Wesley Clark off to a GREAT start!

No, if you look at what I said, a large number of parliamentary democracies have fixed term parliaments, including most states of Australia (but not yet at the federal level). Under the state models in Australia, for example, the government has no power to order an early election, but must call it at about the same time every 3 or 4 years depending on the length of the term of office in that state. This is effectively the same as the fixed term in the USA.

You are correct about some parliamentary democracies, but only some. Britain, for example, allows the government to call an election when it suits them, by and large, and so does the Australian Constitution for the federal government only. But this increasingly not the case with parliamentary democracies worldwide, which are moving to a fixed term parliament similar to the US example.

I'm well aware that it is the states that set much of the electoral laws in the USA, which must be one of the most bizarre distributions of power in the democratic world. That the US government does not run its own national elections is almost beyond belief. The Florida presidential poll in 2000 demonstrated that the world's greatest democracy has one of the most flawed electoral systems of any democratic state. I've worked as an electoral official in Australia, which has the single most complex voting system in the democratic world (proportional AND preferential voting simultaneously). We never had anything remotely close to the embarrassing photos of Florida polling officials crawling around on the floor trying to find the bits punched out of ballot papers.

However, I wasn't making a point about practicality, but about principle. And I question your bold assertion that there is no consensus to shorten the election period. Super Tuesday is one manifestation of a small push in that direction. The incredibly low turnout in elections in the USA is another manifestation of voter discontent at the system.

>No, if you look at what I said, a large number of

>parliamentary democracies have fixed term parliaments,

Okay, which ones?

>including most states of Australia (but not yet at the federal

>level).

Well, the national government is rather important, isn't it? You make it sound like a very minor thing.

>But

>this increasingly not the case with parliamentary democracies

>worldwide, which are moving to a fixed term parliament similar

>to the US example.

Really? Which ones have changed their system recently?

>I'm well aware that it is the states that set much of the

>electoral laws in the USA, which must be one of the most

>bizarre distributions of power in the democratic world.

You keep saying how bizarre our system is. As I've pointed out, many of us think it's not only bizarre but undemocratic to permit the government in power to decide when an election is going to be held. And that's what the national government of your country does. What if Bush had been able to call a new Congressional election right after 9-11?

> That

>the US government does not run its own national elections is

>almost beyond belief.

It's only hard to believe if you know nothing of U.S. history. We don't have "national" elections here in the sense that you mean. As I keep trying to tell you, we have a federal system of government. The national government derives its power from the states, not the other way around. The Congress represents the states, and the president is chosen by electors chosen in each state. Under that arrangement it makes perfect sense that the states control their own elections.

>The Florida presidential poll in 2000

>demonstrated that the world's greatest democracy has one of

>the most flawed electoral systems of any democratic state.

Hogwash. The fact is that multiple reviews of the ballots by major newspapers and other independent parties after the election showed that the result first announced was the correct result. In every recount of the ballots conducted by every party, Bush still won Florida.

>However, I wasn't making a point about practicality, but about

>principle.

What principle? That campaigns shouldn't be long? Why not? Under our system, just about anyone who wants to in the tiny state of New Hampshire gets to meet and talk to our nation's leaders every few years. Do you have anything like that?

>Super Tuesday is

>one manifestation of a small push in that direction.

That was arranged by the political parties for their own advantage, not by the voters.

>The

>incredibly low turnout in elections in the USA is another

>manifestation of voter discontent at the system.

Voter discontent, perhaps, but with what? I challenge you to show us any poll that says a majority of voters here would like to adopt the system you favor.

Clark had nothing to say on tonight's debate (twice, the moderators said he hadn't answered the question), and Dean did GREAT. I actually clapped at my TV like an idiot.

I disagree. Although there were a couple of questions for which he stated he was still working the details and would be presenting them shortly, I'd rather he do that than try and bullshit his way through it. I also disagreed with the woman moderator when she commented that his answer has already been said (by the way, she didn't say he didn't answer it). My feeling is so what? He can't have a position that is the same as some others? And he did answer it ... he emphasized that we need independent review boards accountable to the shareholders and not the CEOs. And I agree with him.

Other observations:

There were too many candidates and not enough time for each of them. Actually I didn't think Clark got as many questions as most of the other candidates.

Surprisingly, I thought Moseley Braun did well, actually exceeded my expectations.

I think Sharpton and Kucinich need to hit the road (and take Graham with them).

My opinion of Dean was unchanged. He is forceful and confident but there's just something about him that grates me.

Gephardt lost points with me. Came across as too liberal for my blood. And I think his dig at Dean in regards to Newt Gingrich was off base.

Overall, if I had to pick the one who came off best, I'd have to give that to Kerry. He scored points with me.

But for the time being, I'm still supporting Clark.

RE: Tribal attack on Dean gathers steam!

DAMN.........good thing for you that your not charged by the line!!!!

RE: Tribal attack on Dean gathers steam!

>DAMN.........good thing for you that your not charged by the

>line!!!!

The truly amazing thing about the on-line zionists is that the first line of defense is lies, the second is denial and the third is silence. Where have they all gone now that their war has failed? What ever will they say when presented with PROOF of their manipulation of the American democracy? Yes, you are right, it is a damn good thing for truth and justice that we are not charged by the line!

RE: Tribal attack on Dean gathers steam!

>>DAMN.........good thing for you that your not charged by

>the line!!!!

LOL!

>The truly amazing thing about the on-line zionists is that the

>first line of defense is lies, the second is denial and the

>third is silence. Where have they all gone now that their war

>has failed?

What do you mean, failed? Did Saddam come back? Is Iraqi oil money once again being used to reward the families of Palestinian homicide bombers? If so, no one mentioned it to me.

Each day I like Clark less and less. I read today that even though he acknowledges that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is not working, he favors only letting the military decide for itself how to improve it. (Atlantic). This man is too slick for me.

RE: Tribal attack on Dean gathers steam!

>What do you mean, failed? Did Saddam come back? Is Iraqi oil

>money once again being used to reward the families of

>Palestinian homicide bombers? If so, no one mentioned it to

>me.

I issue the same challenge to you and your on-line zionist friends now as I did before and during the war, if you know where the WMD are please tell us and please tell Mr. Blix. BTW, wasn't the war supposed to remake the middle east and have the Palestinians cry "uncle"? Haven't heard that yet, have you? And, I guess you just don't give a shit about your countyman being picked off each day in Iraq? You ought to be shot for treason for your loyalty to Israel, or at the very least made a butt boy prison room-mate of Jonothan Pollard!

RE: Wesley Clark off to a GREAT start! NOT!

And tonight CNN shows a tape of Clark praising Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice and others by name, talking about what a great team we have in the White House. He said: "We need them there!"

RE: Wesley Clark off to a GREAT start! NOT!

>And tonight CNN shows a tape of Clark praising Bush, Cheney,

>Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice and others by name, talking about what

>a great team we have in the White House. He said: "We need

>them there!"

He also loved Reagan and Bush I.

And what do we think about this?:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7380-2003Sep26.html

RE: Wesley Clark off to a GREAT start! NOT!

Scarier than Halliburton!

RE: Wesley Clark off to a GREAT start! NOT!

>He also loved Reagan and Bush I.

The fact that a career military man "loved Reagan" is hardly surprising. Reagan massively increased military spending, beefed up our military force ,and, in the eyes of many historians, was a significant factor in the collapse of Communism's hold on Russia and Eastern Europe. I hardly think that expressing admiration for Reagan, particularly from a General, should be considered a sin. Most Americans, including huge numbers of Democrats, admire Reagan.

Clark's explanation as to his changed perspective regarding Bush is, at least to me, quite convincing, and mirrors the path which many Americans (particularly independents whose votes are needed to win) have also taken. Many, many people have - like Clark - changed their views about Bush. George Bush the Candidate bears virtually no resemblence to George Bush the President, and particularly since 9/11, he transformed a resoulte response to terrorism into a pretext for reckless binges of fiscal irresponsibility, war-mongering and ideology-driven deceit.

I think it's a great credit to Clark that, after spending 3 decades in the military, he re-assessed many of his views regarding this Administration. I think that this quality is bolstering the view among those Democrats whose number one priority (by far) is to beat Bush regardless of who does it, that Clark is the most viable candidate for doing so.

RE: Wesley Clark off to a GREAT start! NOT!

>He also loved Reagan and Bush I.

I too liked both Reagan and Bush I. Bush Senior was a smart, decent, and honorable man. Bush junior is a smug arrogant little bastard who is too stupid for words. As an independent myself, I don't vote for or support candidates based on their party affiliation.

I voted for Gore. I can't stand Bush junior. I think he's the worst president we've had in my life time ... maybe even surpassing Jimmy Carter. I'd take Clark, Lieberman, or Kerry over Bush. Still undecided about Dean should he get the nomination. I get the vibe that he has a Jimmy Carter view of foreign policy. That just ain't gonna fly with me.

And if the Democrats nominate a knee-jerk liberal, as much as I hate to say it, and as much it would piss me off, I'd have to vote for Bush (ugh!). I sincerely hope the Democrats don't fuck this up!!!

RE: Wesley Clark off to a GREAT start! NOT!

>to beat Bush regardless of who does it,

>that Clark is the most viable candidate for doing so.

I think Howard Dean is still the strongest contender. Clark has a great resume but he still hasn't presented any specific course of action. At this point, he just has the name recognition.

RE: Wesley Clark off to a GREAT start! NOT!

>I think Howard Dean is still the strongest contender.

Strongest in what regard? If you mean "strongest" in terms of beating Bush, then the latest polls prove you wrong. Clark did the best in a head-to-head poll against Bush, and Dean did among the worst. I'm not saying Dean can't beat Bush - he very well may be able to - but there is no basis for claiming that Dean is the strongest candidate in terms of his chances for winning.

Clark

>has a great resume but he still hasn't presented any specific

>course of action.

When it comes to having four stars on his shirt, the "resume" matters a lot - especially in a time of war, which is where we are, and especially against an Administration trying to scare people into believing that they have a monopoly on national security issues.

As for specific viewss, I think Clark has presented a lot. He has been unambiguous in his opposition to the war in Iraq for as long as Dean has. He favors a repeal of tax cuts applied to the top taxpayers. He's pro-choice, "pro-affirmative-action," and pro-gun-control. I don't like some of those views, but I think he's been pretty specific, particularly in light of the fact that he's been running for about 10 days now.

RE: Wesley Clark off to a GREAT start! NOT!

I cannot imagine any circumstances under which I would vote for Lieberman. We might as well install Ariel Sharon in the White House.

RE: Tribal attack on Dean gathers steam!

>>What do you mean, failed? Did Saddam come back? Is Iraqi

>oil

>>money once again being used to reward the families of

>>Palestinian homicide bombers? If so, no one mentioned it to

>>me.

>I issue the same challenge to you and your on-line zionist

>friends now as I did before and during the war, if you know

>where the WMD are please tell us and please tell Mr. Blix.

>BTW, wasn't the war supposed to remake the middle east and

>have the Palestinians cry "uncle"?

You've gotten your arguments mixed up, but you've come to the right place for help. YOUR theory is that the war is the brainchild of a bunch of Jewish neocons in America who scammed Bush into going along with it because their real loyalty is to Israel and they wanted to eliminate a threat to that country. By YOUR theory, the war has been a big success. Saddam has been eliminated and an Arab nation with a huge amount of oil and thus a huge potential source of money for the Palestinian cause has been neutralized for years to come, all without a single Israeli soldier risking his life. How could any true Zionist fail to be pleased by that?

>Haven't heard that yet,

>have you? And, I guess you just don't give a shit about your

>countyman being picked off each day in Iraq? You ought to be

>shot for treason for your loyalty to Israel, or at the very

>least made a butt boy prison room-mate of Jonothan Pollard!

You seem awfully angry. I'm glad about that, because I think you are a detestable creature and the thought of your blood pressure rising to dangerous levels is a pleasant one. If you're ready to cool off, why not take my earlier suggestion to make an appointment with Devon? As we know, he enjoys having younger men beat the crap out of him. If he agrees to wear a yellow star on his clothing you'll get to enjoy your favorite fantasy as well, so it'll be a win-win situation!

Bush/Halliburton 2004!

Nothing is scarier then Halliburton! Did you hear they gave Cheney $160K or so in 2002? We all know what he gave them.

I take that back, the republican companies making all the new voting machines are scarier then Halliburton, in that they crush even the possibility (though remote) of ever getting rid of these greedy fucks!

RE: Bush/Halliburton 2004!

>I take that back, the republican companies making all the new

>voting machines are scarier then Halliburton, in that they

>crush even the possibility (though remote) of ever getting rid

>of these greedy fucks!

We need to work on getting a paper trail for those Diebold machines so each voter can verify that his/her correct vote was recorded. Currently, most do not. Go to this website and sign the petition http://www.verifiedvoting.org/, or write to your local paper or Congressperson. This is important for all of us, regardless of your political affiliation.

RE: Wesley Clark off to a GREAT start! NOT!

>I cannot imagine any circumstances under which I would vote

>for Lieberman. We might as well install Ariel Sharon in the

>White House.

I thought he already had been installed at the White House!

:-)

RE: Wesley Clark off to a GREAT start! NOT!

>Still undecided about Dean should he get the

>nomination. I get the vibe that he has a Jimmy Carter view of

>foreign policy. That just ain't gonna fly with me.

Yes, indeed - human rights and justice, how passe!

RE: Bush/Halliburton 2004!

Rick:

I get a "page not found" page when I try your verifiedvoting.org link.

RE: Bush/Halliburton 2004!

>I get a "page not found" page when I try your

>verifiedvoting.org link.

Hmmm...try this: http://www.verifiedvoting.org/