ossobuco wrote:Ok, ok. I registered today, as a voter in New Mexico. as an Independent.
Very odd to me personally. Lookng around for fluorescent zebra and stiped gelatinous friends.
So what?
Are there specific laws in New Mexico relative to who an Independent may vote for?
Registering as an Independent, in most states, is tantamount to withdrawing from the primary process.
Registering as an Independent may make one feel good, but the parties have worked their way through most state to neuter independent voters in primary elections.
Pick a party and engage.
Ah, at the time I posted, my post didn't seen so weird.
Whatever.
ossobuco wrote:Ah, at the time I posted, my post didn't seen so weird.
Whatever.
"Whatever," the response of the defeated.
It's actually close to half-and-half, open primaries vs. closed primaries (according to Wikipedia, 27 closed, 23 open). New Mexico is a closed primary, according to them, osso, so you really should register for the party of your choice before the primary, or you won't be able to vote in it. Assuming their information is up to date.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:ossobuco wrote:Ah, at the time I posted, my post didn't seen so weird.
Whatever.
"Whatever," the response of the defeated.
You ought to reduce the jerkiness level, finn. I've spent time with this lady and she's a bright, funny and dignified individual, quite worthy of friendship and attention both. Perhaps her response had rather more of the bored than defeated in it?
The "whatever" was about my use of words, my looking around for fluorescent zebra and stiped gelatinous friends - on rereading, even I found that description of how I felt upon leaving the post office after registering as an Independent as not communicating particularly well how I really felt, which was somewhat disconcerted.
I've been a registered democrat for over 40 years, and have stayed such for quite a part of those years specifically so I could vote in primaries. I may change my mind at some point. As of now, I'm enjoying my divestment from the Democrats.
osso, I have found that voting in primaries were a waste of my time; the final candidates were far removed from who I wanted to run. From my personal experience, I finally registered as an independent, and now vote for the individual that best reflects my values and expectations.
2000 and 2004 presidential elections were both disappointments for me.
Bernie, I heard this morning on public radio a pundit discussing the likelihood that Democrats might suffer a "backlash" if they make an "ugly" show of revenge should they take over the congress. Nevertheless, I would enjoy it immensely. I would call it "The Coming Beauty."
JLN wrote:
Bernie, I heard this morning on public radio a pundit discussing the likelihood that Democrats might suffer a "backlash" if they make an "ugly" show of revenge should they take over the congress.
What I find so interesting about this statement is the fear tactic that continues to pop up from the right. It seems to work - for some. They want to eat their cake and have it too!
blatham wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:ossobuco wrote:Ah, at the time I posted, my post didn't seen so weird.
Whatever.
"Whatever," the response of the defeated.
You ought to reduce the jerkiness level, finn. I've spent time with this lady and she's a bright, funny and dignified individual, quite worthy of friendship and attention both. Perhaps her response had rather more of the bored than defeated in it?
Spare me your lectures sir blatham, white knight of A2K.
Whatever the personal qualities of ossobuco may be (and I have no reason to challenge your characterization) I respond to what she writes.
I second Blatham's characterization of Osso.
I have also met osso, and can support her with 100 percent confidence.
I wrote about my change of voting registry as a sort of by the way, a slight tangent, knowing there were a few people on this thread that might share that extremely recent immediate moment of import to me, however ill represented by my tossed off colorful words. I am not particularly interested in instruction on the voting process, though I don't mind comment.
Let's then segue back to the thread subject - sorry for the disruption.
The voter suppression trick... full piece
here
Quote:Or so one would like to think. But the efforts of Republican lawmakers in Georgia, Indiana and, most recently, Missouri seemed aimed at making it as difficult to vote beneath our spacious skies as it is in war-torn Third World nations. Missouri, my home state, became the third member of this notorious trio in June, when Gov. Matt Blunt signed into law a requirement that voters show government-issued photo IDs at the polls starting in November.
Blunt and others say the law will prevent fraud. Their opponents rightly point out that the measure disproportionately affects those who have been disfranchised in the past, such as the poor and racial minorities. Besides, they argue, Missouri hasn't exactly suffered from an epidemic of imposters showing up to vote.
As one of the lawsuits filed to block the measure puts it, "It is statistically more likely for a Missourian to be struck by a bolt of lightning than to have his or
her vote canceled by someone posing as another voter to cast a ballot."
It is totally disgusting how these "political crooks" violate the spirit of Democracy--and they do it in what they consider to be the spirit of Americanism--to maximize the number of white and economically "respectable" voters and minimize the votes of minorities and poor Americans.
Grievously disgusting.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:blatham wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:ossobuco wrote:Ah, at the time I posted, my post didn't seen so weird.
Whatever.
"Whatever," the response of the defeated.
You ought to reduce the jerkiness level, finn. I've spent time with this lady and she's a bright, funny and dignified individual, quite worthy of friendship and attention both. Perhaps her response had rather more of the bored than defeated in it?
Spare me your lectures sir blatham, white knight of A2K.
Whatever the personal qualities of ossobuco may be (and I have no reason to challenge your characterization) I respond to what she writes.
And isn't it quite sad that you cannot be more mature in that response.
But then again, you Repugs are famous for the blind hubris and the beating of the chest when it comes to winning and losing. Because in the end, it's all you neocons are ever really concerned about.
As to changing party affiliation, I was once a Democrat, but have been a Green for 20 years. Although recently, I have also considered becoming an independent, as there are several Greens who have shamelessly accepted donations exclusively from Republicans in order to help them win elections. Ralph Nader disgusted me when he did this, and there have been others as well.
Well, now we have Adolf Hitler floating about and any media criticism of Bush's policies in Iraq directed by Osama. It's just started to get ugly.
Who Set the Wayback Machine for 1939?
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, September 5, 2006; Page A19
With George W. Bush talking so much about Nazis and fascism, Donald Rumsfeld warning ominously against lily-livered appeasement and Dick Cheney quoting Franklin Roosevelt on the "dirty business" of war, one might worry that this direction-challenged administration has wandered into some sort of time warp. Somebody's going to have to break it to them that Churchill and Stalin are gone and the Dodgers don't play in Brooklyn anymore.
Condi Rice seems to be the only one of the so-called Vulcans who missed the memo that it's 1939. When she made her obligatory pilgrimage to the American Legion convention in Salt Lake City last week, she referred to the enemy in the war on terrorism as "violent extremists," which sounds so 2006.
It's Not 1939, Mr. President
» Eugene Robinson The administration's rhetoric about Nazis, commies, fascism and appeasement may energize the GOP base -- but it won't help us win the war we're fighting.
Krauze: Mexican Democracy Under Threat
Wilkinson III: Hands Off Constitutions
PostGlobal: What to Do With Tribes
OPINIONS SECTION: Toles, Editorials, More
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Anaedo's Periscope
Choose your future. Choose life.
Fear Bush
Full List of Blogs (33 links) »
Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web
Save & Share
Tag This Article
Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Byline
2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Blurb
3. Tag This Article
For some reason, Bush and Rumsfeld also decided to drop in on the Legionnaires' 88th yearly gathering. Cheney, meanwhile, was spending quality time with the Veterans of Foreign Wars at their convention in Reno.
Do we discern a pattern? The lavish attention being paid to veterans' groups isn't about what year it is, it's about what month it is. Unless the Republican base is somehow energized and the rest of us somehow scared stiff by November, the Democrats have a decent chance of taking the House of Representatives and even an outside shot at the Senate.
That's where all the administration rhetoric about Nazis, commies, fascism and appeasement has to be coming from, because, absent the political context, it makes no sense. It's all heat and no light.
We can pretty much set aside Cheney's recent remarks, since he's been wandering in the rhetorical wilderness for a long time now. But I can't resist citing one line. He told the VFW that the "Bush Doctrine" is to hold accountable "any person or government that supports, protects or harbors terrorists." So what about the newly installed Iraqi government, with its suspected ties to Shiite death squads? And what about the Pakistani government, which gives the Taliban and al-Qaeda safe harbor?
Okay, one more from Cheney. To those who point out that Iraq wasn't a nexus of terrorism until we invaded, Cheney responds, "They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq on September 11th, 2001, and the terrorists hit us anyway."
Huh? The terrorists who attacked on Sept. 11 didn't come from Iraq. Except in Cheney's mind, I don't know where the fact that we were attacked by terrorists trained in Afghanistan (and sent by Osama bin Laden, who's probably now in Pakistan) somehow mitigates the fact that we've made Iraq a hotbed of terrorism.
Back at the American Legion convention, Bush and Rumsfeld were rewriting history. Ever since the president settled on "Islamic fascists" as the enemy in his war on terrorism, he has taken every opportunity to evoke the specter of World War II. We are engaged in "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century," Bush told the Legionnaires.
Perhaps because the term "fascist" doesn't really describe the transnational jihadist movement, Bush went further with the Legionnaires. He called the jihadists "the successors to fascists, to Nazis, to communists and other totalitarians" as well. The fact is that the jihadists are pretty much sui generis -- they aren't fascists or Nazis and certainly aren't communists, but yes, you could make a good argument for "totalitarians." I guess one out of four isn't bad.
Rumsfeld went furthest of all in claiming that it is, in fact, 1939 -- that the jihadist terror movement presents the same kind of threat to the world that Hitler did when he invaded Poland. He set up a straw man, warning that those who do not see the threat as clearly as he does are as blind as those who tried to appease Hitler. But he doesn't specify who he's talking about. Who wants to appease terrorists? Is it Democrats? Nervous Republicans who've seen the latest polls?
Nobody wants to appease terrorists. But some people have a different idea of how to fight them. The president is right when he says this conflict is unlike other wars, but he seems to miss the essential difference: It has to be fought in a way that doesn't create two new terrorists for each one who is killed.
That's not what the president wants to talk about, though. Between now and November, he wants to talk about a war that we can all agree on, even if it has no bearing on the war being fought today. Yes, Mr. President, Hitler was bad. And your point would be?
Print This Article
E-Mail This Article
RSS Feed
Post a Comment
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Your washingtonpost.com
