Rob E Dangerously

Yeah.. I wish there'd be something on the net, like from CQ, mentioning the roll call on things such as this. The Republicans from Texas ad Kentucky who voted against the CRA were voted out of office in 1964 as well. I'd say that the fight was lost for awhile after 1964. There's some resentment. And recognition of what Democrats have done, or have been percieved as doing. There's suspect actions from the GOP from the 1870s to the 1950s. Republican organizations in the South began to distance themselves from Black voters even in the 1920s. I'm sure the numbers are out there. But, I think Bush in 2000 got one of the lower vote totals from black voters, and his showing in cities was one of the worst ever for his party. True, on the national level, both parties ignore the guys who piss off large portions of America He ran as a Republican in 1992 though. But, not in a general election. And David Duke too. But, Duke benefitted from the dumbasses who vote for the whiter candidate. I found a story that claimed that areas in Louisiana that supported Duke helped give Blanco the victory over Bobby Jindal. Yeah, basically voting just on your own principles and not what the people in your state want might get you a 'Profile in Courage' but it'll also get you defeated for re-election. Lott is probably a bit more knowledgeable about Strom than Dodd is about Byrd. Even if Dodd's dad did serve in the Senate with Byrd I'd say that he could have kissed BUTT without going that far. The part about the 'country not having all these problems if he was elected' was overdoing it. "We voted for you in 1948" doesn't seem as objectionable. And remember that Lott also said that about Strom in 1980. I'll put this out so you won't have to find it. "Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., has said, 'If a Democratic leader had made[Lott's] statements, we would have to call for his stepping aside, without any question whatsoever'" [Although technically, Byrd isn't a leader at the moment. He'd be Pres. Pro-Tem if the Democrats had a Majority. And if he stepped away from that, Ted Kennedy would be next in line] Although, we'd have to see about that claim. If a Dem made a statement that went right out to support a group like that now-a-days, there'd be reason to question them. Dodd was probably glossing over a bit of Byrd's record

Supposedly he joined in 1942 and quit in 1943. Even if he was kissing ass for a few years afterwards. I don't think anybody's mentioned any links between Byrd and the Klan after 1947. (And if voting against the Civil Rights Act makes one a Klansman and a bad guy, then the Republicans nominated a Klansman in 1964. I could recognize that the Republicans helped the Civil Rights Act if you recognize that they then put up candidates to appeal to the people against the Civil Rights Act. A good portion of Black voters supported Nixon, and then about 4% of them voted for Goldwater) As for Strom. I'd say that he shifted for his own survival. His 1946 campaign for SC governor wasn't quite as racist as his opposition. He disavowed racists like Gerald LK Smith in 1948. He voted against and filibustered civil rights legislation due to the people in his state who were against it was well. And then in the 70s and onwards, Strom started to hire black staffers and generally provide for his state. As for Dodd. It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't know or forgot about stuff like that. I have heard some stuff that paints Dodd as either not being too smart or just partying alot

and the US shot a rocket at a mosque, killing 40. Ooh, i'm sure that will go over well with the Iraqis.

Yes, but he still was elected twice for gov ('84 and '88) and then elected to one term as senator before losing to said dead guy Yes, but losing to a dead man shows the people of Missouri didn't think of him too highly. Maybe he won on flukes or by being unopposed. Or maybe Missouri is full of uptight people who liked Ashcroft to begin with but after three terms decided he was worthless. he lost to a popular dead guy, who was the Governor of Missouri at the time of his death.

I don't know.. then again, Missouri is also partly to blame for President Bush being elected.

and there should be some distribution of delegates that would recognize the voting results. Instead of 27 for one and 2 for the other

One of the good reasons to vote for Kerry: President Kerry = Attorney General Ashcroft (preceding picture was not intended to threaten Mr. Ashcroft. Don't break down my doors, mmk?)

Kaz Matsui - 3 for 3, leadoff HR, two doubles

and I thought terrorists were the real threat.. silly me

The whole Presidential primary system is extremely flawed anyways. Granted, a national primary would be a bigger pain, and it'd sorta diminish the 'conventions'

KOCH RULES

You are all Satanists if you oppose Our God George Walker Bush!

If it gets canceled down the road, then they those two should defiently get a show. They seem like friends in real life, just like Tony/Wilbon. it seems like Woody thinks Jay is an idiot.. just from how he reacts to some of Moronotti's statements

are they going to put the spider scene back in?

Before about last week, it was Majette and McKinney. But, Majette is running for the Senate seat that Zell Miller is vacating. Leaving Cynthia McKinney as the only Democrat in the primary (at the moment) Well.. that should spice things up a bit.

I invented it.

What I find intriguing is that Drudge and World Net Daily are the only sources reporting this. And that includes Kerry's site! http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/

CNN.com headline: "Nader numbers take plunge Nader supporters blame Tyler"

Yeah, I see your point there.

Tyler.. your touch won't mean much if you use it to vote for Nader. If you insist on using your touch, vote for Bush

So.. nothing wrong with joking about the reason you gave for your war? It's a stupid joke

Here's the speech from Rep. Ferguson "Let me set the record straight right now. This budget does not cut funding for any program" Either that's a load of horseshit, or the "cut taxes/maintain funding" budget is deficit-a-riffic. And coming up after that was Dennis Moore (D-KS) Well, it was a snappy little reply. There's alot more to attack from Ferguson's speech. Like the assertion that Democrats are openly planning to "raise taxes". And here's part of the statement from Nussle that was a bit assholish in reply to this from Ms Watson (D-CA): "Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget because it would place my USC girls' number one volleyball team, who were here at the White House yesterday, at risk." and the reply: "Mr. Chairman, what I did say is it would have placed my number one USC volleyball team at risk because this bill eliminates the Women's Educational Equity Act" and Nussle again: "Mr. Chairman, I would even provide the gentlewoman with some time if she can find that in the budget. I have got the budget here. If she can find volleyball or the Women's Athletic Act or anything in this budget, I would be glad to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman if she can find that for me in my budget." (Granted, I guess "at risk" now means "cut" and "Women's Educational Equity Act" now means "Volleyball team")

Mike Ferguson (R-NJ) is up on the floor admitting that the Republican budget is superior because it won't cut any spending and it cuts taxes. And he's claiming the Democrats want to "raise our taxes". To the Gentleman from New Jersey, the spending you advocate will force a tax hike eventually. And it will be a steep one too. That happens with deficit spending. That happens with the policies of "Credit Card Republicanism". You can watch now, or read it on thomas.loc.gov soon

As for the poll.. ask.. which will effect your pocketbook more. Rising gas prices or terrorism. And, the answer is rising prices.

Other than Ferguson.. another guy who made a questionable impression on me is the Budget chair from Iowa. Once Thomas.loc.gov gets the CR up for today (which should be.. lord knows when.. the house is still in session).. I can bring up the quotes between him and this one Georgia democrat EDIT: that Republican would be Rep. Nussle