Doesn't Colorado has something on a ballot about spliting the electoral college vote according to popular vote???

I don't think so. But I don't know. Some states have a splitting policy for democrat primaries, but I don't think there's anything like that in the general election.

Maybe someone else knows better though?

-Dolce

They sure do.

One of the worst moves in the history of statewide ballots

Nebraska and Maine split the EC votes based on congressional districts plus two votes going to the winner.

Colorado's measure, if adopted, will split its 9 EC votes based on the statewide poll numbers. So, if Bush gets 51% of the vote and Kerry gets 49%, Bush will receive 5 votes, and Kerry 4.

Krem...How can you say that gays WONT be affected by bush being elected?

Thanks, krem,

I thought I've read somewhere about it... You are way too well-informed... :wink:

Thanls Krem. That gives me something to chew on, not so much in Nebraska, which is far leaning Bush, but Colorado and Maine are a bit closer to the middle, so will have a more even split. Kerry will lose a few in Maine, but Colorado has a higher population, so he'll gain back more in Colorado.

I think?

-Dolce

I assure you, gays will not be eaten by evil Republicans if Bush is elected.

On a serious note, George Bush, as the chief executive has very little to do with lawmaking, other than signing bills into law. The Congress is the body that you should be concerned with.

So bush ISNT against gays in the military and ISNT FOR an admendment to ban marriage/civil unions?

That's assuming that Colorodo will vote for Bush and the state will adopt the measure.

The Colorado measure is really stupid, because if passed, Colorado will basically marginalize their vote. Instead of 9 electoral votes being at stake there, there will be 2 or 3 at the most in future elections. I hope, for the sake of Colorado residents, that the proposal gets voted down.

First of all, BUsh never said anything about gays in the military.

Second, it doesn't matter what Bush is or isn't against for; what matters is the Congress.

Oh, and rich, you're welcome

Actually, you remeber that test that was on here....where we got a score for either bush or kerry??? Well accoriding to that site, he OPPOSES gays in the miltary.

OK and when it comes to congress, are you saying that bush will have NO effect on these bills...who gets in....ect?

And it does matter what bush is for or against. Im not saying im for or against this, but if you remember the ban on partial birth abortion go all the way to clintons desk, and he vetoed it.
C'mon krem, your acting as if the president has no bearing, or say-so when it comes to these things...which he does

There are rumors on the Internets...

He does have an effect of those things, of course. But Bush being president will not mean that the amendment proposed by him will pass. There is no chance in hell of that happening.

Morning Blog Crawl:

- Interesting guide to where independents stand in various states (Kerry up by 18% among indendents in Florida )
http://www.surveyusa.com/Scorecards/200 ... 01804.html
Found on Sullivan's blog.

- Probably the best overall analysis you will read about the elections final two weeks: http://simonworld.mu.nu/archives/050971.php Also from Sullivan's blog.

- "President Bush will end his four-year term having fulfilled about 46 percent of the promises he made during the 2000 presidential campaign, according to an analysis by Knight Ridder.

.... A similar Knight Ridder analysis found that, during his first term, President Clinton had fulfilled about 66 percent of the 160 commitments that he made during his first presidential campaign."

From http://www.washingtonmonthly.com

- At dailykos they talk about Pat Robertson's anecdote:

Robertson, in an interview with CNN that aired Tuesday night, said God had told him the war would be messy and a disaster. When he met with Bush in Nashville, Tenn., before the war Bush did not listen to his advice, Robertson said, and believed Saddam Hussein was an evil tyrant who needed to be removed.
"He was just sitting there, like, 'I'm on top of the world,' and I warned him about this war," Robertson said.

"I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you better prepare the American people for casualties.' 'Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties.' 'Well,' I said, 'it's the way it's going to be.' And so, it was messy. The Lord told me it was going to be, A, a disaster and, B, messy."

Karen Hughes and Scott McClellan both deny Bush ever said there would be no casualties. Not that any of the lot have any credibility, but Hughes is particularly suspect.
Here's a little reminder of the Karen Hughes school of damage control, from conservative Tucker Carlson:

"Karen Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about how things she'd heard -- that I watched her hear -- she in fact had never heard, and she'd never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane.
I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness."

- And from Wonkette


What is going on here? Wonkette suggests its a trust exercise ( ) but it looks to me like Bush is threatening to roll over Rove with Air Force One if the polls don't improve soon.

Certain liberals (*cough* partisan hacks at DailyKos *cough*) will use the words of liberals' mortal enemy just as long as it makes Bush look bad

Iran endorses Bush.

http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/187838-8290-010.html

Clearly worried that Democrats are more likely to focus on such pesky things as human rights.

Al Qaeda cell endorses Bush:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040317/325/eotq9.html

Ooh, and Arafat endorsed Kerry. But that's probably because he knows Kerry is GOD!

Please, Archie, these are non sequitur and you know it.

Iran and others know that a Democrat administration will focus more on human rights.

Do I think this will effect the election at all? No not at all, I just post it cause it's funny as hell.

It also illustrates a valid point that everyone knows that a Democrat (or centrist republican if that were possible - I think half the free world wishes John McCain was president and views Kerry as the next best thing) administration will focus less on hardcore military power and more on a balance of military and diplomacy which is more effective and thus more scary to certain enemies.

I'm sorry Archie, I'm not sure about Iran's logic, but the notion that the Democrats have a better human rights record is laughable.

The last three Republican presidents have overseen and, some would argue, directly caused the removal of opressing regimes in USSR, Eastern Europe, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile the last Democratic president hase the following to show for himself: Rwanda, Somalia, and empowerment of North Korea's dictator.

Yes, but if Bush pushes for the option of having President take full control without congressional check in *times of emergency* than that will no longer be the case.

That aside. I don't care if the congress holds Bush in Check in his horrible social agenda. Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott were held in check in the same way...and I'm still pissed those guys were senetors. Some people are in high enough positions in affect to this ocuntry, that what they think id actually important as well as what they do. Believe it or not, the president of the United States and the man who embodies the American ideal is one such man. What he thinks and what he would desire the American landscape to consist of had his power not been subject to some scrutiny [is]is[/i] actually important.

-Dolce

Makes you kind of think twice about Bush wanting to get Saddam because of Saddam's rights violations. Since he already admitted he wasn't actually doing it because there was any association with Bin Laden...who apprently was never that high on Bush's to do list.

Thanks for the article Archie. Its scarier than this saturday nights viewing of Suspiria is going to be.

-Dolce

And you're perfectly justified in feeling that way (though do give the others, who do not, the benefit of the doubt). That still does not mean that things you mentioned as a certainty if Bush is elected are true.