response 151 of 406:

Oct 2 18:59 UTC 2000

As to the video and briefing books that were sent from Austin to the Gore
campaign, the FBI has turned up an Austin Post Office security video of
Yvette Lozano mailing an Express Mail package.  She has claimed it was a
pair of pants she was returning for her boss, but it turns out that the
label on the package received by Downey (Gore's guy) corresponds to the
date and time Lozano was caught on tape by mailing a package.

The Bush campaign had angrily attacked the investigation's focus on
Lozano, but it appears to be backing off a bit, pointing out that Lozano
is not directly a campaign employee.

My theory is that Bush strategist Karl Rove arranged for the material to
be sent to the Gore campaign and assumed they would use it.  Later, after
Bush bombs in the debates, Rove would "discover" that Gore had "cheated"
and make this revelation the focus of the debate postmortem rather than
the actual performance of the candidates.

The other possibility, of course, is that Lozano and/or her boss are not
really loyal members of the Bush team.

response 153 of 406:

Oct 3 03:27 UTC 2000

okay, the first debate is tomorrow (or today if you are reading this on
tuesday) in Boston.  Leiberman and Cheney debate on Thursday.
The moderator for all the debates is Jim Lehrer of PBS.  Good choice in my
book-- I actually know , or knew, Jim Lehrer's daughter Amanda.  We worked
together for the Dukakis campaign at the1988democratic convention in
Atlanta.  I cant fault a debate moderator whose daughter is a liberal
democrat (which doesnt mean that he is though).  Lehrer is probably a
"registered independent", just like  Ted Koppel, whose two daughters
also worked in that campaign (though I never met them)

Debate's on at 9 pm...turn on, tune in....

response 155 of 406:

Oct 3 06:11 UTC 2000

Am I the only one a bit bewildered and frustrated at the way politics has
gotten mixed up with government in the first place?

I'm voting for Nader.  No, I don't think he'll win.  (As a random
interesting tangent, though, Michael Moore wrote an interesting essay
recently pointing out that if all the people who generally *don't* vote
registered and showed up and voted for Nader, he *would* win.  I don't
exactly expect that to happen, but I find it an interesting commentary on
the state of this country.)  I'm voting for him because he seems actually
willing to talk about how fucked up this country's attitude towards health
care, the environment, etc., are, whereas everyone else seems to think
that if you slap a band-aid on a problem it will go away.  What I hope to
"accomplish" by voting for Nader does include objectives such as
better recognition and funding of the Green Party and forcing the major
parties to realize that people care about the "issues" (God how I hate
that word) in question.  I guess.  But mostly I'm voting for Nader because
I *want* him to win, and I thought the point of democracy was to vote for
the person we thought would do the best job.  You may call me an idealist
if you like, and I'll answer gladly.  It's my belief that what this
godforsaken country needs is a hell of a lot more idealists.

(Special note to Richard:  I don't know how to say this nicely, but I find
it a *little* hard to take your arguments seriously after reading, "Its an
entire branch of government you are voting into office, not just one
person!" and  "Whatever you think of Leiberman, he's just one person, one
of many, who will work in a Gore administration." *in the same response*
(#36).  I don't mind that you disagree with me, but some logical
consistency while you're doing so might be nice.)

Yes, I am familiar with Nader's running mate, Winona LaDuke.  She's a
Native American and environmental activist, who has written on the
importance of leaving behind a world that we would want our grandchildren
to live in.  She kicks ass, as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, the idea of Bush as president frightens me, but the idea of Gore as
president frightens me only slightly less.  Others have said this more
eloquently, but they strike me as two heads of the same beast.  As for
abortion -- yes, I am firmly pro-choice, and yes, I am aware that Bush
isn't.  I'm also aware, however, that access to abortion has dramatically
*decreased* during Clinton's administration, that Roe vs. Wade was written
by a Nixon-appointed judge, and that reducing a campaign to one single
issue and then trying to force that issue with fear tactics is a little
silly.

Like Mary, I will be voting for Nader so that I can respect myself in the
morning.  I respect a great deal of what he has to say, and I haven't been
able to say that about any politician in the five years I've been able to
vote.  My conscience won't let me vote for someone I don't respect when I
have the option of voting for someone I do.

<hops off soapbox to let someone else have a turn>

response 157 of 406:

Oct 3 12:39 UTC 2000

Thank god the WB doesn't show the debates - I'd hate for "Angel" to be
pre-empted.

response 159 of 406:

Oct 3 14:17 UTC 2000

Nader appears to be a fine man. He has no obvious skills at running a country.
At least Perot could claim that much.

And if the two parties didn't get the message from Perot's significant showing
(and does anybody remember Anderson?), they won't get the message from a
poorer showing by Nader. 

A vote for Nader is totally wasted. You might as well not bother showing up.
I'd say that even if I thought Nader were competent to run the country.

response 161 of 406:

Oct 3 19:09 UTC 2000

Re 155.  Michael Moore is a fun guy, but the stuff about nonvoters is
pretty meaningless.  Contrary to what is often claimed, people who don't
vote have pretty similar opinions (within a few percentage points) to
people who do vote.

Re your comments to Richard.  Maybe it's because I'm a politico, but I
don't see any logical problem here.

If George Bush wins, that means that practically every policymaking
position in the federal Executive Branch will be staffed with Republicans. 
If Al Gore wins, that means that those same jobs will be held by
Democrats.  The results, on every issue that I care about, will be
dramatically different depending on the election outcome.  That's why the
intricate details of Candidate A's gaffe or Candidate B's wacky opinion on
Issue 327j are so irrelevant from a practical standpoint.

Yes, judges are in a bit of a separate catagory; Earl Warren was appointed
by Eisenhower, Harry Blackmun was appointed by Nixon, and David Souter was
appointed by Bush. But these are very wild exceptions to the general rule
that judges usually behave very much as the president who appointed them
expected and wanted them to.

response 163 of 406:

Oct 3 23:28 UTC 2000

Sara/swa wrote:

> #155 of 162: by Sara Watson Arthurs (swa) on Tue, Oct  3, 2000 (02:11):
>  Am I the only one a bit bewildered and frustrated at the way politics has
>  gotten mixed up with government in the first place?

This reminds me of arguments I used to have with senna, and I am left 
with the conclusion that people aren't learning basic political science
and civics lessons.  

At the most fundamental level, "politics" is how we settle differences 
and ration out goodies in society.  Yeah, there's another way to do it, 
but it involves guns and lots of killing.  See Yugoslavia, Somalia, 
or maybe even the last few days in Israel for what happens when 
"politics" breaks down.

response 165 of 406:

Oct 4 03:34 UTC 2000

Which both the major parties practice on a regular basis. :)  What, we stopped
having those arguments, ken?

response 167 of 406:

Oct 4 13:00 UTC 2000

Heh.

I only caught the last half or so of the debate.  It did kind of 
resemble #166.  

They were asked how character affects the race; Bush happily slammed 
Gore, and Gore claimed he was taking the high road and wasn't going to 
get into that.  It seemed like Gore was wishing the question hadn't been 
asked.

They were asked about fiscal policy; Gore claimed Bush's tax cuts would 
mainly benefit the top 1% of taxpayers, and Bush said the rich would be 
paying a higher percentage of the nation's taxes.  It seemed to me like 
Bush was dodging this one more than Gore was.

Overall, I thought Gore looked stiff and wooden.  He threw around a 
lot of numbers, but since you can't follow anything about what he 
means, other than that he has numbers to spout, that didn't impress me 
a lot.  He made faces often when Bush was speaking, which didn't seem 
very presidential.  

I thought Bush sounded rushed and nervous; he had to go back a few times 
to add words of explanation to points he was making.  He over-used the 
phrase "That's what governors do", and somewhat overused the term "fuzzy 
math".  It seemed his "fuzzy math" was to cover for himself in not 
having numbers to spout like Gore.

There was no big winner in this debate.  Gore looked intelligent, and 
Bush looked personable.  Those things are the essence of who the 
candidates are; either of them would have to work really hard to cover 
up those traits.  Bush didn't commit the gaffe that Gore was hoping for 
and banking on.  The candidates get a couple more tries, though.

response 169 of 406:

Oct 4 13:40 UTC 2000

I was disappointed in both of them and sad that this
is the best our system can do.

response 171 of 406:

Oct 4 14:39 UTC 2000

I have to say that, relative to my expectations, Bush was impressive.  He
managed not to dodge all of the questions, he had one or two not completely
idiotic things to say, and he didn't seem overmatched.