I recently attended a professional football game. The raucous yelling of both sides reminded me of the political debate on this forum. Contrary to popular belief, "Bush (or Gore) sucks" is not a coherent political philosophy. I find it difficult to understand a deep hatred of two essentially centrist candidates.

Oh, both candidates had to make the appropriate noises to the party extremists. Bush mollified the religious right. Gore pacified the liberal special interests... though not enough to thwart Nader. Despite the noisy extremes in both parties, governance happens in the great middle.

The congressional races leave America with an unusually balanced Congress. Lacking a solid congressional majority, it will be difficult to pass major legislation. The narrow margin of victory will give the new president no mandate and a short honeymoon. The next four years will be marked by partisan wrangling and minimal legislative progress.

The pro-choice voters have shrieked endlessly about the next president's ability to shape the Supreme Court. This ignores the simple fact that it is impossible to predict how justices will act once they ascend to the bench. Roe v. Wade will not be overturned by a slew of Bush appointees.

The new president will face a divided Congress and a divided country. He also inherits a long economic boom that shows a bit of wear around the edges. The next president will have to find the delicate balance required to preserve peace and prosperity.

Hopefully, this will keep whatever candidate is elected out of mischief.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), November 08, 2000

Answers

Ken: Contrary to popular belief, do you, have you EVER had a light moment in your life?

As for the Gore/bush comment ie...sucks I have never had the feeling any of us here had a hatred for either candidate.

I find it all in jest, you know bout as funny as the damn y2k shit was.

PS, Wanna Mudwrestle?

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), November 08, 2000.

I'll say it again; watch for the mass shootings to start up if Gore wins. Just a strong hunch.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), November 08, 2000.

Yeah. Somehow it's so critically important every 4 years that the likes of KoFE predict riots in the street, the first step toward TEOTWAWKI, which is guaranteed if the wrong guy wins. And every time, nothing much changes and life goes on normally. A small improvement here, a step in the wrong direction there, both of which will be changed by someone else in the future anyway depending.

You really have to wonder how people can get so exercised over this. I guess if you spend $3 billion getting them riled up, this is what you get. Advertising makes us what we are, until the advertising stops and we look around and see...nothing different. But you can fool some of the people all of the time, and nobody questions that KoFE has been so badly fooled he can't even see it. Despite being thumpingly wrong every time.

Do you suppose, once the shooting doesn't start, he'll go back to claiming the 16th Amendment doesn't exist? Or will he suddenly notice a pattern here? Naw...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 08, 2000.

Will Flint always be a clueless, windbag socialist? Probably. Did I claim the 16th doesn't exist? No.

Is Flint feeling sore because the communist Gore might not get more oppurtunity to betray his country, while expounding on the virtues of the Constitution? Probably. Have I been wrong yet? Hell no. You already took your best shot too, Flint. All that you did was to offer some kind of quasi philosophical horseshit as usual. Thanks for not going off on some long-winded rant this time.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), November 08, 2000.

Hi KoFE,

Protested any good taxes lately? A word of advice, though -- I already made my point about you pretty clear, you didn't need to drive it into the ground. You embarrass yourself.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 08, 2000.

Somehow it's so critically important every 4 years that the likes of KoFE predict riots in the street, the first step toward TEOTWAWKI, which is guaranteed if the wrong guy wins.

The reason for this is so that, if the right guy wins, he can be credited for preventing riots in the street.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 08, 2000.

"Good taxes", Flint? This is clear? I think you helped make my point about you, but do go on........

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), November 08, 2000.

hmm:

I suppose you could hypothesize that the right guy has *always* won and prevented those mass shootings. Why not? But in that case, you'd be safest identifying the right guy *after* he has won. What will KoFE say if Gore wins it and there are no riots? What did he say each time Clinton won and there were no riots? I think we have a case of Bradley Sherman's Doomer Selective Amnesia Syndrome in those cases. The wrong guys keep winning now and then, and KoFE is still permitted to claim taxes are fraudulent to his heart's content, yet he cannot notice this.

I think KoFE should get together with Celia Thaxter. He believes nobody should pay any taxes, and Celia believes cradle to grave government care is absolutely free, coming straight from heaven. Between the two of them, they might come up with a system we can all approve of. But I'd read the fine print just the same.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 08, 2000.

Sorry, Consumer, I must defer. As for light moments, I have many... it's just that my arid sense of humor is lost on so many here.

Kofe, there will not be "mass shootings" because of the current election mess. Sorry, but you'll simply have to wait for another apocalyptic event to dip into your ammo stash.

Flint, agreement is the sincerest form of flattery... (chuckle).

Listen, folks, it would take a sharp knife to separate Gore and Bush. With a balanced Congress, the new president ain't doing much during the next two to four years. Besides, chances are that the next president will preside over an economic downturn. Winning this election may prove a short-lived victory. I'll wager the next president is one term and out....

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), November 08, 2000.

Ken:

KOFE has been reading too much of EZboard. One example is from TB2000; Nikoli and Martial Law

I find it amazing that they keep making predictions of doom which never happen and forget about it and go to new predictions with the same fervor. Tax protestors are about the same.

It must either be a joke or they possess a mind set that I don't understand.

If you have the time in the future, go there and read some of Jessebelle and Iona. Far out :^)

Well this reptilian, illuminati has to sign-off. I have to get into my white school bus and go chase UFO's. The aliens must be stopped. They are putting Bush into power to form a one world government and usher in the appearance of the Anti-Christ; who will raise taxes on everyone and take away everyone's AK-47. I hope this is clear.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 08, 2000.

No one here appreciates my sense of humor either, Decker. I was thinking about the shootings in the recent past will start up again as a photo op for Gore and gun control, not because of the election. Yes, it's true that I assumed everyone would know what the hell I was talking about. Personally, I think there is a connection, and I thought that other people did also.

I think our man Flint was just looking for an ankle to bite.( or an anthill to kick)

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), November 08, 2000.

Funny that you keep hanging around EZ, Z. You even take the trouble to link there.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), November 08, 2000.

KOFE:

There are some normal people there, but most have left. I find it interesting. Besides, I am trying to be kind and introduce the people here to your friends and community. Just trying to help.

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 08, 2000.

What a jerk!

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), November 08, 2000.

Gee, Thanks Z. I'll say it again, even tho you probably won't listen, because you are operating with the same kind of mind set. None of my post have been about tax protesting. Taxprotesters are defined by the IRS as those who refuse to pay money that they owe because of somethig they don't like such as a war for example. Their definition, not mine. By implying that I'm a tax protester, you are assumiing that I owe a tax, and you really don't know.

You could take the trouble to actually find out, but the herd mentality is very strong, and individual thinking is frowned on. That's why the situation is what it is.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), November 08, 2000.

KOFE:

You could take the trouble to actually find out, but the herd mentality is very strong, and individual thinking is frowned on.

My guess is that this is a correct analysis of the tax protestors and I agree with you. I hope that you don't take this conversation too seriously. It is banter amonst friends.

Of course, Cin calling me a jerk , well I don't know :^)

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 08, 2000.

Listen, folks, it would take a sharp knife to separate Gore and Bush. With a balanced Congress, the new president ain't doing much during the next two to four years. Besides, chances are that the next president will preside over an economic downturn. Winning this election may prove a short-lived victory. I'll wager the next president is one term and out....

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net

^^^Thanks Ken for your response. I honestly didnt think you would even acknowledge me *wink*

With regard to your above statement, I'll be damned, I agree with you.

With all due respect I've always felt the bottom was gonna fall out and I am amazed at how long the good times have rolled.

But, imho, when Clinton exits, someone is gonna have a damn mess to clean up. And only 4 years to do it.

-- (shh@aol.com), November 09, 2000.

Depends on if it's a hard or soft landing. A short economic down turn with the economy going up before the next election would be good for whoever is in office. If the economy is still in the tank it would be bad. Also a lot depends on what happens in the rest of the world. I think that Al would be more likely to get us involved with "police actions" then W would.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), November 09, 2000.

>> The new president will face a divided Congress and a divided country. [...] Hopefully, this will keep whatever candidate is elected out of mischief. <<

I see one other possibility, which is not out of the question.

If GW Bush is elected, the Republicans will have control of the Senate, the House and the Presidency, if only by an eyelash. They could respond to this by seeking conciliation, reaching across the aisle and looking for Democratic votes as a way of demonstrating non-partisan concern for the good of the country, or...

They could switch over into super-partisanship, whipping the Congress into one party-line vote after another, with a heightened sense of do-or-die partisanship on each and every issue. Any Republican who votes against his party and President will be an instant traitor to the cause, since even one vote could be fatal. Fillibusters will proliferate in the Senate. The sense of deadlock and frustration will drive bickering and warfare to new heights, along with retribution.

I say this is a possibility mostly because the Republicans are starved for a clear, obstructionless patth to achieving their platform. They had no control of Congress for 45 years. They haven't had both the Congress and Presidency at the same time since 1952. Their leadership in Congress (Lott, Delay, Hastert, Armey, etc.) have been steeped in the partisan battles and philosophy of Newt-of-Yore. They may grab for the main chance and the future of the country be damned.

Power can intoxicate. It could happen.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 10, 2000.

Brain, we have disagreed in the past (especially about Nader :) but I hope you're right here. However, I think you're wrong. I think that Bush will be true to his word. He will reach across the aisle for compromises.

I think that the democratic leadership perform they way you describe, with a "sense of deadlock and frustration ... drive bickering and warfare" for the last 40 years. We've seem the democraps do exactly that. Clinton took it to heights never witnessed before. He's the king of animosity. I know you don't see it that way but I do.

Another topic: Hillary will be the laughing stock of the Congress. She will go in with bitterness and vindictiveness. I conclude this based on her acceptance speech. She did it during Lazio concession speech of course to upstage him. She didn't mention the prez who guided her through the campaign, she thanked her parents first and mumbled through her husband. She didn't grab her husband's hand on the stage. Her shoulder is extremely cold and I think she'll get what she deserves, no support from any in the Congress.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 10, 2000.

Brain, we have disagreed in the past (especially about Nader :) but I hope you're right here. However, I think you're wrong. I think that Bush will be true to his word.

So, if I understand this correctly, you're hoping that Bush will not be true to his word? That, in fact, he just said whatever it takes to get elected?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 10, 2000.

Brian, sorry for the typo (I always transpose those two letters! Freudian slip on the keyboard)

Hmmm, I was making the comment on Brian's post after the "or..." I interpreted that he found that situation the more likely outcome. Could be wrong though... Did I say!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 10, 2000.

Hmmm, I was making the comment on Brian's post after the "or..." I interpreted that he found that situation the more likely outcome.

Yes, and your comment was that you hoped he was right about this outcome. So again, are you hoping that Bush will not be true to his word and that he will not "reach across the aisle" as he had promised during the campaign?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 10, 2000.

Oops! Do over! not what I meant. Can I take that back? Sometimes the typing just gets away from me. Well... you don't have to get snippy. Hee hee hee :)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), November 10, 2000.