New Bush Poll....

If the election were held today, Bush would beat Howard Dean, the Democrat front runner by 20 points. Maybe Dean just hasn't got his message out yet. Go Dean Go!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...

(it's buried waaaaaaaaaay at the bottom of the story).

The closest candidate would be General Clark, who is 8 points below. But as soon as we find out why he got kicked out of the Nato command, he won't be an issue.

Hopefully the numbers will tighten and the election will get more exciting in 2004. So far its been pretty ho hum without a serious candidate on the Democrat side. Hillary, where are you?

Yeah, find a president whom we, as the rest of the world can embrace. Bush isnt doing it for us, recount the votes!

Seriously, I do not care about the leadership in Malasya or France or Germany while I do care about who will sit in White House. The world should get a life, it seems.

Most, can I ask what kind of American President that you, as a European, could embrace?

Why should we elect a president other nations want us to elect?

"Lawyeron" wrote:

If the election were held today, Bush would beat Howard Dean, the Democrat front runner by 20 points. Maybe Dean just hasn''t got his message out yet. Go Dean Go!

Maybe Dean hasn''t got his message out yet, and maybe Bush''s TV ads inspire just the right combination of fear and shame in the public that they actually work. When I see ads that chastise people for questioning the president''s policies, it sickens me. It''s one tiny step away from telling people that they are un-American if they vote for the other guy. I can think of a few dictators who rule(d) like that.

""Even the president is not omnipotent. Would that he were. He often says that life would be a lot easier if it were a dictatorship. But it''s not, and he''s glad it''s a democracy."" --Joshua Bolten, White House Budget Director

Well thank god that the vanguard of democracy is so committed to the idea that he''s downright ''glad'', if not a little disappointed, that he has to lead one.

George Bush is a disgrace to this country. I just wish Howard Dean wasn''t such an easy target for Rove...

"hubbinsd" wrote:

Maybe Dean hasn''t got his message out yet, and maybe Bush''s TV ads inspire just the right combination of fear and shame in the public that they actually work.

Bush only started running one ad last week, and I have yet to see it outside of the political talk shows.

"Hubbinsd" wrote:

""Even the president is not omnipotent. Would that he were. He often says that life would be a lot easier if it were a dictatorship. But it''s not, and he''s glad it''s a democracy."" --Joshua Bolten, White House Budget Director

Well thank god that the vanguard of democracy is so committed to the idea that he''s downright ''glad'', if not a little disappointed, that he has to lead one.

George Bush is a disgrace to this country.

Got it. So the White House makes a joke and that makes the president a disgrace. Sounds like somebody is a little bitter...

"ralcydan" wrote:
"Hubbinsd" wrote:

""Even the president is not omnipotent. Would that he were. He often says that life would be a lot easier if it were a dictatorship. But it''s not, and he''s glad it''s a democracy."" --Joshua Bolten, White House Budget Director

Well thank god that the vanguard of democracy is so committed to the idea that he''s downright ''glad'', if not a little disappointed, that he has to lead one.

George Bush is a disgrace to this country.

Got it. So the White House makes a joke and that makes the president a disgrace. Sounds like somebody is a little bitter...

You''re damn right I''m bitter. What''s not to be bitter about a guy who did not get elected but rather strongarmed his way into office (put there by justices appointed by his father), destroyed U.S. credibility in most of the world, and is now trying to undermine democratic processes -such as critical analysis of a candidate''s policies - in order to strongarm his way into office yet again? I care about this country too much to not be bitter when I see its principles being trampled by the guy sworn to uphold them.

"hubbinsd" wrote:

You''re damn right I''m bitter. What''s not to be bitter about a guy who did not get elected

Presidents are elected by the Electoral College, not the people.

(put there by justices appointed by his father)

Chief Justice William Renquist - Appointed by Richard Nixon
Justice Antonin Scalia - Appointed by Ronald Reagan
Justice Clarence Thomas - Appointed by George H.W. Bush
Justice Sandra Day O''Connor - Appointed by Ronald Reagan
Justice Anthony Kennedy - Appointed by Gerald Ford

These five ruled in favor of the Bush team. Only one was appointed by Bush 41.

destroyed U.S. credibility in most of the world,

The US said we''d liberate Iraq. We did. We said we''d find evidence of violations of UN resolutions. We did. We said we''d find terrorist activities. I''d bet you''d agree we have found it in spades.

and is now trying to undermine democratic processes -such as critical analysis of a candidate''s policies - in order to strongarm his way into office yet again?

Seriously? How is analyzing an opponent''s policy undermining democracy? Politicians have been pointing out flaws in other candidates campaign positions for generations. Wouldn''t that mean democracy has been dead and buried since the beginning?

"hubbinsd" wrote:

What''s not to be bitter about a guy who did not get elected

Bush was elected. For those of you unfamiliar with proper use of vocabulary, the guy asking for a recount does so because he loses in the first place. The initial counts done by machine, and every count done since, have shown Bush carried Florida. The Supreme Court stopped the Gore''s ""every vote counts"" system of selectively counting votes only in those counties which would have favored him, using arbitrary standards that varied vote to vote in deciding how to read them.

"hubbinsd" wrote:

destroyed U.S. credibility in most of the world

Not sure what you mean by credibility. I would argue that the US is more credible than it has been in decades. The world certainly knows what we stand for and why. We are following through on our promises to our own people and the rest of the world. Perhaps you mean that the US has destroyed its popularity (also a dubious claim), but I learned in grammar school that it was more important to do the right thing than to be popular - didn''t you?

"hubbinsd" wrote:

now trying to undermine democratic processes - such as critical analysis of a candidate''s policies

I haven''t actually seen the ad, but in principle if you have the right to say un-American things, I have the right to call you un-American. Free speech is a two-way street. If my exercising my free speech shuts you up, then perhaps you didn''t have much conviction to begin with, or merely need to grow a spine.

"hubbinsd" wrote:

I care about this country too much to not be bitter when I see its principles being trampled by the guy sworn to uphold them.

What principles are those? Name a freedom lost under George Bush. Cite one case of abuse under the Patriot Act. If you don''t like the guy or his party, fine, but if you''re going to throw out statements like ""he''s trampling on our principles"" how about using specific examples?

What principles are those? Name a freedom lost under George Bush.

We''re about to lose the freedom to not pay for Bill Gate''s prescription drugs. Although why this should bother Bush''s detractors is a mystery to me.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Not sure what you mean by credibility. I would argue that the US is more credible than it has been in decades. The world certainly knows what we stand for and why. We are following through on our promises to our own people and the rest of the world. Perhaps you mean that the US has destroyed its popularity (also a dubious claim), but I learned in grammar school that it was more important to do the right thing than to be popular - didn''t you?

Didn''t I just say that?

"ralcydan" wrote:

. Cite one case of abuse under the Patriot Act. If you don''t like the guy or his party, fine, but if you''re going to throw out statements like ""he''s trampling on our principles"" how about using specific examples?

Funny thing about the Patriot Act, if I had knowledge of an abuse I would be thrown in jail for telling you about it. How''s that for freedom?

"hubbinsd" wrote:

When I see ads that chastise people for questioning the president''s policies, it sickens me.

Ok, I have checked out the ad in question. The sentence being cited above is:

""Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.""

This is an utterly true statement. Look at the protests in Britain, look at the statements by Dean, Sharpton, Braun, and Kucinich. There are those who wish we had never invaded Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter. The president is compared to Hitler by screaming youths, he is called a failure and a gang leader by Democratic presidential candidates.

Why does it sicken you that the GOP points this out?

"hubbinsd" wrote:

Funny thing about the Patriot Act, if I had knowledge of an abuse I would be thrown in jail for telling you about it. How''s that for freedom?

Ridiculous.

"ralcydan" wrote:
"hubbinsd" wrote:

destroyed U.S. credibility in most of the world

Not sure what you mean by credibility. I would argue that the US is more credible than it has been in decades. The world certainly knows what we stand for and why. We are following through on our promises to our own people and the rest of the world. Perhaps you mean that the US has destroyed its popularity (also a dubious claim), but I learned in grammar school that it was more important to do the right thing than to be popular - didn''t you?

I see very little ""right"" about U.S. Foreign Policy at this moment. We spent the last 50 years building respect and credibility (yes, credibility) as standard bearers for all that democracy has to offer. In the administrations lust for war we''ve squandered both respect and credibility.

I haven''t actually seen the ad, but in principle if you have the right to say un-American things, I have the right to call you un-American. Free speech is a two-way street. If my exercising my free speech shuts you up, then perhaps you didn''t have much conviction to begin with, or merely need to grow a spine.

There''s no need for personal attacks, unless of course you want to attack Bush

Free Speech is certainly a two way street. But then again, I don''t have $200 Million in campaign money to shove my message down people''s throat.

But my point is that it is definitely not un-American to criticize the president. It is supremely American. How are we supposed to make an informed decision on election day if we haven''t critically analyzed the options? What is truly un-American is Bush''s strategy of accusing anyone who scrutinizes his policies of a lack of patriotism.

What principles are those? Name a freedom lost under George Bush. Cite one case of abuse under the Patriot Act. If you don''t like the guy or his party, fine, but if you''re going to throw out statements like ""he''s trampling on our principles"" how about using specific examples?

The Patriot Act, as one example of many, demonstrates a complete disregard for civil liberties. I am a librarian. If the FBI showed up at my office today and demanded that I turn over patrons'' records, I could not tell anyone that they were there. Not my wife, not my lawyer, not the patron, not even a Federal judge. If I did seek counsel to assess my rights and/or the legality of their claim, I would be committing a felony. The Constitution guarantees the right to due process. I believe that denying my right to consult a lawyer is a violation of that guarantee. Now is it so un-American to value my Constitutional rights? Apparently it is these days.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
destroyed U.S. credibility in most of the world,

The US said we''d liberate Iraq. We did. We said we''d find evidence of violations of UN resolutions. We did. We said we''d find terrorist activities. I''d bet you''d agree we have found it in spades.

We said we''d find proof, when did we find proof of violation of UN resolutions and terrorists activities? I haven''t seen anyone definitively show anything as proof of either, merely evidence at best. The terrorist link was dubious up until the weekly standard thing, even after that it''s still too early to tell. Definately not proof yet. If you have some links I''d like to read it. Or was this just sarcasm again? (Hopefully that horse has been put to pasture)

"Rat Boy" wrote:
and is now trying to undermine democratic processes -such as critical analysis of a candidate''s policies - in order to strongarm his way into office yet again?

Seriously? How is analyzing an opponent''s policy undermining democracy? Politicians have been pointing out flaws in other candidates campaign positions for generations. Wouldn''t that mean democracy has been dead and buried since the beginning?

I agree, what did you expect the Republican party to talk about besides terrorism? They''ve been calling the Democrats unamerican since they started on this thing, and Democrats have been calling Republicans tyrants and dictators. It''s the same old song and dance, everybody does this. I think the only reason it''s noteworthy is because everybody is worked up over the whole thing and the emotional stakes are higher.

"hubbinsd" wrote:

We spent the last 50 years building respect and credibility (yes, credibility) as standard bearers for all that democracy has to offer. In the administrations lust for war we''ve squandered both respect and credibility.

I''m not sure what you are asserting here. Are you saying that we are not trying to foster democracy in the Middle East? If you don''t think so, that is your opinion, but I think those Americans and Iraqis building democratic institutions as we speak would take issue with your statement. If you do think we are trying to foster democracy there, then I am not sure how this conflicts with the US as standard bearer of democracy. Your point seems to be that the rest of the world doesn''t think we are trying to foster democracy, but all of you can quit worrying - we are, and you''ll feel pretty silly in a few years looking back.

As to us having lost the respect of the world, I don''t agree. Even those countries that disagree with US policy still respect that we are committed to our promises and values. And as far as that dislike goes, so what? I think were right to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan. You are saying to me that other countries now dislike us for doing the right thing while they refused to do the same. Sorry if I don''t shed any tears over this situation.

"hubbinsd" wrote:

There''s no need for personal attacks, unless of course you want to attack Bush

I didn''t know I made any. My ""you"" was rhetorical, referring to anyone making attacks who has been shut up by someone responding to those attacks. One of the great ironies about the ""quit trying to stifle dissent"" argument is that I haven''t atually seen any dissent being stifled, so there doesn''t seem to be much of a problem.

"hubbinsd" wrote:

But my point is that it is definitely not un-American to criticize the president. It is supremely American...What is truly un-American is Bush''s strategy of accusing anyone who scrutinizes his policies of a lack of patriotism.

An opinion you are welcome to, but the ad that you are complaining about doesn''t call anyone un-American, nor has the administration ever called its detractors un-American. Maybe you''re looking for boogeymen where none exist.

"hubbinsd" wrote:

The Constitution guarantees the right to due process. I believe that denying my right to consult a lawyer is a violation of that guarantee.

You are wrong in that belief. Due process means that if you are accused of a crime, you will have certain rights. The scenario you describe (which I am not convinced is accurate) has nothing to do with your rights as an accused, and therefore nothing to do with due process.

As an aside, this is nothing new. If law enforcement is conducting a sealed search, whether of records or of a resident, you blabbing about it is potentially damaging to the investigation and potentially obstruction of justice. Now since anything you tell your lawyer is privileged, I do not believe you could be accused of even having told him unless you volunteered that information - but that would be akin to telling the cops ""I told my lawyer I committed murder"" and then expecting them not to do anything about it.

As an aside, this is nothing new. If law enforcement is conducting a sealed search, whether of records or of a resident, you blabbing about it is potentially damaging to the investigation and potentially obstruction of justice. Now since anything you tell your lawyer is privileged, I do not believe you could be accused of even having told him unless you volunteered that information - but that would be akin to telling the cops ""I told my lawyer I committed murder"" and then expecting them not to do anything about it.

The Patriot Act is completely new. I''m not talking about telling my lawyer I broke the law. I''m talking about getting a Patriot Act request, which is not even a subpeona, and contacting my lawyer to say ""The FBI requested these records, can they do that? Is this legal? What are my options? etc."" THAT is a felony under the Patriot Act. It is unprecendented for a civilian who is not under investigation to have literally no recourse in dealing with a law enforcement agency. And I wasn''t speaking rhetorically, I am actually a librarian and I seriously worry that I could be put in this position.

From Section 215 of the PATRIOT ACT:

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.''

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]We said we''d find proof, when did we find proof of violation of UN resolutions and terrorists activities?

Try David Kay''s own report. While there has yet to be any weapons of mass destruction to be found, there is quite a long list of violations of UN resolutions.

(Hopefully that horse has been put to pasture)

You of all people shouldn''t be accusing people of beating dead horses or any sort of quadraped.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]We said we''d find proof, when did we find proof of violation of UN resolutions and terrorists activities?

Try David Kay''s own report. While there has yet to be any weapons of mass destruction to be found, there is quite a long list of violations of UN resolutions.

Funny, since Bush was claiming since day 1 that they knew the weapons existed. Now they''re touting a list of other violations? Pretty weak.

David Kay is just a Bush lackey anyway. I''m surprised his report wasn''t even more loaded.

"hubbinsd" wrote:

Now they''re touting a list of other violations? Pretty weak.

Excerpt of UN Resolution 1441:

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq''s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

Skip down to the bottom to read:

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

I''d call an overthrow of their regime a ""serious consequence."" The UN believed that Iraq was in violation of their own rules. On this basis, the US and the UK went to war with Iraq.

David Kay is just a Bush lackey anyway. I''m surprised his report wasn''t even more loaded.

Are you claiming that David Kay lied? Do you have any proof to back that up?

"hubbinsd" wrote:

I''m talking about getting a Patriot Act request, which is not even a subpeona, and contacting my lawyer to say ""The FBI requested these records, can they do that? Is this legal? What are my options? etc."" THAT is a felony under the Patriot Act.

I''m going to have to do some research to see if this is correct, but even if it is, it still isn''t a violation of any rights of yours. Due Process simply doesn''t apply unless there is a legal proceding against you. Now having said that, I also would be willing to bet that the law draws a distinction. You do not have the right to call up your lawyer and inform him of classified or sealed activities that are not targeting you, but there is no law stating that you cannot ask your lawyer hypothetical questions covering scenarios you did or might face - you just can''t do so in a manner that reveals details of an ongoing investigation to an outside party.

"hubbinsd" wrote:

It is unprecendented for a civilian who is not under investigation to have literally no recourse in dealing with a law enforcement agency.

I would be willing to bet that the Justice Department has a liason who can tell you all about the law and your rights and responsibilities in regards to the law. And as I stated above, as long as you don''t discuss specific events relating to an investigation, I have no doubts you can consult a lawyer about all of this.

"hubbinsd" wrote:

since Bush was claiming since day 1 that they knew the weapons existed. Now they''re touting a list of other violations?

Yet another imaginary standard being applied retroactively. How about the quote from Bush you are referring to?

As an aside, Pyro, you''re right - it''s nice to see Rat using facts and logic...

This kinda raises the issue of why library and internet records are kept. Probably a federal law. I know you have to keep track of who borrowed a book so that you can make sure you get the book back, but that shouldn''t require a permanent record. If reading a book is so wrong that it''s going to get me investigated why does the library have the book? Knowlege that you checked out a book can''t provide more than circumstantial evidence anyway.

"Gorack" wrote:

This kinda raises the issue of why library and internet records are kept. Probably a federal law. I know you have to keep track of who borrowed a book so that you can make sure you get the book back, but that shouldn''t require a permanent record. If reading a book is so wrong that it''s going to get me investigated why does the library have the book? Knowlege that you checked out a book can''t provide more than circumstantial evidence anyway.

In most cases we don''t keep records of who checked out what books. However, some library systems didn''t anticipate this issue and they aren''t well-designed enough to ensure complete anonymity if someone was really determined to check up on someone. Backup tapes, server logs, etc could all clue someone in.

As for the question of why a library has a book in the first place, my answer is that there are no bad books, only bad people, and it is not the librarians'' place to try and interpret morality for our patrons. Should we stop providing access to materials on Islam? That could be a subject the FBI might be interested in monitoring, yet all we''d be doing if we banned them is sanctioning ignorance.

That could be a subject the FBI might be interested in monitoring, yet all we''d be doing if we banned them is sanctioning ignorance.

The leaps of logic you make continue to astound me. Much as the Bush ad you were complaining about didn''t refer to anyone as unpatriotic, neither has anyone suggested banning any books... Where do you guys get this stuff?