Dean:

I disagree 100% with your position.

When did you become the Minister of Voting Purity?

I mean, I guess you bring up a valid issue, one that is currently in vogue among the young Reaganite-neocon-Jonah-Goldberg-bowtie-wearing-eastern-seabord-literary-crowd...

...but allow me to summarize, briefly, the opposition view by paraphrasing Adlai Stevenson (someone who also wore a bowtie on occasion):

"In America, everyone has the right to vote, but that's just the risk we take."

Oh my god, Dean, what on EARTH are you thinking?

And here's another thing: Your test? It is a really a **citizenship test**. Being a naturalized citizen myself, I recognize it.

But if it WAS an "election test" it would be dragged into court so fast the defendant's attorney's bowtie would spin like the propeller on Thurston Howell's yacht.

And another thing: I appreciate your effort to "raise the consciousness" of the electorate, but what's next?

Re-education camps?

You say you "used to be a Democrat?" You sound like a reformed communist.

Hel-looooooooooo?

....or here's a thought: maybe, just maybe, you're REALLY trying to surpress the liberal vote.

(like Subliminal Man you said "STAY HOME ON ELECTION DAY" five -- count em, five -- times.)

Nah. There's only about 3 liberals who read this blog anyway. We're DEFINITELY NOT staying home.

So: who the hell gets to decide? Who the hell gets to decide that I can vote and YOU can't? or vice-versa? Who decides that I'm smart enough and you aren't? Or that I pass the test and you didn't?

Oh, right. The Minister of Voting Purity.

And while you're at it, what OTHER tests are you going to come up with ...? And what OTHER constitutional rights do I forfeit if I fail the NEXT exam?

Dean: if you want to require people to show ID when they show up to vote, fine.

If you want to have a database that checks to see if the person has voted twice that day, SOMEWHERE, ANYWHERE, fine -- I'm with you.

If you want to eliminate voter fraud -- I'm in favor of stamping it out.

But for you to tell me that "stupid people" should do us all a favor and stay home on election day? You are WAY off base.

Let the stupid people vote. This is America. It's the risk we take.

This is America. People vote for "the best candidate", i.e., whoever the hell they please and it's not anyone's business WHO that is or WHY that is.

You, and I, have to live with it.

They can vote for Justin-freaking-Timberlake for all I care.

Come to think of it, I think the bigger danger is stupid CANDIDATES, not stupid voters. But that's another argument altogether.

My advice? Get over yourself and let the people vote. This is America. It's one of the risks we take.

I could go on, but I have a plane to catch.

Sheesh. "STAY HOME...!"

hee hee...!

Oh I get it. You're pulling my leg.

Sorry. It's early and I haven't had my coffee yet.

1)John Dingell, Democrat
2)Two: Carl Levin, Debbie Stabinow
3)Homeland Security
4)Joseph M. Pilchak, Candidate for Gov., US Taxpayers Party
5)The Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in all states up to the end of the first trimester. My congressman and my govenor have no ability to change the decision, but they do have the power of the purse to provide funding for poor women and can control whether a minor can seek an abortion with/without her parent's consent.
6)Revenues went up as did GDP and most other economic indicators. (But Regan sold the American worker down the river by undoing import quotas!)
7) The codification of junk science which would tie the US economy to the whims of pasty faced socialists in Europe who buy into the whole global warming conspiracy.
8)No. Dick Nixon scrapped it.
9) The right of a US senator to talk and talk and talk at the peoples' expense.
10) Dick Cheney

See you at the polls!

PS: Ara, If the Howell's had a yacht, what were they doing on the SS Minnow?

Suggesting that people have a perfect right not to participate makes me a Communist and a Minister of Voter Purity? Do tell.

I disagree 100% with your position.

No surprise that you disagree.

When did you become the Minister of Voting Purity?

Remember this is Dean's World.

You say you "used to be a Democrat?" You sound like a reformed communist.

Glad you notice the similarity. Frankly, I'm surprised that it has taken you so long to realize that Democrat=Socialist...
I'm sure you'll want to dispute it - go for it!

....or here's a thought: maybe, just maybe, you're REALLY trying to surpress the liberal vote.

If only....

Nah. There's only about 3 liberals who read this blog anyway. We're DEFINITELY NOT staying home.

There are way more than 3. Heck, there's even more than 3 that post. Not including all of your aliases.

I just have three things to say.

1. I agree with Dean - it is you duty to educate yourself on your choices and make the best choice - for you.

2. If, however, you choose not to vote or have no idea who or what your voting for/on - you have nobody to blame but yourself. So quit yer bitchin'!

3. To any and all women out there who plan to vote for a candidate for no other reason than - he's cute or she's a woman - I say this:

END SUFFRAGE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Someone is posting using the Esmay login!!!

There can be no other explanation for the previous posts allegedly made by them.

Hey, here's a good idea for the person posting on their behalf: let's make all potential voters take a test and only allow the top, say 25% of the scorers to vote.

Hell, I'm such a dumbass liberal that I think univeral health care is right not a priviledge.

Voters, when in doubt, vote for the candidate with the smaller arsenal of semi-automatic assault weapons. Vote against tobacco, vote against the NRA, vote against the christian coalition (if they still exist), vote against the death penalty, vote against anti-choice candidates, vote against tax cuts for the wealthy...see, the issues are easy to understand. Intellectuals out there try to make it more difficult than it really is. It's not that hard. Don't underestimate the common American. They know what it is all about.

Tim

There are only two Esmay's posting here. I'm one and Dean is the other.

I stand by everything that I say as I'm sure Dean does.

vote against the christian coalition

Neither Dean nor I advocate voting for or against someone solely on their personal belief system. It is rather racist. Besides I don't believe that the Christian Coalition is running for office.

Also, a little hypocritical of someone that enjoy's throwing around the name Hitler...

What's next don't vote for Lieberman because he's a Jew?

Vote against tobacco, vote against the NRA, vote against the death penalty, vote against anti-choice candidates, vote against tax cuts for the wealthy...see, the issues are easy to understand.

Tobacco running? Damn the Marlboro man.

NRA running? No, they just want to make sure Our Constitutional Right to Bear Arms - which of course I choose to do doesn't get misplaced. (You remember the 2nd Amendment, right?)

Death Penalty, bad? Murdering innocent law abiding citizens, good? Waste tax dollars feeding and clothing people who murder - okay. Aborting unwanted fetus that could have been prevented in the first place with contraception is okay??? Seems a little hypocritical.

Vote against Anti- choice candidates?

I plan to.

Let's try to remember that freedom to choose extends beyond the pelvis for many of us.

I plan to vote against those candidates that don't allow me to choose to:

Own a gun

Have School Choice

Have Social Security Choice

Have Medicare Choice

Wear Motorcycle helmets

Wear Seat belts

Smoking in restaurants

Allow local communities able to decide controversial issues like school prayer?

Freedom to keep what you earn, and spend it as you choose.

Tax cuts for the poor would be stupid because people who don't work or have any money- don't pay taxes...

Punishing someone for being successful - taking more of their money in taxes causes creative accounting. Poor people can't stimulate the economy or create jobs. Let's keep complaining about a tax cut that doen't take effect for another 4 years...BTW, A heavy progressive income tax on earnings is plank #2 of the Communist Party Platform - perhaps you should look into them.

Freedom to keep what you earn, and spend it as you choose...That is what being an American is all about.

Don't underestimate the common American. They know what it is all about.

Based on what you've said here...leaves much room for doubt.

[Carefully re-reading my message.]

I'm missing the part where I said "liberals" shouldn't vote.

[Carefully re-reading my article.]

I'm missing the part where I said anyone should be required to take a test to vote.

You should add:
If you still vote party line because you have been a dem since FDR saved us from the depression you shouldn't vote.
Sorry mom.

>>"Hell, I'm such a dumbass liberal that I think univeral health care is right not a priviledge. "

Okay, if it is a right, then God will pay for it, eh? Universal health care doesn't seem to be working out real well in Canada or England, why do you think it would work better here?

>>"Voters, when in doubt, vote for the candidate with the smaller arsenal of semi-automatic assault weapons."

Dude, there is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault weapon. Assault weapons, by definition, are fully automatic. And how, precisely, are the voters to know how many semi-automatic and perfectly legal weapons a candidate owns?

>>"Vote against tobacco"

Like she said, tobacco is not running, so this statement is silly.

>>"vote against the NRA"

Not running either.

>>"vote against the christian coalition (if they still exist)"

Not only are they not running, but that statement is HATE SPEECH.

>>"vote against the death penalty"

Anyplace it is up for a vote, you should vote against it (although I am not aware of any state runnign a referendum on the death penalty this year). Not that I think there is anything wrong with killing murderers, but life (absolutely positively no second chance ever) without parole is far cheaper for the taxpayers than the death penalty.

>>"vote against anti-choice candidates"

I couldn't say this better than Rosemary did, but I'll add that choice should include the ability to choose who you want to marry, regardless of sex (although it would be nice if your mate is the same species), and that choice should include the ability to choose to smoke if you are dumb enough to do so, and the ability to take drugs if that is what you want to do, and the ability to disagree with liberals without being accused of being a facist.

>>"vote against tax cuts for the wealthy."

I've got a problem with that. I AM the wealthy. My wife and myself, between us, make more than the $64 K that puts you in the top tax bracket. I must, therefore, be part of the "top 1%", if this class warfare "tax cuts for the wealthy" propaganda is the be believed. (Do you really think that someone who is in the "top 1%" would deign to talk to a commoner like yourself?)

>>"see, the issues are easy to understand"

I think it would be more correct to say that the issues are easy to reduce to misleading and incaccurate slogans that have little or nothing to do with the true facts of those issues.

>>"Intellectuals out there try to make it more difficult than it really is. It's not that hard."

Oh, dear me, does that mean that I am an intellectual simply because I apparently can see the issues better than you can???

Y'know, that really IS the most insulting thing anyone has ever called me.

>>" Don't underestimate the common American. They know what it is all about."

Okay, I must not be a common American, then. I grew up in a house that was sided with tarpaper, so far up in the hills that about half of our diet in my early years was obtained from the fields and forests around us with a (terrible awful horrible) GUN. I went to a highschool with a graduating class in 1964 of 64 people, and I graduated with a C average. I managed to get into college by scoring high on my SATs, but I flunked out and went to Viet Nam for a couple of years. I managed to finish my degree when I came back from Nam, though, so I am college educated. I guess this prevents me from being considered a "common American". Of course, when I got out of school, I worked as a truck driver, and a disk jockey, and a restaurant wage slave, and a telephone installer, and a shop clerk, and a car salesman, and an insurance salesman, and a real estate salesman, and a restaurant manager. Clearly, no one who works at jobs like that can be a "common American". It's a good thing I got out of that retail stuff and got myself a nice civil service job with the police department. Of course, that makes me one of the Opressors, so I clearly cannot be a "common American". What's worse, I'm a Reaganite-neocon-Jonah-Goldberg-bowtie-wearing-eastern-seabord type. I'm not young, though, and clearly not literary, since I cannot confound those who point out the truth by posting irrelevant Shakespeare quotes as if they had some deep meaning.

Clearly, since I am not a "common American" I don't know what I am talking about. What's worse, I'm a registered Democrat, and I am not spouting the Party LIne, so I am probably a crypto-facist.

You, on the other hand, are a fool. A well meaning fool, no doubt, but a fool, nontheless. (And I suspect you are an inttelectual as well, but since I consider that a deadly insult, it would hardly be right for me to accuse you of it.)

1) John LaFalce. Democrat.

2) Two. Hilary Clinton (may she burn in hell) and Charles Schumer (who's an effective legislator and really on the ball when the chips are down, even if he is a liberal puke :)

3) Digital Millenium Copyright Act

4) Golisano for Governor (he might make it to, but I'm voting for Carl McCall, the Democrat).

5) Roe vs Wade is the Supreme Court decision that sruck down virtually all existing anti-abortion laws in 1973. My Congresscritters can sponsor legislation to add a Constitutional Amendment to make abortion explicitly illegal (or explicity legal, either will end the debate when passed) (yeah, sure it will). My governor can ask state legislators to craft legislation that will pass the Supreme Courts "constitutionality screen" to make abortion impossible or nearly so within the bourdaries of the state. Or to make it really easy, Either way.

6) Tax revenues went up both times.

7) A treaty that, if everyone in the world signs it, and follows it precisely, will stave off global warming for as much as 12 years, _IF_ global warming is caused by carbon monoxide emissions (a theory that is not supported by reproducible research) and that will destroy the economies of the "first world" while doing nothign for the economies of the third world.

8) No, and it is not likely to be, given that the miltary has more volunteers than they can accept and that they have learned that motivated and professional volunteers are far far more effective than cannon fodder draftees.

9) A debating tactic where a congresscritter talks on endlessly about irrelevant crap, refusing to yield the floor for others to speak and thereby preventing a measure (ANY measure) from coming to a vote.

10) Dick Cheney.

Can I vote now?

or here's a thought: maybe, just maybe, you're REALLY trying to surpress the liberal vote.

I find it very amusing that Ara leaps to the assumption that uninformed voters will automatically be liberal voters.

What a waste of words to say so little.

Tim

3. To any and all women out there who plan to vote for a candidate for no other reason than - he's cute or she's a woman - I say this:

END SUFFRAGE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Far more disturbing are men (or white people) who won't vote for any women (or non white candidates).

No candidates are "cute."

Hallelujah, Dean. It angers me to no end when politicians and civic leaders tell us that we have a "duty" to vote - that is is some sort of "obligation" and price that we pay for being part of the greatest nation on earth. Even worse: those who claim that people who don't vote have "no right to complain." Bullshit. There are very, very few "duties" that American citizens have - jury duty, abiding by laws - and voting ain't one of 'em. Having said that - I do vote, although not this time around, as I feel that (honestly) my conversations with co-workers, friends, etc, and my occasional letters to the editors, and the power of "voting with my wallet" speak much louder than voting, sometimes.

1.) Mac Collins, Republican.

2.) Two: Max Cleland (D) and Zell Miller (mostly DINO)

3.) The Shays-Meehan "Get the First Amendment Out of Politics" Campaign Finance "Reform" Act, a franchise of the McCain-Feingold "Get the First Amendment Out of Politics" Campaign Finance "Reform" Act.

4.) Can't name him, but I know there's a Libertarian Party candidate for Gubnor.

5.) The Absolute Protection for the Abortion Industry Act by SCOTUS (1973). My Senators can affect it by confirming justices who are willing to reconsider its most egregious excesses -- but they won't.

6.) Revenues went up both times. Had to be a fluke both times, right?

7.) The "Third World Poverty Perpetuation and American Prosperity Repeal Treaty."

8.) If you listen to the anti-war types, you'd think we had a 100% draft. But, no.

9.) When it's Robert Byrd filibustering, it's the most efficient way to water the plants in the Senate chamber.

10.) Dick Cheney.

What's the passing score? Is 95% good enough (half credit on the third-party question)?

concerning tim synder's take.....though i pass dean's little quiz easily, i cannot understand the 'when in doubt' in tim's initial rant other than it is a recipe for those that 'cannot think for themselves'. yea.....it is a stretch to compare 'common' with the 'left field upper mezzanine'. Rosemary, Dean, Starhawk, and Gary say it well already.

btw..... universal health care, if you could clarify.....is it 'right' or 'a right'? i could not tell. maybe it is right(we can debate). but it is not a right. i shop quite carefully on what i may have to buy(read-taxes). i refer to the bill of rights and all subsequent amendments and can find nothing regarding a 'right' to 'universal health care'. check out canada and england for how well it works. the uninsured still have health care at our expense as it is, but i am sure you would like all of us to have it at the governments, and hence, the taxpayer's expense so as to be 'equitable'.

dean.....how 'bout some extra credit?

3. To any and all women out there who plan to vote for a candidate for no other reason than - he's cute or she's a woman - I say this:

END SUFFRAGE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Far more disturbing are men (or white people) who won't vote for any women (or non white candidates).

No candidates are "cute."

welp, I won't vote for any woman (or non-white) candidate if the sole plank of their platform is that they are a woman (or non-white) candidate. Won't vote for a white male whose sole plank is that he's a white male, either.

Tim Snyder, here's a thought experiment:
If you have a "right" to health care, and you and a doctor are the last two people on Earth, does that make them your slave?

Health care is a product, not an idea. Someone has to provide the product, and that person is the one with the right: the right to get paid as much as they can in the free market.

Far more disturbing are men (or white people) who won't vote for any women (or non white candidates).

No candidates are "cute."

IT is equally disturbing to have anyone vote or not vote for someone because of sheer stupidity.

There are MANY women whose sole reason for voting for Bill Clinton because he was hot/cute/sexy...
I've heard it all.

I was in college when he first ran in 1992. I worked for his campaign. I was trying to convince students to vote for Bill and almost every woman said she would because he was cute. Not because they had a clue as to what he stood for...

It frustrated me that they didn't care about his issues, my issues, I pleaded with them to investigate the choice and that he was the clear choice based on reason - they didn't care he was "hot".

In Michigan, we have Dick Posthumus running for governor. I have heard women on a radio call in show say - I'm not voting for him because he's bald and ugly... besides I don't know what he stands for. I'm voting for Granholm because she's a woman.
(sidenote: Dick's not bald)

To those women I scream " Stop The Suffrage "

BTW: Rosemary; "suffrage" means "the right of voting" (www.webster.com). Do you advocate in favor of elimiation of all democratic systems? Or just some?

I know what suffrage means.

Perhaps I should have said - Stop the Suffrage of Women Now!

Do you advocate in favor of elimiation of all democratic systems? Or just some

Just one, the 19th amendment. Women that vote for "cute" candidates - PISS ME OFF!

I'd give up my right just to get rid of those morons -unless you think we could add a literacy exam as a prerequisite?

Sorry Chris, no extra credit for you! YOU LOSE! My crack legion of Right Wing Thugs will soon be pulling into your driveway to keep you tied down and out of the voting booth tomorrow!

You fool! You tipped your hand!!

;-)

Seriously: I suggest that if you can't answer at least six of the questions with reasonable accuracy, you ought to rethink your decision to enter the voting booth. Responsible exercise of the franchise starts with knowing something about our system of government and what's going on in the world around you.

I find it hilarious that this is even controversial.

By the way, I'll reveal my own shame: I can't name any third-party candidates in Michigan this year. So I guess I'll have to have my crack legion of Cheka troops keep me in a closet somewhere all day tomorrow. :-)

Peace.

Dean

If you don't vote you will be joining the largest politcal movement in the US.

I still have seen no empirical evidence that women make less informed decisions than men do. Lacking this, I don’t see a problem with the 19th amendment.
(waits for someone to point out that automobile accidence have shot way up since women got the franchise...)

Dean,

I disagree. I think everyone should vote. I'm not saying they MUST vote for Governor, or Secretary of State. If there is ONE issue that effects a person, they should go to the POLLS and voice their vote on that subject. If at the same time they vote for Granholm because she's "HOT" or ROCKY because he's "Polish" then so be it! Its their RIGHT to vote. Thats what this country is founded upon. We have the RIGHT to do alot of things that other countries and their citizens can't. They also have the RIGHT not to execise their vote.

But suggesting that if we can't answer 6 out of 10 questions in your test then we should stay home is absurd.

For the record, I can answer 2 questions of your 10 in the list without looking anything up.

Does that mean my opinion doesn't matter? Should I stay home?

I'm not staying home. I'm voting today. And, yes, in some cases, the "cuteness" factor may come into play. If I rate Granholm & Posthumus evenly, well, I think Granholm will be much nicer to look at the next four years.

Jerry

>>"Does that mean my opinion doesn't matter?"

No. It means your opinion has nothing to do with the factors on which such a decision SHOULD be made.

>>" Should I stay home?"

Naah, voiting will make you FEEL like you've accomplished something without actually having to do the work of knowing what you are voting for. But think how much more you would enjoy the experience if, each time you threw a lever (or however they vote where you are) you understood the significance of your vote.

Why don't you try it next year?

>No. It means your opinion has nothing to do with
>the factors on which such a decision SHOULD be
>made.

SHOULD? Now that is a matter of a opinion. Just because I don't watch Fox News or CNN all the time doesn't mean I don't know how to think and make a sound decision.

>Naah, voiting will make you FEEL like you've
>accomplished something without actually having
>to do the work of knowing what you are voting
>for. But think how much more you would enjoy the
>experience if, each time you threw a lever (or
>however they vote where you are) you understood
>the significance of your vote.

I know I've accomplished something when I cast my vote. Whether my guy or girl wins or loses, I had the opportunity to help them succeed by casting my vote. I know what I am voting for. I just don't think that because I don't know EVERYTHING about all the cadidates & issues that I shouldn't still be able to cast my vote. Voting MAY make you FEEL like you've accomplished something without knowing what you are voting for. But I would never tell you that it WILL, because how would I know?

Jerry

Jerry,

Don't worry dude! I can pass that test twice - that's enough for the two of us! Vote your ass off bro!

Besides that you know what your doing!
Vote no on K!!!! (unfair property tax hike)

Rocky!Rocky!Rocky!Rocky!Rocky!Rocky!Rocky!Rocky!

So don't watch CNN or Fox News. Try reading the literature from candidates, check out the League of Women Voters web site, catch up on the news when you can.

I for one refuse to make a habit of voting for candidates I know nothing about. I feel I owe it to my fellow citizens not to vote blindly--I feel that is my real duty, and that of others.

Suppose one might argue that party affiliation is enough information for some people. It's not enough for me, but it's enough for some.

Jerry,

You don't have to watch TV at all, you can pick up a newspaper once a week and have a reasonable knowledge of what is going on. (Well, actually, you'll have to pick it up and READ it. :)

Dean,

>>"I for one refuse to make a habit of voting for candidates I know nothing about. I feel I owe it to my fellow citizens not to vote blindly--"

I make a habit of voting for people I know very little about (okay, sometimes even nothing) as a way of voting AGAINST people I know enough about to strongly dislike them.

(Sometimes I know things the public doesn't know about these people too, but that's another matter.)