So, pick 'em....

[scooter]

So here we are, July 4th, fireworks blazing, barbeques firing, the inevitable summer sales ringing,and my city getting known for almost killing Sandra Day O'Connor with some really big ass piece of wood.

It just makes one wonder:

Who is going to run in a few months?

Dean? Kerry? Graham? Moseley Braun (sorry Jason, had to throw that in there)? Not wondering who could win (yea, right) but just who will end up with the nomination at this stage of the game.

Any ideas?

S

[BrendoForHisOwnSake]

Well, my fellow Americans...

We stand here 200 and 27 years after the birth of our nation, and on the precipice of another tour to elect the next president of our great land. It is, with great honor, that I, Brendan O'Grady, announce my candidacy for the President of these United States.

If elected, I promise to push initiatives to drill for oil in the Alaskan natural preserves to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, but just to make sure that our domestic oil is enough, I'll find some county with rich-ass wells that nobody likes and I'll amke thier oil domestic oil by killing thier sovereign leader [it's okay, he and my Dad knew each other in the 80s], then promise the rebuilding contracts to my friends, the good people at Haliburton.

If elected, I promise to fight international terrorism by finding other countries with dickwad governments that nobody likes and bomb the bejeesis out of em' until we are all safe from anti-American sentiment.

If elected, I pomise to not be accountable for my failure to achieve any of my stated foreign policy goals with regards to peace negotiations in the Middle East, with bringing known terrorists to justice, or in defusing what intelligence reports tell us must be Trailer-Trucks of Mass Destruction.

And if elected, I promise to run my campaign largely on promises to fix social security and medicaid/medicare problems to secure the elderly, as they are always the voter block who turns out in the highets numbers, and then completely ignore the issues once I am elected. Don't worry, most of them will be dead befor ethey can get too pissed off, Hell, I'm cutting them off from thier meds, Heh Heh.

My fellow Americans, we stand on the edge of a new dawn for the kland that we love. Join me, by voting, in making tomorrow in my regressionist vision, and creating a worse place for us all.

Or don't vote. Either way, the Supreme Court is just gonna pick me. I'm a people person.

[thedancingbear]

I'll be voting for Dean, as will, I predict, most other people in the DNC primaries. The early polls in NH/Iowa are not indicative of real strength, just name recognition.

I certainly hope it'll be Dean. I don't want a Senatorial candidate for President. Especially not John Kerry.

IS

[PancreasMatt]

well, the moveon.com poll puts dean way way the hell ahead of Kerry, john-

But im still sticking by Sharpton! yeeeeeah! go rev!

[JChang]

Dean's making a remarkably strong showing, leading in some polls and the top fundraiser (john - even topping kerry) for the last quarter (see article below)

And while I would be happy to support Dean or Kerry if either got the nomination, my ideal president would be Dennis Kucinich of Ohio

http://thespiritoffreedom.com/index.htm

I didn't even know who the guy who was until a few weeks ago when the other interns in my office started talking about him (he works a few doors down in the house office building that i'm interning at for the summer). He has more solid positions ideologically than Dean does; for example - Kucinich was recently criticized by Dean for supporting a reduction in the gargantuan level of defense spending.

Alas, however, this crazy anti-American liberal probably will never win and we'll have to settle for someone more like Brendan...

:brickwall
-------
Dean tops Democrat fundraising


By Steve Schifferes
BBC News Online, Washington



Howard Dean's anti-war stance raised his profile
Democrat presidential candidate Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and darling of America's peace movement, has topped his rivals in the fundraising stakes so far.
Mr Dean used to joke that he came from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party."

But he is now putting in a strong showing in the Democratic sweepstakes, despite being virtually unknown nationally when he declared he was running for president last year.

Some in the Democratic party claim that a candidate who questioned the war cannot lead the party

Howard Dean
Mr Dean rose to prominence by opposing the Iraq war, and is now being rewarded by Democratic activists with more campaign contributions than any other candidate.

Mr Dean says he has raised $7m in the second quarter of the year, double the amount he received in the first quarter.

That compares to around $5m which has been raised by two of the most high-profile candidates, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, in the same quarter.

Two other leading candidates, Representative Richard Gephardt of Missouri and Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, are lagging well behind.

Money and politics

Money is essential to US politics.

Candidates must pay for advertising to reach potential voters and need additional funds to help increase turnout among their supporters.

The need is particularly pressing for Democratic candidates for president.

Changes to the primary system of elections means that most of the money will have to be spent in a few weeks in January and February of 2004, when key states all vote together on selecting the nominee.

Mr Dean has been particularly adept at using the internet to raise money.

He has used his own website to recruit 45,000 supporters who attend "meet-up" events in local cities with like-minded people.

And he topped the online poll conducted by a left-wing website, Moveon.org, gaining 44% of the vote to 15% for rival John Kerry - further boosting his fundraising efforts.

But the Democrat's rival, President George W Bush, has not been idle either.

He has raised $30m in just a few weeks of fundraising, and is expected to have some $200m by the time of the Democratic primaries.

As the rivals fight each other, Mr Bush is expected to use the money to strengthen Republican organisations around the country and begin an advertising campaign attacking the Democrats and promoting his own record.

Dean's foreign policy

Despite his popularity among registered Democrats, Mr Dean might be vulnerable among the broader electorate for his anti-war stance, which the president will seek to portray as unpatriotic.

In a speech last week in Washington, Mr Dean sought to dispel the impression that he was soft on terrorism.

He said that "some in the Democratic party claim that a candidate who questioned the war cannot lead the party."

But he said he still "questioned the judgment of those who led us into this conflict that has made us on balance not more secure, but less."

"The Bush administration led us into war without convincing evidence that an imminent threat existed, without a strategy for securing nuclear materials, without a plan for financing reconstruction, and without a clue how to consolidate the peace or unite the Iraqi people in support of democracy."

However, invoking the spirit of Democrat presidents like Harry Truman, who stood up to communism, and John F Kennedy, who confronted Russia in the Cuba missile crisis, he said he would be "tough and patient."

He pledged that, as president, he would draw a "red line" over North Korea's attempt to develop nuclear weapons.

Mr Dean spoke of the need to "confront the Iranians, the Syrians, the Saudis, and others who send money to Hamas"

And he said he did support "pre-emptive military action" in the case of Afghanistan, where the US did face an imminent from al-Qaeda, and in Bosnia and Kosovo, where the UN failed to act to stop genocide.

Nevertheless, Mr Dean will face a difficult task in reaching out beyond his core supporters to the broader US electorate in the face of determined opposition both within his own party and from a victorious president.

[JChang]

:hearhear

The primary system polarizes US politics - only the most ideological members of the base turn out to vote, meaning that candidates like McCain with broader general support get swallowed up in the primaries without ever having a chance to go to the electorate at-large.

The challenge, then, is one of how well these candidates can refocus their message to swing back to the center.

With regards to Dean, one of the main problems of progressives has been marketing their message. Americans agree with more liberal issues than they think they do - the problem is that Republicans have been successful at refocusing the message to demonize the left and its policies. Hopefully Dean can turn the tide by branching out with a more popular appeal.

[rocky]

Anyone for a Dick Cheney/Donald Rumsfeld ticket?:D

[rocky]

What's the matter? Why can't everyone get in the mood for world domination? :flamethro As Madeleine Albright said, what's the use of having a military if you can't use it once in a while. Dick and Donald would just use it many 'onces' in a great many short 'whiles.'

Oh, and Henry Kissinger would come back as National Security Advisor.:D

[thedancingbear]

Originally posted by tutakai
This is Dean's and the Democrats' problem -- becoming a victim of their own success. A leftist candidate might strongly appeal to core Democratic activists who are consumed by hatred and resentment for Bush, but it will be very hard to translate that into a general election campaign where moderates are the swing voters. The more that Dean mobilizes on the extremes, the more unviable he makes himself for a general election where many moderate voters are repelled by anything that chooses to associate with radicals.

Moderate voters don't really matter. People always analyze presidential elections as if they are one national election, but they aren't; they are 50 individual state contests.

If, for example, Gephardt were to win the nomination and pick Graham as his running mate, that would lock up Missouri (because that's where Gephardt's from and he's popular here), Michigan/Pennsylvania (Gephardt is the Chosen Son of organized labor), and Florida (because it's already very close and Graham likely pushes it over into the blue column). At that point there's really not any way Bush could win.

Bush is a great example of how irrelevant the popular vote really is.

IS

[thedancingbear]

Originally posted by tutakai
Well sure, but ask yourself the deeper question -- what is the cause of the two-party system?

And try to avoid the easy, ideological answers about the two-parties causing it themselves. Look for a structural cause. I'll give this 24 hours for someone to come up with the right answer

Duverger... TO THE RESCUE!

It's the first-past-the-post plurality system, wherein the candidate with the most votes wins (even if they don't get a majority). In a system like this one, and assuming basically rational voting behavior, only two candidates should ever get any votes.

I'll give this 24 hours for someone to come up with the right answer before I get up on my insufferable polo-sci comparative institutions I take my PhD test question-in this area in three months grad student soapbox.

What's polo sci? Is this more of the "dress-ism" I keep hearing so much about?

:steck

IS

[thedancingbear]

Originally posted by tutakai
Bingo, Ian.

If anyone wants to encourage sincere voting (i.e. voting for what you really believe in) then the first thing you need to do is to reform the electoral system to create some form of proportional representation. That would at least allow the development of a slate of parties instead of just 2.

Far better than proportional representation, IMO, is IRV -- instant run-off voting. For the benefit of those who aren't already familiar with it:

IRV is a system wherein you express more than just your first-position preference for an election. Right now you basically choose your top pick but that's it.

IRV adds more information to the system. You pick your top choice, and then if you wish, you can pick a second choice, a third choice, as many as you'd like until you run out of candidates.

Then, the election tabulation goes like this. If no one has more than 50% of the first-place vote, then the bottom candidate is eliminated and everyone who ranked her as their first choice has their vote transferred to their second choice. Repeat as needed.

An IRV system would never have elected Clinton in '92 nor would it have elected Bush in 2000 -- because most Perot voters would have preferred Bush to Clinton, and most Nader voters would have preferred Gore to Bush.

It's pretty cool. And still encourages the growth of third parties, because the old line about "throwing away your vote" goes away.

IS

[scooter]

At that point there's really not any way Bush could win.


I've thought about this one Ian, and have heard of that combination and similar expectations, but I just can't get past the motherload. Davis is in deep-- very deep-- and I don't know if there is any way that CA would seriously back Bush, but... it could happen. In that case, the midwest/NE Dem ticket may well not overcome (I am not sure on Gephardt here; that middle bit is really pretty red, pardon the pun, and Rendell may not be able to swing a PA vote for the blue, esp. in the "We love our guns, farms, and nice straight boys like Rickie" middle-- which is one big area of this state).

Could it happen? Could CA go Bush? If so, is it a done deal?

S

[patio11]

I'd put the chances of California going Bush as pretty darn low, but if California EVER goes Republican you can call the election right there. You'd have to carry, what, between three and eight solidly Republican states to make up the difference? Florida, Missouri, Tennessee, AND South Carolina could all swing Democrat and still wouldn't overcome those 54 electoral votes. And, lets face it, the odds of the Dems picking up more than one of those are negligible.

Patrick McKenzie

[JChang]

While we're discussing electoral systems, in addition to IRV and PR, we ought look at MMPR - the mixed-member proportional representation system employed by Germany. This system creates a 2+ party system, with two dominant parties (social democrats and christian democrats) with a number of significant third parties (ie greens, the social dem coalition partners). MMPR allocates half of the seats in the legislature to seats chosen in plurality elections in single-member districts (ie first past the post) while allocating the other half of the seats to parties based on a PR party list vote.

And the neat thing? This could be implemented without a constitutional amendment. The constitution does not specify a requirement of single-member district plurality elections. It is an Anglican tradition that we have continued. Rather, it grants the states the right to determine the means by which their seats are allocated. That means that states can divide their congressional delegations roughly by half - for example, California would divide its 53 seats into 27 single-member districts and 26 seats elected by proportional representation.

This system provides several benefits over pure PR. First, it preserves regional representation, something that a pure PR system would eliminate. Secondly, because this model preserves a dominance of two main parties, it is far less likely to encounter the frequent collapse of government seen in more pure PR systems (Israel represents the world's purest PR system, with a minimum threshold of 1.5% needed to enter the Knesset - since Israel's inception, NO government has survived for its entire term). Finally, it still allows for minor party interests to be substantively represented and included in government (Germany's current governing coalition relies on the Greens for its continued existence).

[JChang]

No, Cali sure as hell isn't going democratic anytime soon. Despite Davis' dismal numbers, California is still probably one of the most solid democratic states in the Union - as much as we may hate Davis, we hate Bush more. All but one of the statewide offices are held by the dems, and they hold solid majorities in both houses of the legislature. Both of the state's largest cities (LA and SF) are also solidly democratic.

And if a Republican were to win California, it sure wouldn't be Bush. Californians still quite haven't forgotten Bush's refusal to help or even investigate our energy crisis when we now know that his Enron cronies were busy looping energy to artificially jack up the prices and create false shortages. We also don't care much for his ignoring our budget situation - a deficit of $38 billion, a number that exceeds the total combined state budgets of all other states (except for New York) combined, a situation many analysts are calling the worst crisis in the state's history. Bush doesn't even go outside when he comes to California because there are simply too many protesters (any remember his recent fundraising trip to SF and LA? CNN kept showing pictures of the protests over and over - it was them who caught the media attention, not Bush).

Cali is safe for now, thankfully...

[JChang]

And I would argue that any democratic candidate with a half-decent campaign staff would do every thing possible to distance the nominee from Davis. If the candidate were even moderately successful in doing that, Cali would still be nicely locked up

[patio11]

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/07/06/wcalif06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/07/06/ixworld.html

Money quote : Even now, (Streisand's) fellow limousine liberals insist (the California budget deficit) is all the fault of "the Bush recession", though there's plenty of statistical evidence to suggest that if you sliced off California and floated it out into the Pacific there'd be no "Bush recession" at all.

Shorn of LaLaLand, in May America would actually have seen a net gain in employment - an extra 4,500 jobs - but then the monthly figures from California came in - another 21,500 layoffs - and drove the national figure down again.

Patrick McKenzie

[JChang]

Here's a win-win situation for the Democrats:

California's recall law works like this: if the measure gets on the ballot, voters vote yes or no to keep the governor and also vote for a successor. Without primaries or a distinct campaign season, this means a free-for-all whereby many candidates can viably run...including Democrats. So far, no prominent Democrat has declared an intent to run if the recall gets on the ballot and for now, they are staying behind the governor. But that could change if the recall movement succeeds in getting the measure on the ballot, moving Davis much closer to his political grave.

So if a popular Democrat (speculation points to Senator Dianne Feinstein) were to run and win in the recall election, Davis would be dumped and in his place, there would be a popular new governor who could solidify Cali for the dems.

[scooter]

"from the Marxist professors at Berkeley to the flabby nude feminists of Marin County to the Hollywood poseurs."

I wouldn't be noting that the typical hubris and childish ad homs of the Telegraph are what I would call priceless, even if I do personally agree with the contention.

To make a point with such a glowing indignation based on the typical cloaking of academics as "marxist" (surmised to be a bad thing-- how very unoriginal can one get in writing) and to judge people as "flabby" in a means to discount their character is more than typical Telegraph, very "Un-British" like antics, even more than that strange noted ability of the same paper that puts them in the proverbial childish sandbox of the Coulters and Rushs of this world (Just insult them, and make a joke about it! What stellar logic!).

Its more than that: Its boringly predictable.

Best to relegate such innanities to The Sun, where they belong.

S

[patio11]

I think you're aim would be slightly better directed at Mark Steyn's writing style, rather than the Telegraph's editorial policy per se. He writes, basically, like a conservative Dowd, except more consistently funny. And you have to admit, Marxists at Berkeley is certainly legitimate hyperbole*.

Patrick McKenzie

*Unless it turns out to be too true to be hyperbole :)

[Spo1369]

Ok this really pulls at me from a few directions, First being a native St Louisian and a republican, I jsut have to say that I would love to get Gephardt in the General. Dick is an ignma in the state, as he has never ran for statewide office, save his few previous attempts at the White House. And also outside the cities of St Louis and Kansas City, this state is republican. In 2002, we, Jim Talent, lost st louis county, but it was inside the drop dead number, which was roughly 53%, give or take, I can not excactly remember. I think he would take STL area around 55%, only because the turnout here would be astronimical, and the inner city would be his, but the county areas would most likely not be his.
But on to the real ticket, and it is dependant on a change in the Leadership of the DNC. Which is a long time coming. Terry McMcauliffe is on his way out. He has lost the teeth and the edge the the new face of the party is pushing for, people like Daschle and Dean. So on that note, I would venture your Democratic ticket as Dean/Graham. Dean has the momentum at the moment, and as Graham is going to be on the ticket no matter what. He takes Florida and puts in back into play. What everyone has to remember is that had ANY state changed sides in 2000 Florida would have been academic. and that is the truth, look for that same level of electoral politics to re-play again.

Shaun

[rocky]

OK, folks, let's get one thing strait about Mr. Dean, who I am sure is a fine induhvidual in other ways, but who possesses one thing which will automatically tank his chances for the presidency: he is a VERMONTER!!! I don't know if any of you have ever lived in Vermont, or know what VERMONTERS are like, but I have and I do, and I can tell you it is no surprise that George Washington was ready to invade them after the Revolution was officially over.:machinegu

Let's go through what Dean's being a Vermonter entails...

So he was governor of Vermont, was he? Oh, was he the governor who wangled millions from the Federal Government for environmental and economic improvements by getting Lake Champlain declared one of the 'Great Lakes?' (the government recinded that classification, but let Vermont keep the money!)

Of course Dean is against both Iraq and Bush's tax cut...there mustn't be anything in them to profit Vermont! Being opposed to government policy due to lack of personal gain has been standard fair for New England since, oh, the War of 1812. ;)

So what if he is a balanced-budget fiend? Vermonters are notorious even in New England for being close-fisted, penny-pinching Yankees! Vermont has an elaborate spy/oversight system to track which Vermont residents go to sales-tax free New Hampshire--wouldn't want anyone to get away with a penny, would we? They are also good businesspeople...ever try to bargain with a Vermonter?

And let's not forget Jeffords, who, when asked why he stuck up for his principles (translation: why he threw the Senate to the Democrats after being elected on a Republican ticket) answered that it was because he was a VERMONTER (I am not making this up)!

OK, so Dean is a Democrat with a seemingly popular following...that means nothing, especially when we consider that he is a) pro-Israel :eek , b) pro-death penalty :eek , c) anti-medical marajuana :eek , and d) anti-Kyoto protocol :eek :eek . Of course, being all of those hasn't prevented Republicans from being elected, but that argument turns on itself, for what does Dean offer in that line that Bush doesn't--exept a balanced budget? Sending troops into battle (as Dean has indicated he would) while counting pennies (as Dean does)is a recipe for body bags, not quick expense-account in-and-out bully wars like Republicans tend to fight. Gephardt, with his Andy Jackson-like defiance of the Supreme Court, would go much better in this day and age of the executive.

Finally, let's remember that past presidents from Vermont have not had very good track records. There was Chester A. Arthur, a nothing who was the product of Tammany Hall, and who could not cleanse his reputation of the stench of corruption. And there was Silent Cal Coolidge, the herald of the Depression and king of corporate America of his time, who said "The business of America is business."

I rest my case.:gavel

[AhhAlegra]

Excellent use of emoticons, rocky.:patriot

[jatkins]

I've been trying to pick my horse for a while now, and I'd pretty much settled on Dean, but rocky brings up some good points. I'm still leaning towards Dean, but I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on my responses to rocky's post. I'm still trying to get a clear picture of Dean as a candidate, and anything would help.

Originally posted by rocky
So he was governor of Vermont, was he? Oh, was he the governor who wangled millions from the Federal Government for environmental and economic improvements by getting Lake Champlain declared one of the 'Great Lakes?' (the government recinded that classification, but let Vermont keep the money!)

Wow. I wish my governor could advocate that effectively to the federal government on my state's behalf. I don't see how this particular "wangling" is an abuse of his role as governor. As you said, his successful advocacy on that issue dumped millions into the economy and environment of the state whose interests he is supposed to look out for.

Of course Dean is against both Iraq and Bush's tax cut...there mustn't be anything in them to profit Vermont! Being opposed to government policy due to lack of personal gain has been standard fair for New England since, oh, the War of 1812. ;)

Well, since there's nothing in them that profits Oregon either...

And hey, they were right about the war of 1812. After all, we invaded, they kicked us out, counterattacked, and burned down Washington. The only serious engagement we won was the battle of New Orleans, which was fought after the treaty ending the war was signed. What does that mean? We are 0-1 against CANADA. And that is a shame we shall never live down.

So what if he is a balanced-budget fiend? Vermonters are notorious even in New England for being close-fisted, penny-pinching Yankees! Vermont has an elaborate spy/oversight system to track which Vermont residents go to sales-tax free New Hampshire--wouldn't want anyone to get away with a penny, would we? They are also good businesspeople...ever try to bargain with a Vermonter?

I think that a good businessperson is what we need in the White House right now. We need very much for someone to look into the military budget, specifically in the direction of the OICW, JSF, F-22n, and our CVN-type aircraft carriers (there are ten of them) for superfluities. I do, however, question whether any candidate will take a firm stand on the military-industrial complex. Not that it should have to be a liberal that takes a stand on it...It was Dwight Eisenhower who coined the term and first spoke out against allowing military might to become an end of its own, out of fear that the existence of such a military would create an executive predisposition to use it. Former Oregon state governors Tom McCall and Mark O. Hatfield (who is actually better known for his very long tenure in the US Senate), both Republicans, had very principled stands on this issue. I remember Hatfield retiring from the Senate, so it wasn't all that long ago, but flash forward about a decade and suddenly I can't even get a Democrat who will say this stuff. The world has indeed changed.

OK, so Dean is a Democrat with a seemingly popular following...that means nothing, especially when we consider that he is a) pro-Israel :eek , b) pro-death penalty :eek , c) anti-medical marajuana :eek , and d) anti-Kyoto protocol :eek :eek .

A) So am I. But neither Dean nor myself hold much love for Sharon, from what I've heard. B) Yeah, I'm pretty much against capital punishment, but it's not like Gephardt is much of a DP abolitionist either. I've pretty much resigned myself to hoping for someone who won't expand the scope of the death penalty. C) Yeah, but in the same way that he's anti-gun control: he doesn't want if for his state, but he won't actively try to prevent its application in others. D) I did not know this. I believe you, but could you give me a source on it? I'd like to have access to the nuances of his position on it, and his reasons for opposition.

Gephardt, with his Andy Jackson-like defiance of the Supreme Court, would go much better in this day and age of the executive.

Gephardt, however, has about the same chance of winning in a general as Dennis Kucinich has of winning in the primary.

[scooter]

Not only did the capital get burned down, but the American forces engaged British/Canadian forces, and:

"The U.S. Commander surrenders. Within a few short hours the Union Jack is waving above fort Detroit, and the British have made prisoners of an army twice their size."

Yep, you got it: American forces were twice as large, got kicked out, and ended up getting their asses kicked trying to keep Detroit.


S
(Then again, to those of us from there, that the fine city should play such an important role in the developments of two countries campaigns is of absolutely no surprise whatsoever..."

[jatkins]

I'm just glad we're not all speaking Canadian today.

[jatkins]

Originally posted by Ozymandias The Americans just couldn't think of a good reason to risk their lives to defend Detroit.

Oooh...Burn. I guess since this is a time/space shift, I can't use hindsight, but Motown is certainly reason enough.

1. Will Wesley Clark run?

2. If he does, does he have a shot?

No and no. At least, that's my guess. If he were going to run, he'd have announced his candidacy much earlier and gotten into the paper by the first fundraising deadlines.

[PancreasMatt]

look, the Kyoto Protocol is just a really dumb idea. It doesn't mean you aren't liberal is you don't want to wreck the economy and destroy SO2 deposits, or vastly increase methane warming.

[AhhAlegra]

hear hear. I don't like when people make it sound like if you are against any one particular position, you aren't a liberal. You've got to take a look at the whole picture. And come on, Dean is a liberal. He does some impressive ranting, too, from what I've seen :)
In other news, I remember when Nicky Dunbar and I debated together at camp and she had to LO anti-Kyoto in the first rounds, which she had never done before and disagreed with quite a bit personally. I whispered what I could think of in her ear, we pretty much went for 8 minutes of China, and won. Fun times.

[PancreasMatt]

oh no, i think Deans a Sellout evil conservative. he's really a shithead, and Sharpton had better win. But Kyoto just has so many disads...

[PancreasMatt]

wow... thats one of those type of posts that gets you on a lot of lists, you know? ;)

[scooter]

thy name is Jed.

S