response 276 of 406:

Oct 24 15:10 UTC 2000

re #273: The problem is, that's nonsense. Although it is certainly part of
         the "American Way of Life(TM)" to be self-made, as opposed to
         through inheritance, even with modern estate tax laws, there is
         no shortage of "old money" millionaires.

         Further, most companies go public so that they can raise money to
         expand, not out of a theoretical fear of inheritance taxes. Ever
         hear of Rand-McNally? A teensy-tiny little corporation that only
         went public a couple of years ago? Guess what - it issued stock,
         and it had a lot of stockholders *before* it went public. The
         thesis presented by Russ reflects significant confusion as to the
         differences between public and private corporations.

         But beyond that, most small business are not public, and will
         never go public.

response 278 of 406:

Oct 24 16:56 UTC 2000

A guest writer in NATIONAL REVIEW predicts a Bush electoral landslide.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment102300e.shtml

The writer, Joel Rosenberg, who formerly worked on the Steve Forbes
campaign, appeared on WJR radio this morning and he was unable to 
contain his giggling glee.

response 280 of 406:

Oct 24 19:01 UTC 2000

That doesn't necessarily reflect on his prognostication ability.  Then again,
he though Forbes was a good choice to win the office?

response 282 of 406:

Oct 25 13:28 UTC 2000

I did notice there is a website that states that the education, welfare,
healthcare, and crime situation has improved in the last 8 years.  It is a
website put out by the CLinton/Gore administration.

In an aside, the president signed a recently passed bill extending breast
Cancer treatment support to millions more women.  He did it in a private
ceremony with no fanfare even though it is reportedly a major accomplishment
and would have been an excellent opportunity to draw attention to a major
health issue.

Why a private ceremony?

Because a public ceremony would have required he bring in the sponsor of the
bill, Rick Lazio, Hillary's opponent in New York.

response 284 of 406:

Oct 25 17:38 UTC 2000

You're running for Senate? I'm changing my vote in #102. You're surely a
betteroption than those other two. ;}

response 286 of 406:

Oct 25 18:04 UTC 2000

Whenever I deal with movers or appliance deliverymen or roofers, they always
show up in teams - a smart guy who does the paperwork and talks to the
customer, and one or more dummies who lift and carry.  It's always struck me
as a sensible arrangement.

Lately I've been wondering if the Republican party has the same idea of pairing
smart guys with dummies.  I leave it to you to pick the dummy/nondummy out of
each pair:

   Ford/Rockefeller
   Ford/Dole
   Reagan/Bush
   Bush/Quayle
   Bush/Cheney

I can't remember enough about Bob Dole's vice presidential pick (Jack Kemp)
to be sure, but I think that may have been a smart-guy/smart-guy ticket.
The last smart-guy/smart-guy Republican pair in office was Nixon/Agnew.  Maybe
we should count our blessings.

This could be an illusion brought on by my personal willingness to suspect
all Republican politicians of some combination of evilness and stupidity.
But I'm hard pressed to name any prominent Democratic politicians who strike
me as being a little dim.  Carter, almost, but not really.

response 288 of 406:

Oct 25 18:07 UTC 2000

I was interested that the Sierra Club endorsed Gore.  Not surprised, but you'd
think that having the Sierra Club endorsee their candidates would be the first
sign that the Green party is actually somewhere on the political map.  Not
only didn't the Sierra Club endorse Nader, their endorsement doesn't mention
him or his party.

response 290 of 406:

Oct 25 19:46 UTC 2000

What Carter lacked was *political* sense - his common sense is excellent.

The Sierra Club aspires to influence environmental issues for the
better. They are neither "right" nor "left". That the left supports
the Sierra Club is due to the Sierra Club's concern with issues
of livability, clean air and water, sensible land use, etc, and not
with the bottom lines of big buusiness, which are also largely some
of the "left's" concerns. 

response 292 of 406:

Oct 25 20:09 UTC 2000

Carter was a nuclear engineer, wasn't he?

response 294 of 406:

Oct 26 02:51 UTC 2000

Hmmm.  I guess the Sierra Club is a better contender for "NRA of the left"
than the ACLU since the ACLU doesn't lobby very much.

But neither is really partisan.

For example, the ACLU loves the Republican senator from Rhode Island, 
Lincoln Chafee whose voting record is 100% on civil rights issues by
their count.  No Democrat votes their way as often.  However, the only
other Republican senator with a notably good ACLU score is Senator James
Jeffords of Vermont.  For the most parts, Democrats are vastly more
likely to vote the ACLU way than Republicans.  The lowest ACLU voting
score in the senate is held by another Republican:  John McCain with a
score of 0%.  The lowest scoring Democrat are Nevada's Harry Reid and
Louisana's John Breaux with scores of 29%.

The Sierra Club probably didn't have to think hard to figure out
that they liked Gore better than Bush.  See there comparison at
http://www.sierraclub.org/voter_education/president/voterguide.asp

The Abraham/Stabenow race was another shoe-in:
http://www.sierraclub.org/voter_education/michigan/voterguide.asp

The League of Environmental Voters does scorecards like the ACLU does
(in fact it looks like they use the same software).  Six senators have
100% scores on environmental issues, including one Republican: Lincoln
Chafee of Rhode Island again.  Vermont's James Jeffords comes in at 81%
and four other Republicans beat the average score.  No less than 34 of the
100 senators have environmental voting scores of 0%.  Every single one
of them is Republican.  (McCain scores at 6%).  Lowest rated Democrats
are John Breaux of Louisiana (18%), Blanche Lincoln of Arizona (31%),
and Robert Byrd of West Virgina (31%).  Every other Democrat is at least
above the senate's average score.

I'm actually rather surprised by how dramatic the party splits on these
issues are.  Leaving aside mutants like Lincoln Chafee and semi-mutants
like John Breaux, the differences fall very strongly along party lines.

The NRA seems to "grade" candidates.  It actually endorses some Democrats,
like Michigan Representive candidates John Dingell and Jim Barcia who
both have A+ scores.

Hmmm...Lincoln Chafee looks like he wasn't elected to office - he was 
appointed to the job after his father's death.  His voting record is
actually pretty consistant with his dad's though.  He is running for
re-election now, with endorsements from Planned Parenthood, John McCain, 
and the usual GOP leadership.  Very odd.  The voting record scores may
not be entirely representative - he's only been in office since November
1999, so he may not have been there for all the votes considered.  As far
as I can tell, the Democrat running against Chafee has managed to find
a little space to the left of him.  The NRA scores Chafee's opponent as
a F compared to Chafee's D+ score.

response 296 of 406:

Oct 26 15:29 UTC 2000

The Sierra Club is locked into the Democratic Party as much as are the 
AFL/CIO and UAW.  The issues are not the basis of their decision; the 
party is all they need to know.  The "environmental scorecard" mentioned 
in #294 has very little to do with voting records.  Fortunately, their 
partisan support doesn't affect people much.  

The NRA and ACLU tend strongly toward one party; different parties of 
course.  Do either of them support any candidate from a party other than 
the Democrats and Republicans?  I'd be surprised if they did.  I'd be 
surprised if the AARP did.  These groups all focus on a few issues, but 
they have to support a candidate who might win in order to avoid being 
seen as flaky fringe groups.

response 298 of 406:

Oct 26 17:25 UTC 2000

I was in a restaurant a block away from the Whitehouse a couple of days ago,
and they had a scoreboard on the wall showing the results of their polls of
their customers.  Bush was winning by a wide margin.