past 60 years.

Given the political hay Republicans and relgious conservatives have made of Roe v. Wade you would think they would have recognized the dangers of a political decision such as Bush v Gore.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

And I forgot to address the question of what would have happened if Gore won in 2000.  One thing for sure...I doubt that Alito and Roberts would be on the SCOTUS as we speak.  I wonder how replacing those 2 with jurists nominated by the D's would affect the outcome of the Voter ID case? 

Couldn't agree more on the "world's greatest democracy" comment. We're lucky to be in the top 50.

Conspiracy?  Nawwwww...no conspiracy.  Just a well thought out and implemented plan by the conservatives.  Just like what happened in the recent past with the USA's at the DoJ republican nominees for the SCOTUS must have the proper Federalist Society credentials in place before their names will be placed in nomination.  The right got burned with Souter and they're not about to get "burned" again.  They are going to put jurists on the SCOTUS who not only believe in Federalist Society positions but are the ones responsible for giving those positions legal credibility.  If a Republican wins in '08 I will be waiting for a John Yoo nomination.  The R's put people on the court who agree with their political agenda and are willing to back it up in legal briefs and opinions...BRILLIANT!!!  And of course the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, after much hand wringing and nothing else, confirms these rightwing hacks.  God forbid the process of approving political appointees, with political agendas could/should ever be "politicized".

Exactly. The word 'conspiracy' has a bad connotation, but the truth is that very little that happens in politics isn't a conspiracy at some level.

The rush to war in Iraq was a huge conspiracy, but those who called it such from September 2002 - March 2003 were labelled conspiracy theorists. Those who said the war was about oil were conspiracy theorists until just a few days ago when Greenspan said of course it was about the oil.

Bush v. Gore was a conspiracy among five Supreme Court justices to briefly rewrite the law in favor of one candidate. They knew it was a conspiracy of lawbreaking because they specifically said that this ruling cannot be used as precedent in any other case.

Car dealers conspire to sell you a POS. Insurance companies conspire to wiggle out of their obligations to their customers. Hospitals conspire to hide the incompetnece of doctors. Churchs conspire to hide the sexual predations of their priests. Tobacco companies conspire to hide the dangers of smoking. Oil companies conspire to keep gas prices high. Republicans conspired in their creation of the K-Street project. Duke Cunningham conspired to enrich himself and his friends with taxpayer dollars. Halliburton conspired to receive no-bid contracts, and conspired again to bilk the taxpayers and screw the soldiers. The military conspired to hide Abu Graib, the truth about Pat Tillman, Mai Lai, and a thousand other things.

But somehow it has become "reasonable" to say that we shouldn't assign to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence. Sure, and Brutus slipped on a banana peel while holding a dagger as Julius Caesar just happened to be walking by. Sorry, my bad - no conspiracy there.

I admire your optimism, but history doesn't favor your vision. The Dems had operational majorities many times in the past. They didn't put in a universal health care plan. They didn't rein in militarism, they didn't discuss over consumption and waste.

Clinton's recent health plan is a good example of what to expect. She makes no attempt to lower the cost of health care by getting the useless middlemen out of the picture. Instead she assures them that they can all continue to play the unneeded role that they currently perform. So, let's suppose they do manage to cover most of the uninsured. That's a "good thing", but is at best a change for about 15% of the population. And it's not like all these people will go from no health care to full health care. What will happen is that these people will go from ad hoc payment schemes to regularized payment schemes. Will their health services improve. Of course. It's "important", but still marginal.

The top management of United Health Care got $2 billion in benefits last year. Think of how much health care that could have provided. Fixing this part of the system would be more than a marginal change. This would require undoing 40 years of privatizing everything in sight, including a good part of the military. Do you see any sign of this happening or being proposed? Neither do I.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Thanks Allsburg

Rick Lippin

It costs money to get a state ID. That means that requiring one disproportionately affects poor people. Numerous studies back this up.

Go look at the dissent in the 7th Circuit case. The dissenting judge, to his unending credit, came right out and said that this case was nothing but a GOP ploy to hurt the Dems and disenfranchise poor folks.

There is no evidence of this sort of voter fraud in Indiana. None, whatsoever. There is only one reason to require a voter ID. (Well, two intertwined reasons: fixing elections for the GOP and racism.)

I disagree with calling any of this "conspiracy". A conspiracy is done in secret. These things were done right out in the open for everyone to see.

The trouble is that it was Gore who threw away all those votes to Nader. It was Gore who ran from blacks, from immigrants, who turned his back on gays, and ostracized the left.

All Gore offered these constituencies was the back of his hand. He was too busy chasing 'soft republican' votes.

So stop blaming Nader.

No politician is entitled to a single vote from anyone. He has to earn and respect each one. A politician has to choose between votes, he makes that choice.

Gore made his choices. The rest of us had to live with them.

I agree, veto-proof Demo majorities in both houses won't guarantee Democratic control. Every Demo doesn't think the same way and wouldn't vote the same way on every issue. State, sectional and regional interests in the US trump party loyalties. Same with the Republicans. We don't have strong political parties in this country that can effectively "whip" their members into line like Europe.

Healthcare is the elephant in the room and is getting bigger and bigger. "Managed care" is a joke, another money maker for insurance companies. Neither party wants to confront the major players in healthcare; the AMA (physicians), for-profit health providers and the drug companies. These players dole out millions in campaign donations and both parties eat from the same donation trough. Our health system is an embarrassment.

What we won't see are any fundamental changes.

I am about to give up here. I feel that there is no subtlety or wide view looked for by most of the posters. He who stabs you in the back is not seen until the deed is done. Politics is the same. There is a h* of a lot different in the Republican Administration than a Democratic one.

First, Democrats put competent individuals in the agencies of government to accomplish the goal of the agency. The Republican want to destroy and privatize the department.

The Republican Candidate is a puppet. The Democratic Candidate is more of an individual with pressures of finance and the elites on them. One is a slam-dunk for control or not even knowing what is going on. The other sways but not nearly as much.

Today’s Republicans do not believe the laws apply to them, enough said.

We suffer today for not prosecuting Nixon and company and Regains Iran Contra to the last person. Some came back unscathed some were give a pardon, some just are there with a past, but the Republicans do not care.

Republicans believe in anything that gets them a vote in public and we know about in the privacy of their own debauchery. Democrats believe in ethics in public and science always.

There is a hell of a difference.

If there is another Republican Administration there will be no money in the hands of 99% of the citizens, therefore no capitalism. We may get to test that great myth of the rich about if everyone is give an equal amount of money in one year the present rich would have their same amount or more money as they are more entrepreneurial. One hell of an idea for a reality show based on a whole country! :)

Damn it look for the missing. Look for the miss-direction. Think, analyze, look for patterns, and let the juices flow. We are so passive and looking at the national scene get involved in local politics. The local Republicans make the national party look like saints, because the local Republicans do not even cover their tracks.
There are differences, kick ass and take names......

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking