I will continue this weekly post as long as it maintains interest.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 20, 2000

Answers

What interest percentage did you want it to maintain?

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), December 20, 2000.

I, for one, appreciate the time you take on this board and in no way disbelieve your statement as to the reason. Keep up the good work.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 20, 2000.

I heard there was one defector in the electoral college-in Washington DC itself. One elector was supposed to vote for Gore, but opted not to cast their vote at all.

-- Epona (crystalepona2000@yahoo.com), December 20, 2000.

This chat thread was created in order to try to consolidate the many political threads going on during the recount, etc. As the country moves on, I would expect fewer and fewer postings. At same time it may no longer serve its purpose, since individual threads can be used. Will have to play it by ear.

Also, just because it is used, does not mean someone cannot start of new politically-related threat anytime they want. Usage is suggested, but certainly not mandatory.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 20, 2000.

Clinton wants Americans to become more dependent on poorer countries for our food in an effort to end world-wide poverty: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7247-2000Dec14.html

-- Epona (crystalepona2000@yahoo.com), December 20, 2000.

From George's cabinet appointment list and his public statements, he *appears* to be taking dead aim at the political center. Is anyone surprised?

(:raig

-- Craig Miller (CMiller@ssd.com), December 20, 2000.

A sarcastic observation here. For someone whos opposed to affirmative action GW instead has taken it to new heights with his appointments of Rice, Powell, and his white house counsel---a hispanic judge from the Tex supreme court.

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), December 20, 2000.

I am not surprised one bit that Bush is seeking the center. As a Republican he is a centrist at best. Most conservative republicans knew that from the getgo. Most true conservatives were voting against Clinton more than they were voting for Bush. I just hope the man can bring some dignity back to the highest office in the nation. As for affirmative action, being against enforced racial quotas in hiring and recruiting, doesn't make you a racist. It means that you believe in personal responsibility, and fairness for everyone, no matter what their race. It means that you believe in Hiring and recruitment on the basis of qualification, and skill. This means that if two people come before you, one qualified and the other unqualified, you hire the qualified one, regardless of their race. If you hire for any other reason, then you insult the intelligence of both the parties involved. I think that President-elect Bush is demonstrating this admirably in his cabinet choices. I am proud of his obvious disregard of racial differences in his choices. He was known for that in his home state, and he is taking that into the whitehouse with him. How wonderful that he is taking responsibility for choosing the most qualified regardless of race. I don't think anyone could call Colin Powell unqualified.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), December 20, 2000.

Maybe the point here is that both Powell and Rice have stated that *they* are in favor of affirmative action, which runs counter to the current Republican platform.

I listened to Talk of the Nation yesterday on NPR and it was an interesting discussion. The guests were Republican leaders and the topic was about how the right wing of the party was going to deal with the fact that Bush will have to stay center in order to accomplish things. I won't recap, but I am interested in how this dynamic is going to play out within the party.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 20, 2000.

I am all for giving his new appointments a chance to prove themselves before passing judgment. I hope they turn our wonderful, after all women deserve a chance also.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 20, 2000.

Yes, there was one elector who didn't cast their vote even though it had been pledged to Gore. She was a Democrat who said it was a protest because Washington D.C. should have more representation in congress. She also said she wouldn't have withheld the vote if that would have affected the outcome. It's probally time for all the states to take a hard look at their current laws concerning the powers of their electors.

I'm pleased so far with Bush's picks for cabinet members. He's going to have to run the country from the center to be effective and I think they've known that all along. Powell and Rices opinions on Affirmative action will probally be an asset to the GOP in the long run.

-- Mark M in NC (MagicMark85@aol.com), December 20, 2000.

When JFK took office in '61, his chief of staff turned to him and asked,

"Now that we're [Democrats] in power, don't you want to make up a hit list of all the Republicans that gave you such a hard time durng the campaign?"

JFK replied, "No. I need them to help run the country."

I'm with you LBF. The best person for the job. It sends a message to the rest of the world that a culturally diverse country like the U.S.of A. CAN pull together toward the common good.

(:raig

-- Craig Miller (CMiller@ssd.com), December 20, 2000.

I'd say that the GW was willing to appoint people who openly disagree with him on policy is a step in the right direction. Both will have to be listened to by GW and neither seem the type to have taken the jobs if they were only going to be paid lip service. True dialogue and diversity in the decison making process. Sounds like a plus to me.

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), December 20, 2000.

As I recall Clinton begged Mr Powell to accept a cabinet post and he turned him down flat. I'd say Mr Powell has a good head on his shoulders. Since I lived in Texas for most of the time that Mr Bush was governor I think I have a fairly good idea of what he is like. I personally like a lot of the things that he did in Texas. He didn't seem to be pushing a pet agenda (unlike Clinton....Mr UN). He supports homeschooling....which doesn't put money in the governments pocket. I'd encourage everyone to withhold judgement and give President Bush a chance. Goodness knows he couldn't be any worse than the last guys we had in power (they have embarassed the whole country...we are a laughing stock among other countries).

-- Amanda in Mo (aseley@townsqr.com), December 20, 2000.

It's freakin' me out that people are becoming accustomed to referring to Bush as GW....the first and possibly the last with the same initials? Uggh.

Anyway, he is doing exactly what all of us radicals said he would and surrounding himself with CFR folks. He's still beter than Prince Albert...by 10 or 15%. But let's be fair and give him a chance to mess up before we jump all over him.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), December 21, 2000.

I understand Bush's close friends just call him W.

He is coming into his administration with an interesting management style.

Think back, who, since WW-II have been considered both successful and popular Presidents? I would say Eisenhower and Reagan. Eisenhower come out of the military and, from what I have read, he ran the civilan government much like he had the military. Meetings with the the cabinet secretaries were more like a military staff meeting with each giving updates and reports. Reagan define 'the image' and then let others implement it.

Bush is apparently going to take the Chief Executive Office approach, with the VP his Chief Operating Officer. Cabinet offices will likely have to work through the VP. Never before has a VP had this much power or influence. Should be an interesting four years.

And you can expect Bush to keep his routine of daily exercising and an afternoon nap.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 21, 2000.

Ken, you said "you can expect Bush to keep his routine of daily exercising and an afternoon nap." I did not know that, guess he might be OK after all.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 21, 2000.

WAIT A MINUTE!

*W* is going to take afternoon naps AND run the country??? Hmmmmmmm. Well, I have 1/2 the formula down pat.

(:raig

-- Craig (CMiller@ssd.com), December 21, 2000.

I call him GW because it has such a nice good-old-boy ring to it don't you think?

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), December 21, 2000.

I don't mind the nickname "GW". It does have a ring to it though I'm not sure it's "redneck". I like it alot better than the one liberals always use., "Dubya". It's not even spelled right.

Does anyone know the status of Pres. Clintons effort to declare certain Alaska land off limits to oil exploration?

i think it's alot better than the

-- Mark M in NC (MagicMark85@aol.com), December 21, 2000.

The last sentance in my previous post was a typo. Please excuse me.

-- Mark M in NC (MagicMark85@aol.com), December 21, 2000.

My wife said she heard on the news that some city has indicated that they would prefer that one of the candidates not return to their city until outstanding bills were paid. Has anyone heard this and know which candidate it is refering to?

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), December 22, 2000.

I thought you all MIGHT find this site interesting -- or not . . .

A Q&A on the Supreme Court decisions, from a lawyer's point of view:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20001218_levine.html

Note: there's a link in that article to a Miami Herald page that doesn't work. This is the page he's referring to: http://www.herald.com/content/archive/news/elect2000/decision/104268.h tm

-- Joy Froelich (dragnfly@chorus.net), December 24, 2000.

Some forum members have the opinion the Electorial College should be retained, since it maintains smaller, less populated states in the process, but the Electorial Voters should be apportioned according to the voting percents in each state for each candidate.

Let's look at one scenario: 1992, Clinton, Bush and Perot. Assume Perot had won 25% of the national vote. Logically that says he should receive 25% of the Electorial votes, or 134. That was likely enough to not give at least 270 Electorial votes to Clinton. At this point the election of a President and VP would be throw in the House and Senate; respectively. Each state has one vote. Can you imagine the Chinese firedrill this would have been! Imagine the power position it would put Perot in in that he could possibly form a collition with either candidate to where he gains some say-so in how the government is run or who are appointed to cabinet positions, other government positions, the U.S. Supreme Court or even federal judges. Even worse, due to a stalemate in the House, they elect Perot (or anyone else - they have that right) as a compromise President. The two-party system and the Electorial College. If they ain't broke, don't try to fix 'em.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 25, 2000.

Ken S., I surely agree with you. If an election is decided by the House, the current majority party should win. People that want to do away with the Electoral College probably do not understand how it functions under the Constitution. In fact, most people probably have not read the constitution in the last ten years, let along know what is says. There is a very good reason our founding fathers chose a republic form of governments; just look how polls can change at any whim or latest piece of gossip and you will see why a true democracy would have problems.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 25, 2000.

JLS:

Let's even bring it more current. Say Nadar had won 5% of the popular vote nationwide this year (and 27 Electorial votes). It would have surely put the elections in the hands of Congress. Say Buccanon had won 1% of the popular vote. Would he be entitled to 5 Electorial votes also?

Based on polls, if Powell had run as an independent, he might have won up to 35% of the vote, likely giving him more votes than Gore (since Afro-Americans would likely have voted overwhelmingly for Powell), or Bush (since he would have drawn away his conservative support.

Let's stick with a two-party system and the Electorial College as it is.

On another matter: Every five years the CIA sponsors a report which tries to predict what the future will look like in 15 years. For a copy of this fairly lengthy report go to either:

http://odci.gov/cia/publications/globaltrends2015/index.html

or

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,92805,00.html

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 26, 2000.

ipppppppppppppppppppp

-- Pisstawff (redcoyot@pacbell.net), July 25, 2001.

This is to those who feign indignation over "dubya" as a title for our APPOINTED amateur. How does the "appointed idiot"sound?

So far, in just six months, he's managed to roll back our environmental protection laws to near nonexistence.

He's brought our economy to the brink of disaster.

He's passed a tax cut which is nearly useless to any but the power elite at a time when our economy is on a long slow slide to deficit spending and probable Social Social rip offs.

He's flatly refused to allow a penny to go toward the national debt which continues to grow at over a million dollars every hours with that number increasing by the minute.

He's trying to get NAFTA expanded to include the rest of the Western Hemisphere which will surly suck what little remains of our manufacturing infrastructure south of the border.

He's planning to legalize millions of illegal aliens merely to build his political power base.

He rescinded Bill Clintons lowering of arsenic levels in our drinking water.

He's managed to piss off nearly ever first world nation on the planet with his playing footsie with the leader of a still potentially dangerous enemy and literally kissing another head of state and refusing to listen to the rest.

He's brought us to the ragged edge of another Cold War with his moronic gobbledygook speech pattern and stupidly and arrogantly postured, saber rattling, rabble rousing rhetoric concerning missiles.

He's allow the corporate elite to ride rough shod over American citizens by paving the way for their gluttonous wholesale price gouging of fuel and energy which rallied that "tax cut" for the common people to the status of a fart in a whirlwind.

I could go on but you get my drift.

-- pisstawff (redcoyot@pacbell.net), July 25, 2001.

Bush had nothing to do with the economy going into recession. Please state one fact that supports your claim. I can name countless facts that show how 8 years of Clinton policy let our economy spiral out of control and come crashing down. Any liberal who jumped on the blame Bush bandwagon is making themselves look very foolish. They started the minute he got into office. Excuse me but he walked into the mess the dems had made over the 8 years they were at the wheel. Please name one policy or agenda he instituted to hurt out economy. You can't, all you have is the weak rhetoric that most people are tired of hearing. The disinfo and attack style of the dems is helping to dig their own grave. Reality is our economy started downtrending before Bush was even nominated to run. The stock market got out of control and took its biggest hit months before Bush was even nominated to run. Go look at the numbers and facts. It's insane that the libs blame Bush when it was Clinton who was at the wheel for the past 8 years. Economic policy doesn't take effect overnight. Clinton and Greenspan are who is to blame. Same with the energy problems, the makings for that built up over the 8 years Clinton was in power. His cabinet did everything they could to hold off paying the piper until he was out of office. 8 years they went with basically no energy policy whatsoever. Bush walks into the mess they made and gets the blame. All you liberal dems have left anymore is disinfo and baseless claims. Keep it up, you're doing a great job of turning the public against you.

-- somebody (something@somewhere.com), July 25, 2001.

I'm not a Republican or in love with Bush but I do have an appreciation for facts and reality.

"So far, in just six months, he's managed to roll back our environmental protection laws to near nonexistence."

That's complete nonsense. The EPA is still in existance and enforcing 99.9999% of the 10s of 1000s of regulations that were in effect before Bush came into office.

"He's brought our economy to the brink of disaster."

Our economy was at the brink of disaster nearly 2 years ago. Go look at the numbers, the CPI, GDP, ECI numbers, NAPM index, etc. Take a look at the djia and nasdaq compx charts over the past few years. You'll see the damage was done long before anyone though of Bush being our President. Clinton ignored it and our Fed Reserve Chairman actions were a little too late to save it.

"He's passed a tax cut which is nearly useless to any but the power elite at a time when our economy is on a long slow slide to deficit spending and probable Social Social rip offs."

Being on a low income these past few years, I can attest that the Bush tax plan has done more for me than anything Clinton ever did in the 8 years he was in office. I'm impressed that Bush accomplished this within months of taking office.

"He's flatly refused to allow a penny to go toward the national debt which continues to grow at over a million dollars every hours with that number increasing by the minute."

At least Bush is determined to not add more to it. Most of that debt can be traced to Democratic agendas and policy.

"He's trying to get NAFTA expanded to include the rest of the Western Hemisphere which will surly suck what little remains of our manufacturing infrastructure south of the border."

I applaud the efforts that Bush is making with Mexico. It's about time we worked with our neighbors instead of sending all our money overseas. Anything that benefits Mexico will surely benefit us in the end. Most of our manufacturing infrastructure has been in Asia for many years. Turn over your mouse, keyboard, look at your tags on your clothes, your kids toys, etc, etc and see where they come from.

"He's planning to legalize millions of illegal aliens merely to build his political power base."

A few million that have already been here for years. A very tiny % of our population. Instituting policy for the purpose of building power bases is a true Democrat agenda they've practiced for years. Where's the compassion for aliens that the dems used to claim the gop didn't have?

"He rescinded Bill Clintons lowering of arsenic levels in our drinking water."

big deal, he only did that to revamp a flawed policy and nobody has died or been poisoned.

"He's managed to piss off nearly ever first world nation on the planet with his playing footsie with the leader of a still potentially dangerous enemy and literally kissing another head of state and refusing to listen to the rest."

Really? Where do you get your world news from?

"He's brought us to the ragged edge of another Cold War with his moronic gobbledygook speech pattern and stupidly and arrogantly postured, saber rattling, rabble rousing rhetoric concerning missiles."

Excuse me but it's China and Russia who started with that rhetoric. I'd rather have a President that can take a stand than get on his knees like Clinton did so many times with China.

"He's allow the corporate elite to ride rough shod over American citizens by paving the way for their gluttonous wholesale price gouging of fuel and energy which rallied that "tax cut" for the common people to the status of a fart in a whirlwind."

Bush didn't pave the way for that. Our economy based on capitalism allows that. In the grand scheme of things, a few months of inflated fuel prices mean little. I guess you're ignoring that fuel prices got inflated while Clinton was in office. Remember fuel oil 2 winters ago?

"I could go on but you get my drift."

Yup...

-- somebody (something@somewhere.com), July 25, 2001.

There are no doubt many facets to the job of president of the United States of America. One of the most important I believe is the ability to communicate. If the pres is stating his ideas, we are in serious trouble. If he is merely tongue tied, good god, how did he ever get where he is? Oh I forgot, daddy. It's his job folks. Our lives may rest on his tongue. Please check out www.bushisms.com/index1a.html Hard to believe, our education president.hahahahahahha

-- jz (oz49us@yahoo.com), July 25, 2001.