Page created 28 Jan 2004 by dex
URL: http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm
So who're you pulling for in the 2004 election? Are you a Dean supporter who's been bitterly dissapointed by the Iowa caucas and the NH primary? Do you favor Kerry, or Edwards, or any of the other Democratic soup candidates? Or are you happy with the good ole standby, Dubya? Any other elections you find interesting would be good to discuss here as well.
You know, I like him okay, but his changes of opinion make me feel creepy. I think he might be too easily led by the nose. But I don't know which of the Dems has a chance to beat Dubya. (I'm quite the UNFAN of the Simian Spectacle in the whitehouse)I live in VA so my vote doesn't really count anyway (irritatingly, a big republican state). Maybe I'll vote green just so they can get their 5% and have fed funding next election? I wish we had a multiparty system instead of the dual system we've got going right now.
jack edwards
I liked what I read about Dean last year... but I'm somewhat troubled by the quasi-tantrum he pitched after the Iowa primary. WTF was that?I am terrified of another 4 years of Bush, I really am. His behavior and arrogance is astounding to me. Therefore, as much as I hate to say it, I think that this year rather than focusing on issues, I'm going to vote for whomever I think can beat that clown. It looks like Kerry's doing well, and he seems alright to me. I can live with Kerry.
I don't know who's playing in the Superbowl, and I don't know shit about who's running for President, except The Shrub, of course.Although I did hear on the news last night that Al Sharpton won something or other, and I thought that sounded odd.
at any rate, I couldn't care less. I don't have the time to invest in learning enough about these guys to care. Sorry.
I like his politics, I like his bluntness, and I like the fact that he is a fellow Coloradan (by birth, anyway). It does go deeper than that--I think his views on education, women's equality, and the environment are in line with my own, along with some other things. And anyone who looks most favorable to beat Bush has my vote. Sad it has to come to that, but desperate times call for desperate measures.Another 4 years of Bush--No! NO! It's unthinkable. It is...my greatest nightmare.
Is it really your greatest nightmare?
i'm not being hyperbolic, or even dramatic (which i admit i am wont to be). i mean it, in all seriousness.
I get frustrated and depressed, especially during election years...
Do you mean it's your greatest nightmare, period? Or your greatest political nightmare?
i don't mean to be a nitpick, but it's "cabernet" not "cabarnet."
you got me there. (and you're not annoying at all). i guess it's my greatest political nightmare. the thing is, politics are so pervasive because policies end up, in some way, influencing every aspect of life. so it is a VERY scary thing (to me) to have the simian (as dex referred to him, ha ha) there for another term.
It's "cabaret", not "cabarnet".
cabernet. I drink shiraz :)
that's totally unbiased and quite fair, I'm sure...
You know, Curious George.... And of course, the resemblance is striking.(I'm certainly NOT fair and balanced. Jay works for Fox, not me :) )
you know, i've never really thought about it until i saw those cartoons, but he DOES look like a simian. i thought dex was speaking symbolically, because of his intelligence (lack thereof), behavior, decisions, we could go on & on with fodder from the last three years, but on a most literal level, it works, too. wow.i have always been obsessed with comparing people to animals. in high school we had a kangaroo, a porcupine, a bee, a preying mantis, and so many more (bugs work, too)...sorry, that has nothing to do with politics. but it took me back in time for a second. and george bush is most definitely a simian.
i thank lukas, master brewman, for pointing out the mispelling. i never would never have noticed myself. i am a chardonnay fan.
please, please do so. it is muy importante, especially this time around. make sure to check out your state's requirements for filling out the form (pg. 14 of the Adobe document, for Illinois people).http://www.fec.gov/votregis/vr.htm
(just kidding. kind of).
i know a girl who looks like a lion more than a girl! she is amazing!
I know exactly what you mean! (though I've never seen this girl). Have you ever seen Cat-Man? He is some freak out in England who's had all these operations & alterations to look like a cat. He is the only human that Oscar approves of.To keep the conversation germane to this entree, I would like to assert that I'd rather have Cat-Man as our President than Dubya. Too bad he's not a U.S. citizen.
?!?!?! WTF.
I think I need to fly to Sweden and kick some Nobel Prize boardmembers asses!!!!!!!
Harald T. Nesvik, a Right-wing Norwegian Member of Parliament, has nominated U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush for the Nobel Peace Prize for their "decisive action against terrorism".
Reuters article on the nomination.
According to my friend Webster: 1) Freedom from war or a stopping of war 2) A treaty or agreement to end warOh yes, Bush & Blair are definitely deserving.
I don't think I'll be able to take the Nobel prize seriously ever again. This is absolute horseshit.
1. Anybody can be nominated for the Peace Prize, being nominated is not the same thing as receiving it.2. Warggle: If, in the future, you are tempted to take the Nobel Peace Prize seriously again, just use this little exercise to help push those lingering thoughts out of your mind: Yasser Arafat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.
That said, I do think last year's recipient was an excellent choice.
Arafat's was a joint prize with Rabin and Peres (which doesn't make it any less bizarre) but the one that really makes me scratch my head is Kissinger from 1973. He won it with his Vietnamese conuterpart Le Duc Tho who actually refused the prize.
Didn't George W. get nominated last year, too?
I knew there was another funny one, but couldn't remember who it was on Friday.
The Little Yacht that could.
about possibly being one of the richest presidents that we've ever had
richest first-ladies. it's all hers and there's a pre-nup so he can't touch it.
So, I'm reading it and thinking, this is pretty unbelievable, i can't believe how stupid this is... when I got about two paragraphs from the bottom, I think, the onion should get ahold of this- that's when I check the url and suddenly got to think, I can't believe how stupd I am....
So, Nader has thrown his hat into the ring.Partisan feelings and voting theory aside, is there any way that this can be GOOD for the Democratic party's outcome in this election?
Ugh. I rarely put stock in conspiracy theories, but I can't help but wonder if Nader is a mole.
that's how it went with washington and kennedy too, but it doens't change it.
I don't understand what you mean....but it's nice to see you, Tom.
I like him, and wouldn't mind him being the pres, but he's always messing it up for the Democratic candidates. We need all of the votes we can get this time around. (If any one is "curious" or have not discovered from reading the things I've written, I am very much to the left). I hope I don't offend anyone by discussing my politics on the Diner...Seriously.
Well, there's a slight chance that Nader will teach the Democrats how to actually disagree with the Republicans, love again, etc, etc. But since they haven't figured that out in the last 4 years I doubt it can happen in 6 months.But as it is, this is looking like it'll be an annoying vote. I really do agree with Nader on most issues, more than pretty much everybody else. But as much as I harrassed people for voting against Bush last election, rather than for a candidate they support, I might end up doing just that. That thought kinda depresses me. Next thing you know, I'll be voting certain ways to "send messages". Gar!
I suppose I'll vote for Kucinich next week. He's a nut with no chance, but probably my best bet for actually voting for someone in November.
*wink*I got your message.
standing in a grade school gymnasium tonight, the stale scent of old mashed potatoes and hot dogs around me, I'm staring at my primary ballot and realizing that out there somewhere are people that think "Wow, that Lyndon LaRouche fella really has what it takes to run this country."
Good Gravy.
I may find myself voting for LaRouche in November!
I like that guy! He looks pretty old, though. Not to be ageist (agist?), but it seems like it takes a lot of energy to be president. It might be tough for one who is well on in years.
who will it be?
we can't find two better candidates than Bush and Kerry.
does mike ditka actually have a chance in the IL senate race? given the circumstances, i can't blame the IL GOP. they have almost no one to put up against obama. read about it.i thought this quote from the article was the best:
There are still some hurdles left: Ditka's wife has said she will divorce him if he throws his hat in the ring, and he is not apparently even registered to vote in this state.
oops.
FMA dies in senate -- final vote 48 yays to 50 nays. 60 votes were required to invoke cloture. Interestingly, Sen McCain voted 'nay' and called it un-republican.
it is unrepublican. it's mostly the religious right who disagrees.
I wish the world were painted in such easy, broad strokes. I resent this term and all its implications. I cringe every time I hear it (or read it).
necessarily a bad thing. the religious right even identifies themselves with it, or maybe the moral majority or whatever. i think it is a good thing to group the people who fall into this category [by no means every rightist who is also religious] at least slightly apart from the more sweeping term of republican. a lot of their views/politics do not sit the same way as the other categories of rightists. they are wealthy, they are powerful and they think the country ought to be run according to a certain doctrine.i think the term moral majority is more misleading. they are, in fact, a [very vocal] minority of the republican party.
its nice to think that we can just put people in that category. but i believe that every person in this country sees things just a little differently. and i would probably hold some of the same beliefs that the 'religious right' would hold, however, i would not fall into line on all the same issues and stances. the term 'religious' in itself is offensive to me, because my Faith is more than just religious doctrine. and I don't believe that there are just some simple black and white responses to the many political issues that face the contemporary American. so maybe I don't fall into that category. but from the outside, it might look like I do. and I resent being categorized into that. I also think that categorizing people is quite dangerous. and what's more dangerous is when people allow themselves to be categorized in such a manner. and when people assume that those that fall into those categories are predictable enough to make many of the assumptions that have been made about the 'religious right'.
wags-i agree 100% with what you are saying here.
unfortunatley, that is they way the game of politics is played. it is near impossible to affect any real change (at least legislative-wise) in our government (or most similar ones) without banding people-- elected or not-- together by a common belief or conviction. even so-called "by-partisan" measures (like cutting taxes for big business, or campaign finance reform) can only be succesful if those who may fall on different sides of the political spectrum unite by sharing common beliefs about where our country should head.
the fact of the matter is that there IS a religious right, just as there IS a civil rights movement, just like there WAS an abolishionist movement, just like there IS an anti-war movement. an individual may be anti gay marriage, anti abortion, but against prayer in school. That's thier right as an individual, but it doesn't negate the fact that there is a religious right that feels convicted to work together on those issues.
I think you're totally right. There are tons of movements and special interest groups -- factions as the Federalist Papers called them. What bothers me most about our politics is that our major factions are drawn with such broad strokes that people feel obligated to join one side or the other -- this is exactly what the parties want. Take abortion for example. If the nation wasn't so truly divided about it, it would not be so advantageous for the parties to divide along such sharp lines. The Republicans win big because most people who are morally opposed to abortion have a huge challenege voting with a clear conscience for any politician that is pro choice -- read Democrat -- and the same is true for the Dems -- they win big because any pro choice individual worth his weight in salt would never vote for a committed pro-life politician. Bam -- instant voter base -- even though I am more in line with the democrats on environmental, business regulation and some social issues. Do I vote pro choice because Senator X likes hybrid cars?While I think that there are some cognitive/psychological similarities between seemingly unrelated positions (i.e. abortion and economic policy) I think that most of the time we are played by political parties who use our convictions to control us. Why aren't there more factions of people who speak out against the fact that the polarized parties do not reflect their values? The one good example I can think of is the rumblings there have been against the death penalty from pro-life people who are generally "conservative" and therefore generally pro capital punishment. Notably, most so called "liberals" are also anti capital punishment -- here is an area where disparate groups can work together on an issue that is truly askew with traditional party lines. What about all the other issues that are similar?
And I'm in agreement with Pedro. It's hard - there are issues that give instant voter bases, and they are not necessarily the most pressing issues. And yet, look at Kerry for example. Personally, he's against abortion. Yet he's a democrat. There are exceptions to every rule. Both my parents are pro-life - they both vote democrat because they feel it is better for our country to do so. (Though they have voted republican - they don't draw themselves along party lines.) This 'new' issue of gay marriage is another one that is highly polarized, and may draw instant voter bases. I think it's a mistake for either party to 'speak for' any faction, like the Religious Right (which, by the way, should read Christian Right as Judaism is pretty much unanimous on the pro-choice front, and is incredibly socially liberal, but then of course, not all Christians are in the religious right and... I see your point Wags!!), because I think it is going to further make people feel they NEED to vote based on only these two issues, when they're really a very small snapshot of what is going on in the country today.It would be nice if there were more people who spoke out against the polarized parties. Heck, it'd be nice if we had a true multi-party system. But then we'd just be being played by more people, trying to appeal to new emotional stances.
more parties would still be playing the same game. but i think they'd have to work harder to get our votes. republicans can do a whole lot of horrible things, but as long as 'pro-life' is associated with the GOP, conservatives are going to continue to vote REP. but if there were other parties involved who were committed to the 'pro-life' stance, but not some of the other crap that comes in the name of GOP then perhaps the lines would be divided. unfortunately, that division, although ultimately good for this country, isn't the way to get elected. which is why you see REPs laughing at the NADER vs. KERRY debacle, because all it does is help BUSH get reelected, as far as numbers go.unfortunately, there is no way to motivate this country towards having more parties, so it will probably not happen for the most part. that's the sad part.
we create a tastytronic party.
that would be cool. however, in order for it to be effective, we'd have to tell people about this place. i don't think that would be too great.
The problem is that parties have to unite around themes or issues, which invariably leads them toward having platforms which do not reflect all people. Some folks DO legitimately agree with their party, while I think others want to and so get swept up in it. If politicians really voted their consciences, what would you form parties around?
This got pretty long, but I had a lot to respond to.As a result of the Great Compromise, our Founding Fathers decided that a bicameral legislative body consisting of one house with fixed representation (the Senate) and one house with proportional representation (the House) would be the best solution to provide a voice for citizens and states in the nation's capitol.
During the Constitutional Convention there was a debate over how large the district of each Representative should be. It was decided that one representative for each 40,000 citizens should be sufficient. George Washington however, thought that such large districts would inevitably lead to tyranny, and offered an amendment to change the number to 30,000. (Interesting side note: Since Washington was acting as the presiding officer, he generally stayed out of the debate, indeed, this seems to be the only issue about which he said anything at all. That being the case, his idea had so much force it was almost immediately ratified.) And so 30,000 it was. It was decided that after each new census, the number of Congressional districts should be adjusted accordingly so as to maintain the 1:30,000 ratio.
Cut to 1912. Congress decides that the current number of 435 Representatives is plenty, and the number of districts has stayed there ever since, despite the tripling of the United States' population since that time. Even in 1912 that meant each Rep's district comprised 200,000 people. As it stands today, the average Representative is supposed to speak for 625,000 people. However, there are large disparities in representation between districts. For instance, the lone representative of Montana, Dennis R. Rehberg, is supposed to speak for over 900,000 people.
Clearly the idea that someone can speak for such a large group of people is absurd. It is also exactly why so many people don't feel like their views are represented in government, and which dissuades people from voting because they feel "my vote doesn't matter." Even if the average Representative garners two-thirds of his district's vote, that leaves 200,000 people who don't feel their views are heard. Multiply that across the 435 districts, and you begin to see the scope of the problem.
Having only 435 congressional seats means the stakes are high for the two major parties since a considerable majority is needed to push through a particular agenda. This is why third parties have fared so poorly in our country. Even if you don't identify yourself with one of the two major parties (only about 60 percent of the population does), you probably prefer one over the other in general. The loss of even a handful of seats from your preferred majority party could mean that your non-preferred party gains majority control over one or the other chamber of Congress, and pushes through a bunch of legislation that you really don't like. Even if you were willing to take that risk and your third party manages to put 5 members in the House and 0 in the Senate, an enormous accomplishment for any third party, they still wouldn't have enough power to influence legislation that wasn't already widely supported by one of the two major parties.
So what's the answer? Well, I don't have one, but I've heard this suggested before, and I agree with it wholeheartedly: vastly increase the number of Congressional districts. The exact number is debatable, but my personal suggestion would be 1,450 to start with. That would at least bring us back to one Rep for every 200,000 people, which I feel would be a good first step.
But there are also other ramifications. For instance, candidates would be better able to locally target their campaigns and personally able to speak to more of their constituents. It would greatly reduce the amount of money needed to run a campaign, as TV ads wouldn't be as big a factor, meaning support from one of the two major parties wouldn't be as critical. Many more minority representatives would likely be elected, and their input would matter more. The same would hold for minority viewpoints. Also, with 1450 Representatives, it would be incredibly difficult to get wasteful locally targeted pork-barrel spending through Congress.
For you electoral college haters, increasing the number of electors would diminish the electoral weight disparity between big states and little states.
And finally, there would be much more room for third parties and single-issue parties to influence the legislative agenda by combining to form coalitions on popular issues and force the two major parties to split their votes or moderate their positions.
Any thoughts?
and I still do.It seems like this might be a good step toward keeping the representation on a smaller scale and helping candidates become more localized and making smaller communities' views heard.
i think it's crazy that they stopped increasing the number of rep.s just because. i think G.Washington might have been a pretty smart cat.
And while they are at it they can add in voting rights for DC.
I think we should form our party based on that central theme.
residents of DC can't vote? why not?
D.C. residents can vote, but their Representative in Congress is one of the four non-voting delegates. The others are from Guam, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The delegates don't have floor votes, but they are allowed to participate in debates and vote in committees.
According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:"The Congress shall have Power To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"
Since D.C. is the Seat of the Government of the United States, it is technically Federal land, not a State. As such, they are not entitled to having a voting member in the House of Representatives, since the House "shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States".
DC is not a state but a separate entity as set forth in the constitution and comprised of territory that was ceded from Maryland and Virginia (some of which was ceded back to Virginia). Congress has compelte control over teh District and based on an really old law, DC has no voting representation in congress. They have a single delegate to the house of representatives who is not permitted to vote on the floor of the house. She can "speak for the city" and vote in committee (but even there I'm not sure if she is allowed to cast a decisive vote). So the nearly 600,000 residents of the District (more than Wyoming, and approaching North Dakota), who pay federal income tax, are not represented in cnogress. Hence the DC license plates you can get that say "Taxation Without Representation." It wasn't until the 23rd amendment was ratified in 1961 that DC residents were given the right to vote in the presidential election (they have 3 electors).Another interesting thing about DC is the amount of control that Congress can exert of the District. For a long time they held total control of DC's budget (mainly because the city was in serious debt). In another instance congress refused to allow a medical marijuana intiative to go on the local election ballot even after the requisite number of signatures had been gathered per DC election law. Now, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US constitution hands congress this power:
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;So DC has been given pretty marginal home-rule but at any time congress can take it all away based on clause 17. The feds also pay no tax on the enormous amounts of land they occupy in the district and exempts non-DC residents who work in the district from contributing a portion of their state taxes to DC.This all started back in 1801 when the new government moved in to the newly formed district and passed the Organic Act of 1801 removing the rights of citizens to vote. In 1871 DC a territorial governement was set up in DC and they could elect their own local government. This lasted three years and after that a "temporary" solution was put in place where the city was run by three presidentially appointed commissioners. This arrangement lasted for 100 years until 1974 when congress granted DC limited home-rule and they elected their own local government for the first time in over 100 years. In 1978 congress overwhelmingly approved a DC voting rights amendment but gave it a 7 year limit to be ratified by the states dooming it to failure. It only received 16 of the required 38 states.
I'm not a constitutional scholar so I can't weigh in on all the various ideas for obtaining voting rights (full statehood, act of congress, constitutional amendment) but I think it's pretty disgraceful that residents of the District of Columbia have paid their taxes and served in every war and even protect our nations capitol as city employees and yet they are relegated to second class status. Anyway, do a search for DC voting rights and you'll get a ton of stuff to read (which is what I did to pull together the facts).
There are currently a few proposals in congress for voting rights in DC. One I heard about the other day on the radio would add a representative to the house for DC and to offset the almost assured (D) pickup it would also add a house seat to Utah (which was only like 100 people off of getting a new seat after the 2000 census). That plan didn't include any senators. I was listening to the DC politics hour last friday and they ran down a few other proposals ni congress. There's one that would retrocede the district back to MD except for some portions of the capitol area. And another that would just count district votes toward MD senate and reps. In the past there have been proposed laws that would treat the District as a State for voting purposes. (It's already treated like a state for bunches of other stuff)Personally, I think it will take a constitutional amendment or retrocession for DC to obtain full representation. I don't think a simple law granting representation would hold up under court challenge. Full statehood would certainly require a constitutional amendment. And given the bitter partisan divide that exists in American politics I can't forsee a situation in which an amendment would pass which would add what would likely be two more D's to the senate and one to the house.
Exempt D.C. residents from paying Federal taxes. That way everybody wins!
i'm surprised congress hasn't tried this. It would allow all the congresspeoples who live in DC to not pay any federal income tax on their posh salaries.
in light of the information in the posts above, I am quite surprised they haven't tried to pass that one yet. I wonder why? surely they've thought of it, and surely they wouldn't mind the financial advantages that would come with it. there must be some reason they haven't tried it. perhaps they don't want to look any worse to the American people? It seems like they could spin that favorably, though, as a concession to the current situation. then again, perhaps they'd rather have no solution then one like that.
OK, so, you're a resident of DC and don't own any land elsewhere. You can't run for Congress, can you?oh, and Jack, i've seen Mmontana Congressman Dennis R. Rehberg's office... and while it IS in what you could call "one of the nicer buildings in Montana," its pretty small. His waiting area could only hold like 5 people. nowhere near 900,000.
they haven't tried because their constituencies wouldn't stand for it. Not to mention that it's not something that has any support in the District itself.re: Nader. Well, he could have run for Mayor of DC (which is more or less a governorship) or city council or even the House of Representatives. DC has one member of the house (Eleanor Holmes-Norton) who can vote in committee but not on the floor and is more or less an advocate for DC. Something Ralph would probably have been great at.
Vote or Die probably won't go over as good as you'd expect in NH.
I was joking about exempting DC residents from paying federal taxes. I'm not sure that came through.In regards to congresspeople's posh salaries, Congressmen pay taxes as residents of their home states, so it wouldn't actually help them out any. This is becasue they legally have to be considered residents their home states, even while living in DC, in order to satisfy the Aritcle 1, Section 2, Clause 2 requirement of "when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." I'm not exactly sure how it works for their staff, but I know when my sister worked for a Senator, she was still considered a resident of her state.
and paid taxes to that state, even though she was living in DC. However, her husband was considered a resident of DC and paid his taxes accordingly. My guess is that it depends on where the particular staff person is hired. Anyway, my point escaped me long ago.
what fun their yearly returns must have been. I'm not looking forward to dealing with filing joint returns for two incomes, one in MD and one in VA. MD and VA have special tax codes for people like me but I still it will end up being a pain.
Reason magazine has Matt Welch and Tim Blair doing convention coverage. Anyone interested in this sort of thing should definitely be reading their stuff.Also, for those of you who have shown interest in Badnarik, I would recommend reading Reason Online, and their blog Hit and Run. Good stuff.
I like this guy!
I can proudly say that Obama is the only candidate for any major office that i have voted for (primary or general) that has won. And, since he currently lacks an opponent, and he was 20 points up when he DID have an opponent, he may as well start house-shopping in DC.
Obama for president!!
The more I hear from Obama and the more I hear about Obama the more I like the guy. He just seems like the type of genuine nice guy with good morals and honesty that you don't see too often in politics anymore.His speech last night reminded me a lot of hearing speeches from Dr. Martin Luther King, and it kind of made me shiver at times. I think he's the type of dynamic honest (and definitely presidential material) type of person that can fill a room.
I think it will be a number of years, with Kerry running now and mrs. Clinton in the future, but I think he's high on the Democratic list.
For those who want to read. Barak Obama's speach Tuesday night. (mov)
An item Tim Blair posted to the Reason Campaign blog:
Just ran into Michael Moore. After introductions, we had the following quick exchange before his fans/security guards/enablers hustled him on:Me: Some people have called me the Michael Moore of the Right. How do you think I should feel about that?
Moore: I'm not sure you should be very happy.
Me: Yeah? You think maybe I should sue?
Moore: (Pauses) Both of us should. Class action!
watched a little about him on cnn this morning. he seems pretty cool. chicago news people seem to be saying that he's an unnatural, false face of chicago politics. then they described what chicago politics looked like and i laughed.it would be good to clean up the face of chicago politics and the inner workings of it.
GOP wants Keyesbest paragraph:
"I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn't imitate it," he said on Fox News on March 17, 2000.
BUTHe did jump in a Rage Against The Machine moshpit during the Iowa Caucus at the behest of Michale Moore's The Awful Truth.
PUSH!
btr
Dave