Kerry concedes election?

[eldaec]

I'm not an American and I don't live in America.

But as most of you are, I thought it worth posting this.

The media over here is suggesting that Kerry's announcement that 'iraq was a mistake' is intended to make the campaign about iraq.

What? Is he nuts or something? People vote on the basis of a decision that got made years ago and can't be changed now? And in a situation where opposing it tells you nothing about what you want to do from here? Only way I could imagine it being useful is if Kerry is about to advocate cut and run as a strategy, but I can't seriously imagine the American electorate would go for that, would they? And surely anything other than cut and run is going to look indistinguishable from Bush policy going forward? The rest of the world seems to be anticipating that Kerry would provide exactly the same policies, but coming from someone that the French don't have to disagree with on a reflex simply due to 'chattering class' snobbery. Is there even a detectable difference in policy from your perspective?

Is there even anything remotely interesting left to say about iraq that is going even slightly influence anyone not already dedicated to voting anti-bush?

Am I missing something?

Given the current options I don't really care much who wins the US presidency, and frankly if it were my country I'd hope they both lose. But does this look just as suicidal from your side of the atlantic?

[Resvrgam]

Funny how pathetic this outdated system looks to the rest of the world.

The reason I don't vote: It signs me up for jury duty (great, like being forced to sit in on a court hearing and being paid crap to do it will improve my position in life - "You're the bastard in the jury that said 'Guilty!'").

Besides, the futility of how useless we, the "middle-to-low-class" people's, votes really are was made painfully obvious to us when Dubbya had his oil buddies get him into office (despite losing the "popularity contest" to Gore - which I'd also want out of the White House).

Voting in the states feels like walking up to a booth that has two buttons: "Poke in the eye" or "Kick in the groin."

Politics = Marketing for people instead of products (lie to someone long enough to make them buy your product).  Welcome to the land of illusion...would you like "freedom fries" with that?

[Boogaleeboo]

Rounded down, in your defense, could you tell me how many times you stopped to rub your sore vagina while typing that?

You can count them in dozens if it's less embarassing.

As for your "lower to middle class vote not counting", on the contrary. It was a relative handful of lower to middle class votes that GOT Bush the election. If a few thousand more [which might as well be a handful in a country of 300 million] how gotten out in a few key states, you wouldn't have Bush.

Of course stupid people like you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, and find it easier to bemoan the state of the world and how corrupt everything is rather than, you know, try anything that could be productive.

[eldaec]

I should be clear, as a representative of 'the rest of the world'. The US system looks no worse than anyone elses.

Inventing viable political systems is hard.

[Tebonas]

As another representative of "the rest of the world" I disagree with your opinion. The US election system is dated and doesn't differentiate enough. It has the drawbacks of every bipolar system and adds problems of its own due to that Electoral College. Its a republican system, no true democracy.

That is no attack on the US either, just an observation. Just wanted to make clear you are not the sole opinion of all "restworlders".

[stray]

Is there even anything remotely interesting left to say about iraq that is going even slightly influence anyone not already dedicated to voting anti-bush?

Contrary to what I've previously said in the past, I'm seeing myself becoming very Anti-Bush (not really Pro-Kerry though) lately. All because of Iraq. We need to leave that shithole, one way or another. It could very well become a single-issue for me come election day.

[eldaec]

problems of its own due to that Electoral College

Should be noted that 'that Electoral Colledge' allows states to write their own rules (democratically selected) for the distribution of their votes.

It's a system with far more genuine federal subsidiarity built in than, say, the EU.

I'm not saying it's perfect, just no worse than the alternatives.

[plangent]

I'm not an American and I don't live in America.

It would be helpful to know where you do live.  I'm from the US.

The media over here is suggesting that Kerry's announcement that 'iraq was a mistake' is intended to make the campaign about iraq.

What? Is he nuts or something? People vote on the basis of a decision that got made years ago and can't be changed now?

Yes, they do.  You see, since no one can tell the future they're often forced to look at the past in order draw conclusions about what the future may hold.  Since I don't know where you are from I can't provide any relevant examples in your own country.

And in a situation where opposing it tells you nothing about what you want to do from here?

Umm, how about not fabricating any more evidence to justify invading countries which pose no immediate threat to US national security?  Sometimes what you don't do is even more important than what you do, and this is the type of behavior that incited the Second World War (both in Europe and in Asia).  We may all be better off if the US stops doing this kind of thing.

Only way I could imagine it being useful is if Kerry is about to advocate cut and run as a strategy, but I can't seriously imagine the American electorate would go for that, would they? And surely anything other than cut and run is going to look indistinguishable from Bush policy going forward?

I'm not quite sure how you're coming to these conclusions.  How does saying that the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq imply any course for future action?  (Btw-  "going forward" means physically moving in the direction you are facing.  The phrase you were looking for is, "in the days to come."  Just because corporations insist on bastardizing English doesn't mean you have to.)

The rest of the world seems to be anticipating that Kerry would provide exactly the same policies, but coming from someone that the French don't have to disagree with on a reflex simply due to 'chattering class' snobbery. Is there even a detectable difference in policy from your perspective?

You sure do sound like you're from the US.  Canadian maybe...  I would just add to this that France is not the only country in the world that will reflexively oppose anything with the Bush stamp on it.  I don't see how removing a President who incites such a reaction in the rest of the world would be a bad thing or an insignificant change.

Is there even anything remotely interesting left to say about iraq that is going even slightly influence anyone not already dedicated to voting anti-bush?

Just the degree to which the White House knowingly fabricated the evidence to go to war, whether or not they advocated the policies which led to Abu-Ghareb, why they aren't spending the resources which have been allocated to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, what's happening to the oil money placed in trust for the Iraqi people, and to what degree have Halliburton and other corporate interests colluded with the Bush administration to profit off this fiasco (to name a few).

Am I missing something?

I'm leaning towards a yes on this one.

Given the current options I don't really care much who wins the US presidency, and frankly if it were my country I'd hope they both lose. But does this look just as suicidal from your side of the atlantic?

Both lose, eh?  From the last line I'll take one more guess and say you're English.  Frankly that scares me and I hope I'm wrong about that.  Since I don't know I'll just assume that you are English.  You say you don't care who wins the US presidency, but I'd like to remind you that quite a large number of British soldiers are in Iraq right now because of who won the 2000 US Presidential election.  Reflect on that and perhaps you'll give this issue the thought it deserves.

[daveNYC]

Kerry would be far better off talking about the future than the past.  It's all well and good to say that Iraq was a mistake, but now that we're there I think people are more concerned with how we're going to deal with that mistake.

[Soukyan]

Boog is Ross Perot. That is all.

[Tairnyn]

The lack of directed strategy is my current gripe with Kerry right now. Granted, I can understand why he wouldn't want to share policies which Bush might have time to use or block, but for god's sake man take a stand on something. If he wants to combat the political leverage Bush has being in current power, he's going to need some good policies to stand on.

While I find GWB to be a moronic, lobby pandering, money monger, I can't bring myself to vote for someone that has said nothing at all about what they plan to do in office. Until that changes, my vote will be for Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party. I'd rather put my vote towards stregnthening a 3rd party (5% vote means funding next year for the party) than hopping on the advertising bandwagon and choosing a President like I'd choose a light beer.

[plangent]

I'd rather put my vote towards stregnthening a 3rd party (5% vote means funding next year for the party) than hopping on the advertising bandwagon and choosing a President like I'd choose a light beer.

As long as you realize that this is the logic (re: Ralph Nader) which allowed Bush to win the 2000 election then do as you will.  It's your nickel.

[Comstar]

If you want to invade Iran, and let the DPRK get nukes, don't vote for Kerry.

[SirBruce]

I'm curious how your country's news was portraying the election before Kerry's latest speech, because the election has been "about Iraq" for over a year now.  Initially Bush's opponents last year were reluctant to say anything bad about our Iraq policy because they felt, even though some things were starting to look bad, that Americans would not tolerate such criticism because it would be viewed as unpatriotic.  It took Howard Dean to be one of the first to criticize Iraq that enabled other Democrat Party challengers to do so as well, and ultimately John Kerry getting nominated.

You may wonder, then, why is Kerry's speech such a big deal?  Beats the hell out of most of us here.  This is Kerry's latest "Iraq policy/position" speech and he's had over a dozen different ones so far.  Each one is subtly different from the last in order to try to find just the right words that would appeal to the most voters.  Like many politicians, Kerry has no REAL opinion of right and wrong on the issue; he simply says what he thinks is most politically expedient at the time.

Kerry isn't nuts, but he is misguided.  While a lot of Americans were unhappy with how things in Iraq turned out, most of them are already going to vote for Kerry.  He is being "forced" to talk more about Iraq, because the administration had made him look wishy-washy on the issue, and he was taking a lot of heat from his Vietnam-era politics, and his own campaign had literally become "de-energized"... he was losing support among Democrats, not so much because they were going to vote for Bush, but because they were no longer enthusiastic about Kerry.

Many of Kerry's proposed Iraq policies are not that different from Bush's at all.  Rather, he's trying to say, "The other guy screwed up, and I can do better." without anyone being able to challenge him on that because, frankly, none of us can know whether he'd do better or not in the future.  You marvel at the idea Americans would throw out one guy for making mistakes without knowing that the other guy would do any better.   One thing to remember is that in the US system, you rarely have the same guy running for President more than once (unless he won, in which case he runs twice).  So it's not like European countries where you have the left-party leader who wins, and then the right-party leader wins, and then he's running against the same left-party leader the next time and everyone can say, "Yeah, remember how it was when he was PM last time?"  So it is much more of a contest of the Devil you know vs. the Devil you don't know.  Also, the American electorate is traditionally pretty eager to punish someone for their short-term failures over their long-term accomplishments.  They tried to do it with Nixon and Clinton, and they succeeded in doing it against Ford, Carter, and Bush 41.  It's entirely possible they'd do it to Bush 43.

If Kerry really wants to make some progress on swing voters, he should be talking more about domestic policy, economics, taxes, jobs, gay marriage, etc.  But instead the Republicans have forced him to play the game on "their turf", and that is a losing battle.  As it stands now, both sides have pretty much given up on the swing voters.  Both are concentrating heavily on getting their base out to vote, and focusing on only a few key states which will decide this election.

Oh, and the electoral college really isn't as big a deal as you might think it is given the last election.  It's still quite important, even this time around, but historically it has only been a big issue a few times.  It's merely a symptom of a larger problem, which is that voters are highly polarized between two parties and they are unwilling to vote for the other guy so long as certain key issues are at stake.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

I'd rather put my vote towards stregnthening a 3rd party (5% vote means funding next year for the party) than hopping on the advertising bandwagon and choosing a President like I'd choose a light beer.

As long as you realize that this is the logic (re: Ralph Nader) which allowed Bush to win the 2000 election then do as you will.  It's your nickel.

Don't forget Pat Buchanan.  His votes in 2000 made 3 other states extremely close for Gore (and might have gone for Bush had there been a recount in those states).

Bruce

[Dark Vengeance]

If Kerry wants to turn the election into a referendum on Iraq, he could very well be his own worst enemy on the matter.

Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.

We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

But it gets better....he has been every bit as self-contradictory on funding the war....not just through the infamous vote either.

We should increase funding [for the war in Iraq] by whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win.

$200 billion [for Iraq] that we're not investing in education and health care, and job creation here at home. ... That's the wrong choice.

Oh, and on troop levels....in the span of less than one year:

We should not send more American troops. That would be the worst thing.

If it requires more troops ... that's what you have to do.

I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops.

But what about John Kerry's plan for the future in Iraq? Let's check his website:

First, the president must secure international support. Second, we must commit to a serious effort to train Iraqi security forces. Third, we must carry out a reconstruction plan that brings benefits to the Iraqi people, and fourth, we must take the necessary steps to hold elections next year

Let's compare to Bush:

(1) handing over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government; (2) helping establish the stability and security in Iraq that democracy requires; (3) continuing to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure; (4) encouraging more international support; and (5) moving toward free, national elections that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people.

I have to admit, both plans sound pretty good (and pretty similar)...but Kerry came to his near-identical plan nearly 3 months after Bush laid out his own strategy on Iraq.

The difference-maker Kerry runs into here is that Americans know what Bush's plan will be 6 months from now.....but with Kerry, it seems that sort of a prediction is a crapshoot, even for Kerry himself.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Shannow]

As a foriegn national living in the States I'd say the biggest problem with the US political system is the Presidency itself. I can't think of another nation that directly elects a head of state that is has as many powers as that of the US presidency.

While I have no idea whether it wouldve made things better or worse, how interesting would history have been if the founding fathers had gone with a Westminister style parliament with a largely ceromonial officer of the President?

[DarkDryad]

Is there even anything remotely interesting left to say about iraq that is going even slightly influence anyone not already dedicated to voting anti-bush?

Contrary to what I've previously said in the past, I'm seeing myself becoming very Anti-Bush (not really Pro-Kerry though) lately. All because of Iraq. We need to leave that shithole, one way or another. It could very well become a single-issue for me come election day.

problem is that when you single out one issue you basicly say fuck the world on everything else.

[SirBruce]

The President actually has very few powers.  In what you are talking about, he is more like a Prime Minister.  Now, it's true, the PM is generally elected by the ruling party, not the electorate... but in the US, it's always someone the parties nominate, so it's not like the party would pick someone else to lead them.  The only difference is we can have a President/PM of a different party than the one currently controlling Congress, which many people see as a good thing.

As head of the executive branch, the President's powers are mostly those that Congress has delegated to him in executing their laws.  In terms of actual decision-making authority, only the President can nominate Supreme Court judges, and he controls the armed forces, but that's about it.  He can negotiate treatires but they are meaningless unless the Senate ratifies them.

His major power is the threat to veto any legilation, which means it can't become law unless an even larger majority in Congress revotes on it, and in these days of a very close Congress that's very unlikely.  The basic result of this isn't that what the President wants always gets through, but that what the opposition wants rarely gets through, and we get legislation that is usually somewhere in the middle.

Bruce

[Tairnyn]

I'd rather put my vote towards stregnthening a 3rd party (5% vote means funding next year for the party) than hopping on the advertising bandwagon and choosing a President like I'd choose a light beer.

As long as you realize that this is the logic (re: Ralph Nader) which allowed Bush to win the 2000 election then do as you will.  It's your nickel.

I'm not anti-Bush. I'm pro common sense. Neither candidate seems to possess that quality at this point. It's like asking me to vote for the Best Movie Ever and giving me Alien vs. Predator and Anaconda as the choices. Hype does not a good candidate make.

I refuse to place my vote based on peer pressure or some mystical assertion that my one vote will turn the tides of our political system. As a resident of NY state it's actually exponentially more likely that my vote will make no difference.

I'm placing my vote for the future of our political system. An analysis of the candidates would indicate we're already screwed, so I figure it's time to put my effort towards something I can actually believe in. Some of us actually vote for those with policies that align the most with their own set of values.. go figure.

[Sky]

The reason I don't vote: It signs me up for jury duty

If more people would be willing to make sacrifices in their life for civic duty, the country'd be a lot nicer place.

I'm ABB. I want the fringe Republican hawks out of the administration. In four years I'll go back to voting Libertarian, right now I feel there's a threat to our nation's integrity that I can do something about. ABB.

I just wish Sharpton had gotten the nomination.

[Sky]

The difference-maker Kerry runs into here is that Americans know what Bush's plan will be 6 months from now....

Yes, Bush will repeal more environmental laws, resurrect more ancient statutes and loopholes for corporate concerns, invade at least one more nation that is not a direct threat to our nation, create global animosity against our nation, and balloon the deficit to unimagined proportions.

At least Kerry won't do most of that. Better to have 4 years of treading water than 4 more years of sinking with concrete shoes.

[Shannow]

Control of the armed forces, power to nominate supreme court justices and veto legislation are pretty big powers. Its also his office, albiet with congressional approval, who appoints cabinet members etc.

The president has a lot of 'power' whether it is written in law or not, he is very much the visible representation of the US to the rest of the world, his office dictates to a large extent foriegn and domestic policy. He is , as we've been often told, the one controlling national security through the armed forces and intelligence services.

And whats concerning is that this office is decided by seperate election, which , in parts has devolved into a popularity contest. He then appoints his own cabinet and is, in some regards, a lot less accountable than a Prime Minister ever has to be.

A Prime Minister he ain't. PM's for one are not the head of state, there is a President, Governor General or Monarch above them. They have their own electorate and they must be elected by their own party and he chooses his cabinet from other elected members of parliement. And Im sure that at times that doesnt make it any better than the US system. But the fact that he must keep his party elected to keep his own job makes for much more differences in the execution of his job.

Small example to think about: How different wouldve WWII been if FDR had been the PM of a democrat controlled congress?

[Dark Vengeance]

Yes, Bush will repeal more environmental laws, resurrect more ancient statutes and loopholes for corporate concerns, invade at least one more nation that is not a direct threat to our nation, create global animosity against our nation, and balloon the deficit to unimagined proportions.

Sheesh, and Edwards is saying that Bush is the campaign of "fear-mongers"?? Yet Kerry/Edwards supporters are so quick to shout "OMG BUSH WANTS TO INVADE YOUR HOME LIKE BIG BROTHER! HE WANTS TO SELL YOU INTO SLAVE LABOR TO HIS CORPORATE BUDDIES! BUSH WANTS TO DOUSE BABY SEALS IN CRUDE OIL WHILE STARTING FOREST FIRES!!! BUSH WANTS TO MORTGAGE OUR FUTURE TO INVADE COUNTRIES CUZ HE THINKS WAR IS SUPER FUN!".....go figure.

If most of those points were even worth refuting in the context of this discussion, I'll eschew a rebuttal in favor of pointing out that YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN THE ORIGINAL POSTER'S POINT, AND MY POINT.

That point being that Kerry is stupid to make Iraq the focal point of his campaign. Discussing the environment, the economy, corporate tax laws, deficit spending, healthcare, social security, stem cell research, US Intel reforms, or the finer details of the Patriot Act.....any combination of those would be a better platform for Kerry.

At least Kerry won't do most of that. Better to have 4 years of treading water than 4 more years of sinking with concrete shoes.

Hyperbole for teh win. Given the challenges of the past 4 years, I think it is remarkable that we are doing as well as a country as we are today. Could we have done better? Sure......no matter what you do it could always have been done better.

Perhaps if Kerry would stop emulating those Brett Favre MasterCard commercials by simply second-guessing what Bush has done, he could try and put forth a clear coherent detailed plan on what he is going to do over the next 4 years, and present it in a way that makes it palatable to the democratic base, as well as swing voters and disgruntled conservatives.

But no, let's keep trying to bring up questions about the President's stint in the National Guard, let's keep up the "I would have double bagged it" routine about Iraq, and tossing accusations about collusion with 527 groups.

Yeah, that sure is smart of Kerry. He should continue to try and attack the President by using a tack that exposes his own greatest weakness. If he keeps it up, his only hope will be to absolutely irrefutably dominate Bush in the debates.....otherwise, he could easily become Dukakis Part 2.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Ardent]

The reason I don't vote: It signs me up for jury duty

Besides, the futility of how useless we, the "middle-to-low-class" people's

Get an education. This achieves the following:

- gets you a decent job that pays you for your jury duty service time
- said job will raise you up from the lower class
- will also help keep you from looking like an unthinking ignoramus

Your "I'm too cool to care" attitude is exactly what the Powers That Be want to keep you submissive.

Yet Kerry/Edwards supporters are so quick to shout "OMG BUSH WANTS TO INVADE YOUR HOME LIKE BIG BROTHER! HE WANTS TO SELL YOU INTO SLAVE LABOR TO HIS CORPORATE BUDDIES! BUSH WANTS TO DOUSE BABY SEALS IN CRUDE OIL WHILE STARTING FOREST FIRES!!! BUSH WANTS TO MORTGAGE OUR FUTURE TO INVADE COUNTRIES CUZ HE THINKS WAR IS SUPER FUN!"

Talk about "hyperbole for teh win", good Christ.

[ahoythematey]

Yet Kerry/Edwards supporters are so quick to shout "OMG BUSH WANTS TO INVADE YOUR HOME LIKE BIG BROTHER! HE WANTS TO SELL YOU INTO SLAVE LABOR TO HIS CORPORATE BUDDIES! BUSH WANTS TO DOUSE BABY SEALS IN CRUDE OIL WHILE STARTING FOREST FIRES!!! BUSH WANTS TO MORTGAGE OUR FUTURE TO INVADE COUNTRIES CUZ HE THINKS WAR IS SUPER FUN!"

Talk about "hyperbole for teh win", good Christ.

Talk about, "out of context for teh win."

[Ardent]

Talk about, "out of context for teh win."

Ummm ... whaaa??

He was criticizing someone for hyperbole, while in the same post being quite hyperbolic himself. I was just making the connection. That's out of context because ... ?

[Shannow]

I really dont think the Democrats can raise a candle to the Bush teams fear mongering.

I mean there was that whole invading a whole other nation because they have WMDs they are about to use against us thing....whoops!

Sorry couldnt resist.:)

[Bunk]

A Prime Minister he ain't. PM's for one are not the head of state, there is a President, Governor General or Monarch above them. They have their own electorate and they must be elected by their own party and he chooses his cabinet from other elected members of parliement. And Im sure that at times that doesnt make it any better than the US system. But the fact that he must keep his party elected to keep his own job makes for much more differences in the execution of his job.

Well actually, as much as we like the Queen and all, Paul Martin is in fact the head of state in Canada.  Otherwise, I agree with your description.

And I do think its a better system, personally.

[Resvrgam]

I love how belligerent some people become when others express views that don't 100% align with their own.

First off, I have an education.  Secondly, like Health Care, education is too expensive and hard to access to those of us not born with a silver spoon in our asses.  You'd figure that two of the more important aspects to making a country's people more productive would be a little more accessible to them.

Currently, I work for a newspaper and get a chance to see a variety of AP articles not deemed for public knowledge.  The FCC claims this is to "avoid printing material that has not been 100% authenticated."   In actuality, it's a major truth-filter so that people with money can control what is printed in reputable media (Orwell was right but off by 20 years).  

Fortunately, the internet is an equalizer in some respects but many find it daunting to dig through all the crap to find "truth."

As for the dissenchantment: After seeing thousands of "Jessica Lynch's tale was a Hoax" stories (and millions more just like it) released by the BBC six months before it finally reached american news or the cloak and dagger crap I read about our presidential candidates, it reinforces the "poke in the eye or kick in the nuts" options.   Voting third party is only a wasted vote - not enough cash to buy the elections or media coverage.

I'm not submissive.  I'm realistic.  Democracy has become just an illusion.  The "haves" are ruling the world while the "have nots" are kept subordinate with illusions.

Spend a few years working in the world media and things start looking a little different from what we've been spoon fed.  Ignorance is bliss.

[HaemishM]

it's a major truth-filter so that people with money can control what is printed in reputable media

Who do you think CONTROLS the reputable media? People with money.

Fortunately, the internet is an equalizer in some respects

If you had said "Information wants to be free," you could not have looked more like the clueless optimism of the 90's dot bomb fiascos. See above.

I'm not submissive.  I'm realistic.  Democracy has become just an illusion.  The "haves" are ruling the world while the "have nots" are kept subordinate with illusions.

Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by/water flowing underground
Into the blue again/after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime/water flowing underground.

Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...

[ahoythematey]

Talk about, "out of context for teh win."

Ummm ... whaaa??

He was criticizing someone for hyperbole, while in the same post being quite hyperbolic himself. I was just making the connection. That's out of context because ... ?

The sad truth is that DV's exaggerated portrayal of the anti-bush crowd is barely exaggerated, or at least it seems so to me.

Oh, and out of context was not including the first part, that part being,

Sky wrote:
Yes, Bush will repeal more environmental laws, resurrect more ancient statutes and loopholes for corporate concerns, invade at least one more nation that is not a direct threat to our nation, create global animosity against our nation, and balloon the deficit to unimagined proportions.


Sheesh, and Edwards is saying that Bush is the campaign of "fear-mongers"?? Yet Kerry/Edwards supporters are so quick to shout "OMG BUSH WANTS TO INVADE YOUR HOME LIKE BIG BROTHER! HE WANTS TO SELL YOU INTO SLAVE LABOR TO HIS CORPORATE BUDDIES! BUSH WANTS TO DOUSE BABY SEALS IN CRUDE OIL WHILE STARTING FOREST FIRES!!! BUSH WANTS TO MORTGAGE OUR FUTURE TO INVADE COUNTRIES CUZ HE THINKS WAR IS SUPER FUN!".....go figure.

The remaining section loses it's initial tone without that first part.

[Shannow]

A Prime Minister he ain't. PM's for one are not the head of state, there is a President, Governor General or Monarch above them. They have their own electorate and they must be elected by their own party and he chooses his cabinet from other elected members of parliement. And Im sure that at times that doesnt make it any better than the US system. But the fact that he must keep his party elected to keep his own job makes for much more differences in the execution of his job.

Well actually, as much as we like the Queen and all, Paul Martin is in fact the head of state in Canada.  Otherwise, I agree with your description.

And I do think its a better system, personally.

You sure about that? Afaik Canada is like Australia in that the PM is the head of the government, the Governor General is the queens representative and therefore the defacto Head of State and the monarch is the true head of state.

Correct me if Im wrong?

[personman]

The reason I don't vote: It signs me up for jury duty

No protection in Texas - you have a driver's license, you're registered as a viable jury member.

Of course in Texas voting has become a largely symbolic activity.

I just wish Sharpton had gotten the nomination.

I'd like to see the GOP put a Republican on the ballot.

[Shannow]

Just a question but does that apply to non citizens? Must admit Ive always assumed that as a non citizen I cant vote, thats right yes?