Because Peter’s blog reaches many more people than mine does, I’m hijacking it for a post. Considering the subject, I don’t think he’ll mind.
Why? Because down the street from me is my town library, my voting place– and from the steps of that I saw the results of the a very important hijacking– my photo of what it looked like is at left. And two years earlier when I voted here, there was another important hijacking, this was of a presidential election. So when I go to vote today, I’ll be reminded of both those events.
And you should be too.
If you think the current administration has done a horrible job of tracking down the people responsible for that day, or are trying to pull a bait and switch of targets with Iraq, or if you think that Bush should have at least stopped reading to kids when he heard about the plane crashing into the Twin Towers, or if you think that the current administration has done all it can for its corporate contributors and dámņ little for anybody else, or if you happen to think the President is a liar and a buffoon, or if you’re terrified about the judges that would get appointed and everything else that would happen in a Bush-dominated Congress, or if you just don’t want to see what happened to Jesus Castillo happen to anybody else– then your vote is needed.
Remember– you can’t complain about the Supreme Court taking away your vote in the last election if you don’t vote in this one.
So go vote!
• 
smartest thing i have read all week
“And two years earlier when I voted here, there was another important hijacking, this was of a presidential election.”
Highjacking the election would be taking the election by illegal means, no? Last I checked the US Constitution, by which we govern our elections, mandates that the Presidential election be conducted by electoral vote. President Bush attained more electoral votes, thus he won the election.
Judging by your opinions of President Bush (“liar and bufoon”? that’s intelligent discourse), I would venture to say you would not characterize the election as a “highjacking” if Al Gore had won in the same fashion.
The only hijacking that occured was when it was decided that only 3 counties should be recounted in florida when it is state law that all counties need to be recounted.
Of course, it’s also state law in MN that absentee ballots cannot be sent out again after a nominee has died, but the supreme court there is run by liberals who don’t see the constitution as a guideline, but a hinderance. (Of course, it makes for a wonderful setup for voter complaints when the new absentee ballots don’t make it back in time to be counted. Amazing how that setup works wonderfully for the democrats, huh?)
It’s sad to see someone who calls tax cuts for everyone a hinderance, when it’s proven, documented fact that people who $28k and more are paying more than 96% of the taxes in america. These “targeted” tax cuts that the democrats want to apply affect only the people that pay 4% of the taxes.
http://www.house.gov/jec/press/2002/10-24-02.htm
I guess the site admin has no problem paying up to 39.6% in taxes each time he recieves a paycheck. I hope he doesn’t have any net worth when he passes on, because any family he has could be taxed up to 55% on any money that is left for them. Oh, and if he’s married, that’s another tax penalty. Something every democrat has no problem keeping.
I mean, hey, if Mondale can say at the ’84 DNC in San Fransisco “Look at them. We’re going to tax their ášš off.”, someone in MN really needs to think about what is really in their checkbook, how much is taxed from their paycheck, and look at what Mondale stands for tax wise.
I guess an inflated economy created by corporations lying about the numbers on their books is a good thing. To democrats, at least.
And is a plan to remove a dictator who uses toxic gases on his own population a bad thing? Especially when the people there can’t revolt on their own?
People look to the U.S. ALL THE TIME for support and direction. The U.N. has proven to be so inneffectual they are pathetic. It’s time someone had the balls to take out the crack pot dictator who tests his biological weapons on his own people.
The real reason it’s taking so long is that we have to rebuild our armed forces from the reduction that happened during the previous 8 years.
Of course Sadam doesn’t have links to Al Queda. And Spain didn’t blow up the Maine. It doesn’t really make a difference if we are determined to go to war.
I will not defend the President on the forum, mostly because what you have posted is probably accurate. I will not get into an argument about who really won the election, because I do not have all of the facts. I will not protest your comments about big business because they are definitely true.
What I will say is that I do not blame the President for the current political conditions. I blame Congress. It is the usual behavior of the Executive Branch to expand its power and influence as far as possible. This has been true since the time of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. I do not condone this action, but it is what happens. The framers of the Constitution created the Congress of the United States to balance the President. If the President does something stupid or threatens the liberty and stability of the masses, the Legislative branch is supposed to step in to stop him. Our Congress has not done this. Instead both parties have fell into partisan rhetoric or simple cowardice. If we want to be safe from the power of what you consider an untrustworthy President, we need a strong and bold Congress.
Ben Hunt
How about you just vote because about 225 years ago a nation was created that gave you as a citizen the right to have a say as to who rules it, and that my right to decide bears the same weight as yours?
How about the fact that thousands of people all around the world die every year to do what we can do today?
Take the right bestowed upon you seriously.
Don’t base your decision by what one post on a website says, or what you see on TV.
Research the issues that matter to you and make an intelligent decision as to who you think would best represent your ideals in shaping the future of this great country we live in.
Glen, to be honest, I do mind that you “hijacked” PAD’s site for this rant. Just my opinion, that I’m entitled to.
**Remember– you can’t complain about the Supreme Court taking away your vote in the last election if you don’t vote in this one.
So go vote!
**
Remember, Miami-Dade and Broward counties had DEMOCRAT election officials that approved all ballots, WEEKS before the elections. Those ballots were published in the local papers and had been used for years before they were brought up for the whole country to see. To me, the people that tried to “hijack” the election were the Democrats that took the whole recount to the courts, and the “counters” that tried to divine the intentions of the voter when they didn’t vote correctly (aka too stupid to only vote for one person). Oh, and when a vote wasn’t cast, in some races, the counters were supposed to determine who that voter “intended” to vote for.
My sister-in-law actually lives in Broward County, she’s seen the incompetence of the residents, the city officials, the government in general. When she first moved there, she went to get her drivers license changed, six hours later she finally got to fill out the one form, get her picture taken, and pay the fee. Sounds resonable? Shouldn’t. There were only 20 people there to start the day, and she was in the first 10 in line.
Glen, as long as you voted in the last election, I don’t mind what you have to say. It’s your right, duty even. But don’t “hijack” this blog again, I was going to stay away from the election stuff today, with the best of all intentions. Had a couple of movies to watch, a dinner to fix, and I was going to ignore the entire mess, untill the 7th of December, when Louisiana has their runoff election, and the whole “who has control of the Senate” issue was resolved. Oh, well.
jeff
BTW, I voted early, I’ve already cast my ballot, had my say. And as far as the Jesus Castillo case, it was an elected judge, a DEMOCRAT, that issued the initial guilty verdict.
If you think Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, look into the research done by Jayna Davis.
Roughly half of the people in this country voted for George Bush two years ago, whether you like it or not, Glenn.
You are making it way to easy for Republicans by calling him a buffoon and a liar. That insults anyone who involves themselves in the election process.
I am not upset that you hijacked the blog. I am disappointed, because I come here to read what Peter David has to say and what others have to say to him, not to hear an extremist throw a hissy fit. Get your own soapbox.
Mark B.
Poor taste! I come to this site to read Peter’s thoughts and not yours. I appreciate that you have a strong opinion; in fact, I applaud you for it. However, I think you could have gotten your point across in a much more reasonable way, that would have a) been more convincing, and b) made you sound a lot less like a sniveling twit.
And I also think you could have done it on your own dámņ blog, if anyone would have cared enough about what you think to read it there.
It’s always hilarious when liberals get this hysterical. Keep up the funny work!
And the solution to the Florida voting problem is simple: Get smarter voters who can follow simple directions on a voting form.
I’m voting today. And when I look at your picture and wonder what could have been with Al Gore in office, I have no problem voting straight Republican line, thanks.
-Augie
Glen, I believe this decision of yours to be in poor taste. If I didn’t enjoy Peter’s writing and thoughts as much as I do, I would boycott this ‘blog. As it stands, I’ve decided to no longer read this page anytime I see your name attached to it, regardless of how important the information presented. A simple “Don’t forget to vote” or “Exercise your rights” would have sufficed.
1) If i could vote, i would. But since i’m still just a canadian with a green card, i’ll wait.
2) I agree with Augie all the way. The problem in Florida was the lack of smart voters. Believe me, living in Florida i know what i’m talking about.
3) This “hijacking” was pointless really. It was more propaganda.
I’d just like to say that I’m looking forward to the next New Frontier novel.
Glenn, you forgot to call Bush a Nazi, who wants to starve children and kick old people down the stairs. Those are the old-faithfuls for demonizing Republicans. And trying to blame the Jesus Castillo case on Republicans at large, and the Bush Administration in particular, is a pathetic attempt to propagandize the situation. And this comes from a Republican voter, in Texas, who also happens to be *gasp* a member of the CBLDF. Try to have a more open mind sometime.
Glen,
Just wanted to add my voice to those who believe it inappropriate for you to voice your views on Peter’s blog, just because it’s more popular than yours.
Bad form.
It was only an *attempted* hijacking of the election in 2000. Remember, Al Gore lost. His attempt was thwarted.
davidh
Don’t know what else I can say that hasn’t been said. Bad form old chap, bad form.
– 1 for my opinion of this blog…
That’s great, Augie. Coming from someone whose idea of intelligent, well-reasoned criticism is “I had a fun time rereading all of these stories over the weekend” (CBR, 10-18-02) and “X-MEN VISIONARIES: JIM LEE is the coolest dámņ trade paperback I’ve read this year” (ditto), the idea that, “well, duh, if Gore had been president they would have flown planes into ALL the dman buildings!” makes SO much more sense.
Yeah, I can see it now… all the Al Qaeda guys sitting around planning their attacks, saying, “yeah, we’d better scrap most of this plan – Badass George Bush is the president!”
In fact, he’s such a badass that we still live under terrorist attack warnings, and the “war on terrorism” in Afghanistan is going so well that they had to impose a total press blackout so all the good news doesn’t blow our minds.
Further, say what you want about Gore, like him or not, it’s a flat-out guarantee that if he were president the Attorney General wouldn’t be talking about putting American citizens in internment camps.
And, oh, the solution is just to get smarter voters? Is that all? Jesus, why didn’t you say so? Smarter voters who say things like “X-MEN VISIONARIES: JIM LEE is the coolest dámņ trade paperback I’ve read this year” is all we need? That kind of smart? Let’s fire up the old gene sequencer and crank out those rocket scientists as fast as we can.
Yeah, you love it when “liberals” (who are, of course, the legions of Satan) get hysterical. How dare they disagree. How dare they want to protect SOME semblance of a couple constitutional rights. Those bášŧárdš.
Hysterical liberals make you laugh. That’s just great. Problem is that shrill, obnoxious, self-righteous Republicans like you make the rest of us look bad.
John Kozempel
registered Republican
To Jerry Wall:
Technically it’s not ‘this’ blog :). Technically.
“And the solution to the Florida voting problem is simple: Get smarter voters who can follow simple directions on a voting form.”
Hear, hear! (Or is that “Here, Here”?) Isn’t it annoying how all these people have been talking about getting new voting machines into the poorer districts that will warn the voters when they are attempting to cast an invalid ballot like the wealthier districts in Florida already had? That just aids the people who aren’t smart enough to live in wealthy districts. Clearly what should be done is to down-grade voting machines nationwide so that all voters who make a mistake in casting a ballot, regardless of economic status, will have their votes discarded.
Up-grading voting machines so that people’s votes have a greater chance of being counted. SHEESH! What will those crazy liberals think of next?
Glenn – if people don’t like what you’re writing, than don’t mind. It’s your opinion and as someone who is probably responsible for this site I think you should at least have the right to voice your opinion over here.
Hmm – I wonder that if Gore had won because of the Florida Supreme Court’s decisions, would the Democrats be crying about how Gore stole the election?
And to compare what the Supreme Court did to the terrorists attacks on 9/11 is the height of bad taste. It’s a play on two different meanings of the word “hijack” -It’s called “equivocation” – and it’s a logical fallacy, rendering the argument invalid and therefore unsound (that logic class was good for something!!!)
“It was only an attempted hijacking… Remember that Al Gore lost.”
George Bush won, in the sense that the Supreme Court called off the re-counts and essentially declared him winner.
Many people are under the mistaken impression that, even if the re-count has been allowed, Bush would have won. Actually, just the reverse is true. When the press consortium that re-examined the ballots finished their work, they found that if a full state-wide recount had been permitted, Al Gore would have won.
Since there were different suggestions of how the re-count should be done, the study used nine different sets of standards. Al Gore would have won by 6 of these (including full state-wide recount, which is what the Bush people had said would be the only fair way) and George Bush would have won if there had been a re-count of only the 3 counties Al Gore had wanted to re-count.
(A limited re-count of only those 3 counties was one of the few ways that Gore could have lost, if a re-count had been permitted.)
I am posting (or trying to) a link to the Palm Beach Post story of November 12, 2001, for people who would like to confirm what I am saying. A Google search will turn up many more items on this.
http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/news/gore_wins6of9.html
Many people are under the mistaken impression that, even if the re-count has been allowed, Bush would have won. Actually, just the reverse is true. When the press consortium that re-examined the ballots finished their work, they found that if a full state-wide recount had been permitted, Al Gore would have won.
Actually, since the Gore camp was only trying to do the three country recount, if the Supreme Court had done nothing, or ruled in Gore’s favor, Bush would have won, so the Supreme Court didn’t give Bush the election, Gore’s camp did. They probably should have gone for a statewide recount. There is a possibility that the Supreme Court would have ruled differently if that was the case (they cited the selective recounting as one of their issues).
Minor point, but a valid one. The Supreme Court ruling, as it were, really would have made no difference one way or the other. Bush still would have become President (unless – after counting the three counties, Gore tried to do another recount).
Huh. Seems that PAD speaks to a predominantly conservative audience. I’d never have guessed, since he’s such a raging liberal.
Glen, I won’t say that you did an inappropriate thing here, because it’s socially relevant, and I’m certain you didn’t have Peter tied to a chair in your basement so you’d have time to write this. If you do, shame on you. Now let him go.
As for the rest of you, I can’t argue with your being republican, as I’m a 1st Amendment junkie, but lambasting a guy for posting his opinions in a public forum is the bad form. Maybe it’s not his public forum, but it’s one he has access to. Some of your opinions are a bit slanted, as well.
For starters, Bush did “hijack” the election. The decision was to be made in Florida, as it was the only state that hadn’t finished counting the votes because of all those problems. When they announced their official results, they declared Bush the winner, but as I recall, roughly half the votes were being thrown out because of the “hanging chads”. Gore wasn’t doing anything he wasn’t legally allowed to, rather he was doing what a public official is expected to: There was some doubt as to the accuracy of the results, and he wanted to be sure every vote was counted. Was he being selfish? Yes. Would he have done so if the results had shown him the winner? Who can say? Probably not. The problem is that Bush and his brother went to great lengths to prevent that legal recount from happening. Bush should have went with the recount, if for no other reason than to avoid looking like a spoiled brat. Also, as I recall, the recounts were done in spite of the fact that they wouldn’t count, and had they counted, Gore would be our president right now.
I’m not saying I wanted Gore. I don’t consider either Gore or Bush to be presidential timber. Neither was Ralph Nader. I suppose, given those options, at the time I would have voted for anarchy.
As for the smug comment about “smarter voters” in Florida: Define “smart.” Unless you are a Florida resident who voted in the last presidential election, or an outsider who has actually seen the ballot, you can’t actually say if a “smart” person would have been able to tell. I can tell you, I’ve seen them and they weren’t complicated, but they were a mess. It was very easy, especially for the elderly who make up such a large contingent of Florida’s population, to make a mistake like that.
Even without that little problem, though, declaring the problem to be the voters and not the electoral process is ignorant. We are all equal in a democratic society, dumb or smart, big or little, black or white or what have you, Time or Newsweek. To say that someone’s vote isn’t as important as yours because you percieve a weakness is extremely fascist of you. A ballot should be designed so that even an illiterate subnormal would be able to cast his vote successfully. If as many people had a problem with it as did, there’s a problem with the ballot and the procedure, not with the voters.
As for Bush’s “buffoon” status, I leave you with his own words:
“Fool me once, shame on… shame on you… ahfoolmah can’t get fooled again.”
While I agree with your take on the 2000 elections, and don’t have any trouble with you using this site that way – that’s a matter for you and PAD – I do not like your comparing the hijacking of the election with the 9/11 attacks, complete with photo. As much as I despise what happened how Bush got into office, it should never, ever be compared with the horrors of 9/11. Such comparisions strike me as tasteless. At the very least, I would like to see that photo removed. (I have psychological trouble with such images as it is.)
Hey Peter, since this guy is using your space I’m assuming you share his views. If you don’t please let us know by tomorrow. If I disagree with someone on important issues I’ll still buy their works if I find them of value(Total spent on Peter David novels and comics in last 10 years, approximately $1300). However, what is written above is such a pack of lies that I cannot in good conscience continue to spend my money to enrich the people who promulgate them.
To put things straight:
1. Bush won the election and all recounts, the Democrats went to court to steal the election.
2. We’re after Al Quaida, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and any country that harbors, protects, or sponsors terrorists. For historical perspective look at World War II where we fought the Germans, Japanese, and the Italians at the same time.
3. Bush was at a grade school. The initial report was of an accident with a small plane. Not a terrorist attack that would take the buildings down.
4. The only person who tried to go to bat for Enron was Robert Rubin, the democratic treasury secratary. Since his current employer was heavily invested in Enron he tried using his pull, http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/topstory2/1208884 . Of course Terry McAuliffe made $18 Million off of Global Crossing, http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/13/0313topnews.html, before they went under. It looks like that donation to him and others to the Clinton Library bought them quite a bit of influence when the time to bid for government contracts came around, http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/1_1/daily_news/17957-1.html .
4. The President is an honest, decent man, and anyone with a brain in their head and the willingness to exercise it knows it. His grades at Yale were higher than Gore’s, and he got an MBA at Harvard afterward. Al Gore dropped out of law school and flunked out of divinity school(F’s in 5 out of 8 classes) after finishing at Yale, and by the standards you measure Bush by he is a complete imbecile, http://ajcorp.tripod.com/cir/gore.shtml .
5. In a Bush dominated congress you would see a financial constraint, judges who enforce the law and do not make it up as they go along, programs to improve public and private schools, and increased spending on defense. Currently the Democratic KKK member from West Virginia is trying to loot every red cent he can from the 49 states who don’t have KKK members representing them in the senate. Kind of funny how deficits increase when Republicans don’t hold onto both ends of the purse string.
6. Tough luck for Jesus, but since Clarence Thomas was railroaded and smeared like him he might persuade a few other members of the court to take the case.
7. The only votes the Supreme Court took away were the phony ones the Democrats wanted to invent. There were 3 recounts and 3 Bush victories. If you look at effects on poll results in Florida look at the networks calling the election in Gore’s favor an hour before the polls closed. Fair estimates show that cost Bush an additional 20000 votes or so in Western Florida, and 5000 for Gore.
“Gore wasn’t doing anything he wasn’t legally allowed to…”
Actually, Nekouken, he was. Instead of excercising his legal right to follow the existing recount procedure set forth by Florida law, Gore tried to circumvent the law by demanding targeted recounts of counties he felt certain he’d win. Bush sued to prevent this “attempted hijacking,” and the resultant legal wrangling made it all the way to the US Supreme Court. The Supremes (no, not the singing group) threw the case back down to Florida, saying (basically) that Gore had to follow the established recount procedure. Of course, all of Gore’s legal maneuvering left him no time to file for a proper recount under Florida law, so the initial election results were upheld, and Bush won. Had Gore followed the established procedures from the start, he would have been able to get a full statewide recount which, according to many reports, would have made him the winner!
By attempting to “hijack” the election, Gore essentially gave it away.
As for the design of the ballots: they were designed and approved by the Democrats long before the election. If there were any concern about their being “confusing,” there was ample time to correct them. And, as a professional electioneer, I can tell you that there is always a percentage of voters who mess up the ballot somehow (whether it be voting for the “wrong” candidate, or voting for more than one, or not making a clear choice), no matter how clearly the ballot & instructions are designed. This happens in every precinct in the country. The only reason it became an issue in Florida in 2000 was because of the razor-thin margin between the two candidates in question. If either Gore or Bush had won by a landslide, no one would ever have heard of the “hanging chad.”
My own opinion of the 2000 election amounts to:
1) As far as I could tell by press coverage at the time (I’ve not investigated it myself, and like anyone who’s ever been the topic of a newspaper story or read a story about an area they do know a lot about, I’m very aware of the number of mistakes made in such stories), the Supreme Court did seem to make its decision based purely on political grounds rather than legal grounds. This was bad.
2) But, in terms of the election itself, I don’t think it really mattered. The election amounted to a dead heat (and I’ll note that for a sitting Vice-President of a not despised save by people who’d never vote for him anyway Administration in a time of then good economy to fare that poorly is rather dámņìņg itself) given the sort of noise you’d expect among that many ballots. Frankly, I think a coin flip should’ve been done, but I don’t get as keyed up about a “stolen election” when the actual results indicate a tie.
3) On the other hand, the Shrub administration has done such a bad job on so many levels, in particular Ashcroft, that barring a complete loon or demagogue being nominated by the Dems in 2004, they’re getting my vote then. And given the way the administration has acted, I’m really hoping at least one Congressional house stays Democratic.
Hey John,
Congratulations, I’ll add a registered Republican now to my list of hysterical people who crack me up.
Your argument against my X-MEN review is pathetic. Forget for a moment the very nature of the apples and oranges you’re trying to compare:
Did you read the whole review, where I talked about the thrill of the glory days of the X-Men for me at the time? Did you read the rest of the column, where I talked about all the things I found so fascinating about the comic at the time, and what I discovered from re-reading it today?
Those would be the parts where I backed up what I said in that opening statement, and provided details to support my argument.
I would have to imagine you didn’t read it, because it would have poked a huge hole in the balloon that is your argument. Besides all of that, the column isn’t exactly a scholarly text. It’s never aspired to be that. It seems you want to be reading THE COMICS JOURNAL, instead.
Pretty weak, if you ask me.
(I feel like I’m back at USENET making arguments with trolls…)
Nor did I ever say that terrorists would have flown planes into every building around if Gore had been president. Never once said that. I’m just happy that our response to the action was done by a Bush administration and not a Gore administration.
Simply put, Glenn’s hijacking of this blog for his vitriole was a clear mistake, complete with pandering, hysteria, and a large dosage of bad taste with that picture. It’s a shame nobody responds to his posts on his blog (it’s true — I just checked), but that’s no reason to inflict it on us here.
-Augie
After reading the entry that started this blog entry off. I can’t help but wonder if comparing September 11, 2001 to the last election. Might that be the reason Peter has more folks reading his blog, than the “highjacker” does?
Huh. Seems that PAD speaks to a predominantly conservative audience. I’d never have guessed, since he’s such a raging liberal.
If there’s one thing i don’t like about politics in the U.S. is that everyone has to be labelled.
You’re either a democrat, republican or independant.
I’m a very open minded individual, therefore by definition would be liberal… on the other hand, i hate the idea of a goverment giving people stuff they don’t deserve aka giving able-bodied men/women SSI.
So what does that make me ? Someone who wants a politician with well thought plans and ideas.
Maybe we need more Jesse “The Brain” Venturas around ?
I don’t think one has to be a conservative or libertarian or Objectivist to be upset that a blog about comics has been hijacked for a juvenile political rant.
Based on his books, comics, and this site PAD probably even agrees with some of it, but he wisely attempts to at least leave it open to doubt what his actual views are (although CM #1 paints him as fairly pro-Isreal, which is something you don’t see too often from liberal Democrats). There’s a good rule of thumb that you never expose your political views to someone you want to like / work with / do business with. Q never magically stole all the money from Ferenginar to give to green Orion crack whørëš in PAD’s books, after all 🙂
If you strip away all the tinfoil hat bûllšhìŧ, Glenn is right about one thing: it’s important that you vote, no matter what your views are. Vote or Mac Calhoun will kill this dog!
No one who has read the investigations of the Florida vote can come away with anything but the conclusion that a majority of legal voters in that state went to the polls with the intention of voting for Al Gore.
Now, no one who has ever observed American politics in action can doubt that the positions and arguments advanced by Gore and Bush would have been bald-facedly reversed had the advantage lay in the opposite direction.
But, of course, all that aside. Glenn’s main point is simply that you should vote. Especially if you happen to agree with him. Hard to argue with that, really.
Thanks for your liberal spin on things. Comparing the 9-11 hijackings to the 2000 election result is deplorable and tasteless. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I come to this site for interesting PAD related stuff, not crap like this.
Glenn, I have to agree with Simon DelMonte that the picture should be removed. I will never forget what happened, but I can’t stand to look at any pictures of what happened.
Maybe it’s not his public forum, but it’s one he has access to.
However, although he may have access to the ‘blog, his name is not in the url, the banner, or anywhere else that would imply that his views may be different from PAD’s.
However, what is written above is such a pack of lies that I cannot in good conscience continue to spend my money to enrich the people who promulgate them.
True, however I would like to think Peter would have the honor to not blast this man on the site in a show of public repremand to appease those who were upset about this. I still hold faith that, had Peter deemed this “rant” completely untolerable, he would have told Glenn personally, not in a public forum.
I come to this site for interesting PAD related stuff, not crap like this.
Agreed. So, please, Glenn, no more of this. Your site has a link from here. Let the readers choose whether or not to use it.
-ed!
(I know it is bad form to respond to three comments in one post, because sometimes people want to go back for referance, and/or double check the context in which a sentance was said. I know I do it all the time. So, the first quote was from Nekouken @ 11/05/2002 12:53 PM ET, the second from Alan @ 11/05/2002 01:08 PM ET, and the final from Dennis Viau @ 11/05/2002 06:28 PM ET.)
I’m afraid I agree with the majority here, Glen, you should’ve stuck to just saying “Go vote” and left it at that. The image of the towers burning seemed especially crass after reading your note.
On my own blog, which nobody reads but my husband and comic book retailer, I just wrote: “If you don’t vote, people who do vote (including me) get to decide your future.” Which I think would be enough for most folk…
My sister got off work late in Pensacola, stood in line to vote, and watched as the news media told her that her vote wouldn’t make a lick of difference.
Strange that no one has really complained how the media reporting the vote early in effect highjacked her vote.
Posted by Ian S.:
Based on his books, comics, and this site PAD probably even agrees with some of it, but he wisely attempts to at least leave it open to doubt what his actual views are (although CM #1 paints him as fairly pro-Isreal, which is something you don’t see too often from liberal Democrats).
How did you come to that conclusion?
IMO, the scene you’re referring to humanized the Palestinian bomber in a manner that I have yet to see in any news report, and the Israeli mother firing a gun was a very powerful image.
The impression I came away with after reading that scene was that, despite their differences, both sides in the conflict are equally capable of compassion and aggression, with neither side holding the moral high ground.
To be honest, I hadn’t even considered an alternate message; I felt the scene really spoke for itself in that respect.
I am a casual reader of this little blog and I don’t usually feel inclined to add anything but…I can’t help but feel disgusted. I don’t care if this isn’t your place to write your thoughts, or even about your opinion about the 2000 election. What gets me mad is your comparison of an election that was completely screwed up – the lack of any real candidate definition, since they’d been trying to shadow each other from the get-go, the premature media victory dances, the fact that no matter who won, we have (and would have had) a president who basically sued his way into office – to a horrificly violent and cruel event that still has people traumatized. I’m from New York too, I saw it too, there’s no need for that. I’m not one of those “we must erase all signs of the World Trade Center from history, so as not to hurt people’s feelings” people, but that was harsh and just a little sad.
While I’m sure you didn’t mean to disrespect those who lost their lives or loved ones, or temporarily lost their homes, and places of business, or even just their illusions of innocence like myself – this was my first election, btw – your decision to equate September 11th to an election gone wrong was in VERY poor taste. A simple “forfeight your right to vote, forfeight your right to complain” would have been enough.
Glenn, this one’s for you Pally
Here’s to those who love not too wisely, know not wisely, but too well
To the girl who sighs with envy when she hears that wedding bell
To the guy who’d throw a party if he knew someone to call
Here’s to the losers, bless them all
Here’s to those who drink their dinners when that lady doesn’t show
To the girl who’ll wait for kisses underneath that mistletoe
To the lonely summer lovers when the leaves begin to fall
Here’s to the losers, a-bless them all
Hey, Tom, Ðìçk and Harry, come in out of the rain
Those torches you carry must be drowned in champagne
Here’s the last toast of the evening, here’s to those who still believe
All the losers will be winners, all the givers shall receive
Here’s to trouble-free tomorrows, may your sorrows all be small
Here’s to the losers, bless them all
Hey, Tom, Ðìçk and Harry, come in out of that rain
Those torches you carry must be drowned in champagne
Here’s the last toast of the evening, here’s to those who still believe
All the losers will be winners, all the givers shall receive
Here’s to trouble-free tomorrows, may your sorrows all be small
Here’s to the losers, here’s to the losers, here’s to the losers
Bless them all!
Um… aren’t you all just getting a little *too* rabid?
I must admit, I’m amazed at the vehemence of the responses here. I can’t help but wonder, how much of it is actually about it not being a Peter David post, and how much of it boils down to partisanship and discontent over politcal opinions that don’t jibe with those of the reader.
Snivelling twit? Hissy fit? Pandering? Hysteria? Crap? Please. All of that came out not based on merit of the post, but on the fact that the comments were anti-Bush. Of course, if they’d been anti-Gore or anti-Democrat, we’d’ve gotten the same overblown ranting from the other side of the fence. (And if Peter David had written the same thing, word for word, I suspect there would have been less gnashing of teeth and more thoughtful discourse.) My feeling is, if Gore was in the White House instead of Bush, a lot of the same unethical actions would be taking place. I just think Bush is a lot less subtle about it, and the power of money to control government, than most others would be.
As for the 2000 election, all I have to say is that I do think something has gone seriously wrong in the process when Pat Buchanan gets the largest percentage of any county’s vote in a county with a large elderly Jewish population, but hey, it’s over. George Bush was legally and quasi-properly elected to the Presidency by a minority of the voters, and nothing now will change that. So let’s all get over it and hope that next election we get candidates more worth voting for. I personally would have voted for McCain, because he had the personality, the ability, the war record, the political resume, and a track record of doing what he feels is right rather than what is most beneficial to the political party to be a solid President. Of course, none of that can compare with name recognition and piles of money.
i wish more people would see that the major political parties both have some good ideas and some bad ideas. i agree with the democrats that the economy should be our primary concern, but i also agree with the republicans that there are still terrorists out there and they need to be brought to justice.
what i do not agree with is picking on a country that we think might have nuclear weapons, when another country, labeled in the same “axis of evil,” we definitely know has nuclear weapons. saddam is bad, yes, but we have other, bigger fish to fry.
because of all this, i voted democrat because i think the economy is a bigger concern. democrats and republicans are not so different, really. they are both full of arrogant, stupid assoles.
First of all, I don’t believe Glenn’s use of his patron’s BLOG was apropriate.
Second of all, I don’t believe the contents were well-thought-out.
Third, attacking Iraq is justifiable given their stated intentions, and their present capabilities and lack of inhibitions. They have chemical and biological weapons.
Fourth, besides the contested status of the election two years ago George W. Bush recieved almost the same amount of votes as Al Gore. Every time someone says George Bush was not elected by the people I want to pick ‘im up by his collar and tell him… that slightly under half the votes that were counted in this country went to Bush. Gore recieved slightly more than half the votes counted. (So what about the votes for either candidate that were not counted that came from living citizens?) Electoral votes are not a bad thing.
Fifth, the Republicans sued two years ago because the Democrats were breaking the law in their recount procedures.
Six, I am a Republican and I am starting to resent any implication that I am an áššhølë because I am a member of a group. I resent implications that a group that I am a member of is composed solely of áššhølëš. I resent it when the Democrats are called áššhølëš. I resent being called an áššhølë period.
Seventh, citizens are hypocrites.
Eighth, if Peter A. David wrote the blog entry that Glenn did word for word my opinion of his skillz would drop.
I wasn’t going to say anything. I really wasn’t. Dammit.
I should probably start by stating that I am a registered Republican. I voted for W. in the 2000 election. The issue that was the deal breaker for me was the privatization of Social Security. I’m 26. All of the money that is taken from my hard earned paycheck, I’ll never see again because SS will not be around when I’m 65-70. That makes me angry and I want the ability to control my own money.
That being said, I’m registered Republican because I live in a closed primary state. I actually consider myself a free-thinker. I don’t give a dámņ what party you are as long as you have a good platform.
That being said, I have a problem with statements such as the one that Glenn made. First, I do not think the election was stolen in 2000. George Bush won the state of Florida. Hence, he won the electoral votes and the election.
Glenn’s article, as I read it, also sems to say that if you have a problem with anything he states, then you have another choice. This is the biggest problem that I have with that arguement. People who have come out against George Bush in the past 2 years lay the blame on him and the Republicans. The thing is that I believe that if the Democrats were in office, little would be different. What people can’t seem to understand, probably because of partisan whitewash, is that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans. Glenn mentions big business. Sure, W. and the Republicans are in bed with big business. The Democrats, though, are in bed with big labor and trial lawyers. There’s only one thing that both parties stand for through thick and thin and that’s maintaining the status quo. Are you better of now than you were 2 years ago? Or 6 years ago? It’s a silly question. Looking at the big picture, I would argue that nothing’s really socially changed for 50 years or more. 9/11/02 hasn’t really changed anything either.
Am I a Republican? Sure. But only because I have to be. I voted for John McCain in the 2000 primary because I like the fact that he’s a “maverick.” He doesn’t toe the party line. Everyone makes fun of Jesse Venture, but to me, he’s the breath of fresh air that our system needs, and his kind should be the wave of the future. People who are willing to do and stick with what they think is right and not bow down to anyone whether it be GM or the GOP.
One thing I will agree with Glenn with is that the only way things will be change is if you vote. It’s too late now, but hey, May is only 5 months away.
I’m not sure if anyone will read this or respond, but I just needed to get this off my chest.
Why do so many people make the assumption that everyone in a political party thinks exactly the same as everyone else in that party? It’s pretty clear that a number of people here follow politics, but you from many of the comments, you would think that few of them have heard about “primaries” where candidates of the same party run against each other because they have different ideas.
Just because X is a Republican and Y is a Democrat doesn’t mean that they disagree all the time, either — unless they are basically parroting things told them by someone else.
There are people of honor in both parties, and there are scoundrels in both parties. There are well-meaning but ineffectual people in both parties, and there are people in both parties who are just plain wrong about things.
–Scott Rowland
By the way, you can replace “Republican” and “Democrat” in my post with “liberal” and”conservative” and the same points hold. There are such things as conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, too.
–Scott
Glenn, thanks for those insightful comments you hesitated to share on your own unpopular web page. So George Bush is responsible for all existing corporate corruption, Iraq being a threat to the world, AND the conviction of Jesus Castillo? He has more power than I thought. Wow, what’s next, is he going to push old people over a cliff in a wheelchair (oh, sorry, that’s been done)? Or will he unleash bubonic plague on children while denying them lunch money?
Your misplaced passion has made your comments laughable, so much so that you can’t be taken seriously. Are you trying to change the minds of undecided voters? Or are you lashing out at a country that has turned its back on your particular dogma? If you must scribble your inaccurate leftist rants, please do so on your own page, where you readily admit no one reads them. I come to this blog for Peter David’s leftist rants, not yours. Thanks.