Every decade or so, ghetto dwellers smash windows, loot businesses, and commit mass-arson within their own neighborhood. Thus it is with politics. Feeling neglected, the Right is staying home this year--at least more of them are staying home than usual. Burning down your neighborhood, just like yielding the field to the political opposition, doesn't, on the face of it, make much sense. No one in the 'hood wants burned out storefronts, just as no conservative wants Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But the seemingly counter-productive option of staying home on election day, just like the seemingly counter-productive move of burning down one's neighborhood, always gets the attention of people who weren't paying any.

You forget that not everybody sees politics in black/white, right/left terms.

Many pepole believe in restoring the Founders intentions of a Congress that checks the executive.

Many conservatives also happen to believe in the seperation of powers.

HeHe -- you are a joke. Liberals all of a sudden remember that Congress is supposed to check the executive, but they have yet to remember that Congress, in turn, is supposed to be checked... Of the three branches each is supposed to check and be checked by each of the others. The same relationship is also supposed to hold between the federal government and the several state governments. For liberals it is not "checks and balances." There is only one check -- and that is a shifter, determined by where they have the least power at the moment.

Have never understood the protest vote, or the protest non-vote. At least with the protest vote, somebody has made a conscious decision and makes a substantive statement. Who notices or cares when one stays home and relinquishes their power to potentially make a difference?

Ok....

And President Bush wouldn't be a check on a Democratic Congress?

The no-vote is just as bad as voting for the Dems. That mindset makes absolutely no sense to me. Let's see...I'm upset that Repubs aren't conservative enough...so to fix this I won't vote and by default let the libs win...that'll teach those conservatives. In the meantime we have at least two years of horrible policies to fight against and making it harder next time to win due to the power of incumbency.

"HeHe -- you are a joke."

You left out "Many pepole believe in restoring the Founders intentions...." The Founders intentions? Liberals care about original intent? Hilarious.

I for one don't vote anymore, certainly not in Gotham. I doubt I will be voting again for a long while there is no substantive difference between the two major parties imo.

"And President Bush wouldn't be a check on a Democratic Congress?" -Hehe

First of all, I don't get your point. The problem with rhetorical questions is that people who don't share your assumptions don't see the assertion one is implying.

Second, I'll just answer the question, rhetorical or not. To a small extent he would, to a large extent he wouldn't. He believes in bipartisanship, bridge-building, "uniting" stuff, you know, which I think means he believes in big government.

Skeptic -- What rock have you been hiding under? you think that Bush "...believes in bipartisanship, bridge-building, "uniting" stuff, you know..." Name one policy where Bush been bipartisan, or uniting, at all.

And even if the choice is between coke or pepsi,it shows the sad state of our democracy, when people are actually choosing not to vote. Vote libertarian , or constitution, or reform, something...Except for you skeptic, you can stay home.

Liberals never get tired of implying that their enemies aren't entirely evolved.

Anyhow, R.C., how about the prescription drug bill or no child left behind? When he talks about being a uniter not a divider, that is the stuff he means -- New Deal, part III, lite. It is not his fault that dems hate him so intensely that what he tries to do to unite the parties they take as another excuse to hate him.

"There is no substantive difference between the two major parties."

No substantive difference? How about judicial appointments and confirmations (especially Roberts and Scalia), tax cuts, "partial birth" abortion ban, departmental appointments and confirmations, and many other lesser things that are nonetheless important.

I just don't get the "no substantive difference" business. You better be careful, Batman, you'll find yourself sounding like Eric. Silly, that is.

Make that Roberts and Alito.

R.C.,

It would be much more reasonable to place the burden of proving Bush is a partisan on you given the overwhelming agreement between the Democratic Congressmen and the WH. Apparently, in addition to the major bills that Skeptic mentions above, you seem to have a failure of memory regarding other significant congressional votes. Recall the resolution to go to war with Iraq, or the Patriot Act, as well as the Senate immigration bill, all of which were overwhelmingly bipartisan and Bush and the Dems were in agreement on. Have you been paying any attention whatsoever?

And as for your disdain for those who choose not to vote. If you have an argument for why that is a sad state of affairs you haven't provided it for surely if what you suggest could EVEN be the case really were the case (that is a "choice" between coke and pepsi), then logically, rationally, realistically, and clearly the vote would not matter in the least and would be a wasted effort. So what is your point by saying that "even" if that were the case it is "sad" to choose not to vote? Do you actually think the mechanics of suffrage IS the same thing as "democracy"? Every modern regime has held plebiscites and/or elections, even Communist and fascist ones. It is a mistake to reduce democracy to elections. Also, what do you mean vote for libertarians or other 3rd parties? Do you ever look at a ballot? How many offices do you regularly see contested for by third parties where you live? You apparently only care about that one office which should be the least important in this country but has grotesquely become the most important, the presidency. That is the only office that always sees significant third party candidates, along w/ some governorships and mayoral elections in big cities. No third party really does a good job creating a slate of candidates.

Ralph,

I can't recall what Eric's views are exactly here but I only agree with your assesment of actual substantive differences on a case by case basis and not as a general characterization of the two major parties.

On taxes, I see that as one of several economic issues that have to be taken as a whole and the agreement of both parties (meaning their majority/mainstream/leaders) on liberal, corporatist so-called free trade, and deficit spending outweighs their (limited) differences in tax policy.

On partial birth abortion, that has always been a smoke screen by Republicans as the ban never has and never will save even one human life. It is just another snow job "bone" to toss to the social conservatives, and the weight of the evidence is that Republican politicians as a whole and definitely their leaders are not very pro-life at all.

On judicial and other appointments, sure you have a point here except that since both parties have agreed to disdain and disregard the constitution in such a manner that we now have a tyrranical judiciary how can voting for Republicans get us out of this? In fact, they are the party that got us into it in the first place w/ the Warren court. Also, as Bush's WH makes clear the Republicans are totally cool with huge and intrusive bureaucracies, and I don't see the difference in who gets to place the bureaucrats as that significant. The bureaucracies themselves still have a life of their own and are rather autonomous and oppressive under either party.

In regards to the deficit, it has dropped by over half since 2004, and now sits at below the forty year average.

So the deficit is not really a case for disregarding the tax cuts.

However, Bush's general affinity for government largesse is certainly less than desirable.

Both parties like the original intenets of the consitution that fit their worldview.

The right to a trial is part of the original intent of the consiution.

You don't see ReThugs trumpeting that cause.

Both parties like the original intenets of the consitution that fit their worldview.

The right to a trial is part of the original intent of the consiution.

You don't see RePhugs trumpeting that cause.

I will vote because it is my right by the Constitution. I also feel it's my duty as a citizen, to exercise that right while it still exists.

HeHe, when you talk about trials, please tell me you aren't going down that sad left road with regards to captured terrorists and the like in Quantanimo. This whole business of CIVIL trials for non-Americans, and terrorists to boot makes me sick. As for Padilla, try him. As an American, he's due his Constitutional rights.

No actually I'm talking about trying non-citizens.

It doens't have to be in civil court, but they need to be tried.

See, hehe, liberals are more concerned with giving non-citizens rights that they don't have via the constitution, than in protecting the rights that the constitution gives citizens. (Conservatives generally think that the distinction between citizen and non-citizen is legally significant.) Anyhow, you are right that republicans-thugs (which don't count as conservatives) and libs and dems are willing to ignore the parts of the constitution they don't like, liberals always try to rewrite (by rereading creatively) the constitution so that it says what they want. Your last post is an instance of this.

"It doens't have to be in civil court, but they need to be tried." -HeHe

No they don't. They are not American citizens so they do not have a right to any trial of any kind. The US constitution only protects US citizens.

And according to the Geneva convention, since they are illegal combatants they are not due POW status and may be summarily executed upon capture, which basically means that we can do whatever the hell we want with them.

Illegal Combantats are an invention of the Bush administration and have no place in the Geneva Conventions or international law.

Oh Christ.

Third Geneva Convention, Article 4.

"Article 4

1. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
2. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
3. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention."

What is the precedent for trying POWs, let alone combatants who don't even qualify for POW status under the Geneva convention? Did this occur on either side during Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI etc.? Or, does this rule only apply to the U.S. when George Bush is president?

A better option than staying home would be to vote for a third party. If we assume a "conservative" policy means a policy that practices limited government and non interventionalist foreign policy, there are thrid parties, such as the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, that seem to fit the above criteria far better than the current Republican party. If the people who currently lead the Republican party, knew they could not take the vote of conservatives for granted this might give them more incentive to govern based on conservative principles.

In any event the Republicans will probably need to lose this round to get them embrace conservative principles. If they can do this, they will be in a good position to win back the House and the Senate in 2008. In any event, voting for a third party seems to me to be a better option than staying home.

The current batch of Republicans including the President are unfit to continue in their current positions of leadership. They deserve to lose the current elections, as they will. After they lose the House and the Senate, hopefully they will change course. They clearly need to be taught a lesson.

The reason why rioters don't think twice about burning down their neighborhoods is because they have a very short time horizon. These people only think about immediate gratification (the thrill of looting, and the joy of getting free liquor and TVs) not long term consequences (going to jail, having an even worse neighborhood than they already had.)

It's one of the reasons why I think prison is a poor solution to preventing crime (at least street crime), and would prefer something that has more immediate consequences to the criminal.

People who have short time horizons do not stay home and vote, If you ask me, the shortsighted version of voting would be the people who say "but what will happpen if we have a Democratic congress?!?" Who then are willing to waste their time and effort supporting someone who will do absolutely nothing worthwhile if elected.

The few politicians who I actually respect (Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul etc.) are not useful because they get laws passed. They are effective in changing the way people think by using ng their position as a politician to get people to listen to their ideas.

This election, I will be voting for Jim Webb, not George Allen. Though I probably agree with Allen on more issues than I do with Webb, Webb is not an idiot, and will be capable of effectively getting across a few messages against the war, corporate america, and globalism, that Allen won't.

The sad thing is that the current crop of Republicans are the future crop of Republicans as well. The same can be said for the Dems and what we see is what we will continue to see. Either way, most are postering self indulgent empty suits looking for power and a lifetime gig.

Only thing that will change the course is another 9/11 which would probably catapult an outside of the stream pol like Tancredo to power.

Congress is ALREADY a check on the President. It is not required to be of a contrasting party in order to be a check. The founders never saw party affiliation like we have. They certainly intended the power to legislate and overrule vetoes and approve executive staff as the the checks.

Incidentally, I'm thinking that enjoyed Bush Sr.'s uniform use of the veto in exercising his check against the legislature if you think that checks have to be actively used in order to be there. I'm thinking that you weren't one of those reactors who called it "gridlock", but celebrated Constitutional Checks in Action (!!).

(Of course the real story behind these vetoes is funny. George Bush took a vow of no new taxes, so the Dems tried to slip a tax into every bill. Thus they all got vetoed. The Dems knew if they made the bait strong enough, Bush would get tired of the game (that Dems were playing) and want to get something done. Silly, Bush Sr.)