BY ADAM SMELTZKnight Ridder Newspapers
FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. - (KRT) - On two of the nation's key military bases, where young American troops get ready for war and recover from it, young Americans in uniform have mixed feelings about President Bush's wartime leadership.
Much like their civilian peers, many of the mature teenagers and budding twentysomethings who are fighting the war in Iraq question Bush's international savvy but admire his steadfast, decisive streak.
Whatever their doubts about their commander-in-chief, however, young soldiers don't think much of his Democratic opponent. They're skeptical, and often sharply derisive, about Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, whom they repeatedly call weak-kneed and too easily swayed.
"If you're running for president, I know you're going to lie," said Marine Lance Cpl. Shane Samuels, 19, of New York, who's stationed at Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, N.C. "But, damn - this guy (Kerry) has been caught lying so many times."
Samuels, who's anticipating deployment to the Middle East next summer and has watched friends leave for yearlong tours, said "Bush jumped the gun" in Iraq.
"We elected an idiot president. ... He's like Mike Tyson," said Samuels.
Despite his misgivings about the president's intellect, he said Bush has proven himself to be more unflappable than Kerry, and he's supporting Bush's re-election bid. "Don't get me wrong ... he's a good president," Samuels said.
In two days of interviews at Camp Lejeune and Fort Bragg, an Army installation in Fayetteville, young troops said the president enjoys broad support from those in uniform. It's a backing strengthened in no small part by Bush's support for pay increases, they said.
Marine Lance Cpl. Ryan Harmon, 20, from West Virginia, returned this month to Camp Lejeune after seven months in Iraq. Although he hasn't followed politics closely, Harmon said he's supporting Bush because of the president's steady, resolute tenor.
Army Sgt. Eric Hernandez, 25, of Jersey City, N.J., said Bush's support at Fort Bragg is evident in the abundance of Bush-Cheney bumper stickers. "I haven't seen a John Kerry sign anywhere," Hernandez said.
Hernandez said he'll pick a candidate - but only after he starts studying both men's politics.
Worries over Bush's motives for going to war have weakened some troops' support. Others wish America would withdraw from Iraq.
Army Spc. William Hebb, a 23-year-old Ohioan who spent six months in Kuwait last year, said he's voting for Bush because it's unwise to switch leadership during a war. But "I'm not going to say if I like the way he's handled" the war, Hebb added.
A handful were more blunt.
"I'd probably vote for a monkey if he was running against Bush," said Spc. Chris Schrader, 20, another Ohioan based at Fort Bragg. The Iraq war, he said, was based on "the wrong reasons at the wrong time."
Likewise, said Keith Johnson, 20, "I believe all Bush really wanted is power. ... Now it's just about how we can get more power."
Johnson, a Marine from Elizabeth, N.J., expects to be deployed to the Middle East in January. He said Saddam Hussein's ouster was the Iraq war's key objective. Because that mission's been fulfilled, he said, Americans should pull out and leave Iraqis to rebuild their land on their own. Johnson is leaning toward voting for Kerry.
But Army cadet Samantha Hamm said she has her doubts about the Democrat because of his explanations of his position on Iraq.
"I don't particularly care for Kerry," said Hamm, who's enrolled in Penn State University's ROTC program. "I don't think he makes up his mind very well."
Others troops at the North Carolina bases conceded, somewhat sheepishly, that they haven't really been watching the race for the White House and know strikingly little about Kerry. With workdays much longer than eight hours, they haven't had the time, they said, adding that they'll decide before Nov. 2.
Some soldiers and Marines worry that Kerry, if elected, would withdraw troops from Iraq. That would mean that those who've been killed there died for nothing, they said.
"Then all this is in vain," said 20-year-old Marine Pfc. Scott Courtright, who'll go to Iraq in about a year.
Which isn't to say that leaving for tours of unknown duration is easy, the young warriors said.
"You get reluctant when it comes down to it - leaving my girlfriend, my family, going over there," said Marine Pfc. Nicholas Lutz, 19, of Menomonie, Wis. An undecided voter, he's scheduled to head to Iraq in about a year.
Kerry's combat experience in Vietnam, Lutz said, gives the Democrat firsthand insight that Bush lacks - and, Lutz hopes, a reluctance to send more troops to Iraq.
"I wish we'd get the hell out," said Lutz, who hails from a firmly Republican family. "The terrorist groups over there are so scattered, we don't know who we're fighting."
Lutz was the exception, though, in discussions about Kerry's status as a combat veteran. Young troops mostly said they're unconcerned with Bush's and Kerry's military records during the Vietnam War era. They're looking for a leader who's unflappable - a trait that Bush has demonstrated, they said.
"Just because a person didn't go to war doesn't mean they wouldn't be a good leader," said Courtright, whose home is in Schenectady, N.Y. "There's been many great presidents who've never been to war."
"Bush scammed out of Vietnam, but he's shown he can be a military leader," said Marine Lance Cpl. George Ryan Mehaffey, 19, of Richmond, Va.
Though he's an undecided voter, Mehaffey said he likes Bush and fully supports the war.
As for Kerry, Mehaffey said, "It's not so much that I don't think he would" complete the war effort. "I don't know if he would."
---
� 2004, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Iraqi Freedom News, The REAL military stories from Iraq
The REAL truth about Iraq
NOT what Kerry and Doom and Gloom Naysayers WANT you
to believe.
Click on the link and go to www.centcom.mil
Then click on each story.
The men and women in the US military deserve our
respect and THANKS!
Iraqi Freedom News Features
Iraqi Veterans Agency Announces Outreach and Benefits
Plan 09/24/04
Food Delivery Aids Baghdad Neighborhood 09/24/04
Mechanic Has Lots of Heart (Two Purple Ones, To Be
Exact) 09/23/04
Emergency Blood Drive Saves Soldier's Life 09/23/04
Shekhan District School Completes Renovations 09/20/04
215th FSB Dental Hygienist Helps Soldiers Smile
09/20/04
Firefighters Get Training in Baghdad 09/20/04
Long Lost Friends Reunite in Iraq 09/20/04
Iraqi Air Force Conducts First Solo Operations Mission
09/17/04
Multinational Forces Help Iraqi Ministry of Defense
get `Wired'
09/15/04
War-torn City Rebuilds in the Wake of War 09/15/04
Iraqi Forces Continue Medical Corps Recruitment
Efforts 09/14/04
Iraq Adds First Female Officer to Army's Medical Corps
09/14/04
Two More Generators Come Online in Iraq 09/14/04
Engineers Put 202 Megawatts on Iraq Electrical Grid in
Augus 09/10/04
Soldiers Give Food to Iraqis Affected by Insurgents
09/10/04
Spirit of America Shows Through for Iraqi Youth
09/10/04
Seabees and Iraqi Students Build Medical Clinic for
Iraqi National
Guard Grenade Attack 09/10/04
=====
Listen to J.R. on Talk Show America, a political conservative talk show that webcasts Mon-Fri 4-6 PM EST live on the IBC Radio Network www.ibcrn.com or 24/7 @ www.talkshowamerica.com (Recorded)
NOT what Kerry and Doom and Gloom Naysayers WANT you
to believe.
Click on the link and go to www.centcom.mil
Then click on each story.
The men and women in the US military deserve our
respect and THANKS!
Iraqi Freedom News Features
Iraqi Veterans Agency Announces Outreach and Benefits
Plan 09/24/04
Food Delivery Aids Baghdad Neighborhood 09/24/04
Mechanic Has Lots of Heart (Two Purple Ones, To Be
Exact) 09/23/04
Emergency Blood Drive Saves Soldier's Life 09/23/04
Shekhan District School Completes Renovations 09/20/04
215th FSB Dental Hygienist Helps Soldiers Smile
09/20/04
Firefighters Get Training in Baghdad 09/20/04
Long Lost Friends Reunite in Iraq 09/20/04
Iraqi Air Force Conducts First Solo Operations Mission
09/17/04
Multinational Forces Help Iraqi Ministry of Defense
get `Wired'
09/15/04
War-torn City Rebuilds in the Wake of War 09/15/04
Iraqi Forces Continue Medical Corps Recruitment
Efforts 09/14/04
Iraq Adds First Female Officer to Army's Medical Corps
09/14/04
Two More Generators Come Online in Iraq 09/14/04
Engineers Put 202 Megawatts on Iraq Electrical Grid in
Augus 09/10/04
Soldiers Give Food to Iraqis Affected by Insurgents
09/10/04
Spirit of America Shows Through for Iraqi Youth
09/10/04
Seabees and Iraqi Students Build Medical Clinic for
Iraqi National
Guard Grenade Attack 09/10/04
=====
Listen to J.R. on Talk Show America, a political conservative talk show that webcasts Mon-Fri 4-6 PM EST live on the IBC Radio Network www.ibcrn.com or 24/7 @ www.talkshowamerica.com (Recorded)
There's No Such Thing as an Illegal War
SEPT 25, 2004
By Robyn Lim
AMERICA'S allies in Iraq have repudiated United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan's argument that the recent war in Iraq was 'illegal'. Japan has asked for a 'please explain'.
When the UN Security Council proves itself not up to the job of ensuring rogue states live up to their commitments, the United States and its allies have no choice but to bypass the council. Otherwise, they will be unable to confront the intolerable risks to their security posed by the linkage among rogue states, Muslim terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.
What is 'legality' in a world that lacks a common government and enforceable rules? The reality is that 'legality' is merely realpolitik by committee - what the five permanent members of the Security Council are able to agree on.
By Mr Annan's definition, the 1999 war in Kosovo was also 'illegal' because Russia and China did not agree to it. Yet this was a 'politically correct' war because it was a humanitarian intervention. There was no US strategic interest at stake at the outset. (There soon was such an interest, however, because of then US president Bill Clinton's blunder in saying there would be no commitment of ground troops. That emboldened the Serbs to accelerate their ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Muslims, and that soon put Nato's credibility on the line.)
In the immediate aftermath of the 1990-1991 Gulf War, there was optimism that the Security Council would work as intended - as a concert of great powers willing to use force if necessary to keep the peace. But that moment of optimism faded when Russia and China were unwilling to act as part of a great power concert in relation to the 'wars of the Yugoslav succession'.
Moreover, Saddam Hussein was allowed to defy 17 resolutions of the Security Council. The world had to learn all over again what should have been learnt in relation to Germany after World War I - it is impossible to disarm a defeated state without occupying it. Members of the council, including France, were more intent on pursuing their economic and other interests in relation to Iraq than in enforcing the will of the 'international community'.
Currently, the 'international community' is failing again in relation to Iran. If Iran is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, the 'international community' is again ducking the issue. Even at this point, the Iran issue has not been sent to the Security Council, mainly because China and Russia will not agree. Iran is following where North Korea has led.
North Korea's dangerous nuclear brinkmanship has included blatant defiance of Pyongyang's commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Yet the Security Council has not even met on the issue. That's because China, which has done much to help arm North Korea, will not allow it, even though the more sensible elements in China seem to understand they have created a Frankenstein.
Small wonder the NPT, one of the more successful Cold War arms control agreements, is now rapidly unravelling. How long, one wonders, will Japan be content to rely on the US and the NPT for its nuclear security?
The US is uniquely powerful because of the collapse of countervailing Soviet power. But it is also uniquely vulnerable, as 9/11 showed. After 9/11, any US president will be driven by the fear of a nuclear weapon being exploded in an American city. Those who rail against perceived US 'unilateralism' do not understand this.
If the Security Council proves itself unable to act in relation to Iran, its relevance will continue to be eroded. In Iran, the US faces hard choices. But the threat cannot be ignored. Iran is a long-time sponsor of Muslim terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad. It rewards the suicide bombers in Israel.
The hardline mullahs who rule in Teheran have long collaborated with North Korea and China in missile development. Indeed, Iran's Shahab 3 intermediate range missile can now threaten Israel as well as vital US and European interests in the Middle East. The Shahab 3 is said to have been fitted with an accurate Chinese navigation system, and is capable of being fitted with a nuclear warhead.
The US, with its army still bogged down in Iraq, has no palatable options in relation to Iran's nuclear ambitions. But the option of doing nothing may not be available either. The same is true for Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. No Israeli government can hope to survive if it sits on its hands while Iran acquires nuclear weapons.
Mr Annan, by allowing the BBC to paint him into a corner saying the US-led war in Iraq is 'illegal', will help to convince even more Americans and allied governments that the UN is irrelevant. Australia's long-serving Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, is right when he says that the UN is paralysed.
The writer is professor of international relations at Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan.
By Robyn Lim
AMERICA'S allies in Iraq have repudiated United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan's argument that the recent war in Iraq was 'illegal'. Japan has asked for a 'please explain'.
When the UN Security Council proves itself not up to the job of ensuring rogue states live up to their commitments, the United States and its allies have no choice but to bypass the council. Otherwise, they will be unable to confront the intolerable risks to their security posed by the linkage among rogue states, Muslim terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.
What is 'legality' in a world that lacks a common government and enforceable rules? The reality is that 'legality' is merely realpolitik by committee - what the five permanent members of the Security Council are able to agree on.
By Mr Annan's definition, the 1999 war in Kosovo was also 'illegal' because Russia and China did not agree to it. Yet this was a 'politically correct' war because it was a humanitarian intervention. There was no US strategic interest at stake at the outset. (There soon was such an interest, however, because of then US president Bill Clinton's blunder in saying there would be no commitment of ground troops. That emboldened the Serbs to accelerate their ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Muslims, and that soon put Nato's credibility on the line.)
In the immediate aftermath of the 1990-1991 Gulf War, there was optimism that the Security Council would work as intended - as a concert of great powers willing to use force if necessary to keep the peace. But that moment of optimism faded when Russia and China were unwilling to act as part of a great power concert in relation to the 'wars of the Yugoslav succession'.
Moreover, Saddam Hussein was allowed to defy 17 resolutions of the Security Council. The world had to learn all over again what should have been learnt in relation to Germany after World War I - it is impossible to disarm a defeated state without occupying it. Members of the council, including France, were more intent on pursuing their economic and other interests in relation to Iraq than in enforcing the will of the 'international community'.
Currently, the 'international community' is failing again in relation to Iran. If Iran is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, the 'international community' is again ducking the issue. Even at this point, the Iran issue has not been sent to the Security Council, mainly because China and Russia will not agree. Iran is following where North Korea has led.
North Korea's dangerous nuclear brinkmanship has included blatant defiance of Pyongyang's commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Yet the Security Council has not even met on the issue. That's because China, which has done much to help arm North Korea, will not allow it, even though the more sensible elements in China seem to understand they have created a Frankenstein.
Small wonder the NPT, one of the more successful Cold War arms control agreements, is now rapidly unravelling. How long, one wonders, will Japan be content to rely on the US and the NPT for its nuclear security?
The US is uniquely powerful because of the collapse of countervailing Soviet power. But it is also uniquely vulnerable, as 9/11 showed. After 9/11, any US president will be driven by the fear of a nuclear weapon being exploded in an American city. Those who rail against perceived US 'unilateralism' do not understand this.
If the Security Council proves itself unable to act in relation to Iran, its relevance will continue to be eroded. In Iran, the US faces hard choices. But the threat cannot be ignored. Iran is a long-time sponsor of Muslim terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad. It rewards the suicide bombers in Israel.
The hardline mullahs who rule in Teheran have long collaborated with North Korea and China in missile development. Indeed, Iran's Shahab 3 intermediate range missile can now threaten Israel as well as vital US and European interests in the Middle East. The Shahab 3 is said to have been fitted with an accurate Chinese navigation system, and is capable of being fitted with a nuclear warhead.
The US, with its army still bogged down in Iraq, has no palatable options in relation to Iran's nuclear ambitions. But the option of doing nothing may not be available either. The same is true for Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. No Israeli government can hope to survive if it sits on its hands while Iran acquires nuclear weapons.
Mr Annan, by allowing the BBC to paint him into a corner saying the US-led war in Iraq is 'illegal', will help to convince even more Americans and allied governments that the UN is irrelevant. Australia's long-serving Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, is right when he says that the UN is paralysed.
The writer is professor of international relations at Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan.
Electoral College debate intensifies
By Chuck Raasch, GNS Political Writer
WASHINGTON � The quadrennial questioning of the Electoral College has greater intensity in 2004, in the wake of the dispute over Florida in the last election and fresh attempts to change the way Americans elect their president.
Two congressmen have introduced a bill that would abolish the use of electors, which the founders established in the Constitution to elect presidents and vice presidents. The bill is not expected to pass, but it has raised the viability and fairness of using a winner-take-all system in a nation that is far more populous and far different than when the founders wrote the Constitution more than two centuries ago.
Currently, Americans vote for a slate of electors � usually party leaders or officials � when they cast ballots for president. There are 538 electors spread over 50 states and the District of Columbia, based on population. They gather in their states about six weeks after the election to cast ballots for the slate they pledged to.
"Every citizen's vote should count in America, not just the votes of partisan insiders in the Electoral College," said Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, who sponsored the bill along with Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash.
In addition, Colorado voters will decide in the Nov. 2 election whether to abandon the winner-take-all provision now followed in 48 states and apportion its nine electoral votes based on the state's popular vote. If so, Colorado would be the first state to do that. Maine and Nebraska currently have provisions dividing their electoral votes based on the winners of congressional districts.
Proponents say the Colorado initiative adheres more to the principle of one person, one vote. But because the initiative would go into effect immediately if it passes, critics claim it is a stalking horse to help Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry peel away a few electors in what could be a very close election. Had the Colorado system been in place in 2000, Al Gore would have won the presidency regardless of the outcome of the Florida ballot recount fight.
There have been more than 700 attempts to change the Electoral College since its inception. The founders saw electors (they never used the term "Electoral College") as a way to protect small state interests. They also envisioned electors as educated and connected citizens who would have better insight on leaders in a nation beset by illiteracy and isolation.
"The Electoral College was necessary when communications were poor, literacy was low and voters lacked information about out-of-state figures, which is clearly no longer the case," Green said.
Michael Munger, chairman of the political science department at Duke University, said too much of the country is ignored in the current political atmosphere, in which national presidential campaigns are often concentrated in less than half the states.
"Too much rides on a few votes," said Munger, who would support a nationwide system of apportioning electoral votes. He said that would reduce the possibility of fraud in close elections because it would "sharply reduce the incentives for 'finding' extra ballots in endless recounts." Florida, for example, would have been a fight over one electoral vote, not all 25 � probably not enough to sway the 2000 election either way, he said.
Munger also pointed out a common complaint, that the biggest states � New York, Texas and California � have been virtually ignored by Kerry and President Bush because they are perceived to be strongly in one camp or the other (New York and California for Kerry and Texas for Bush). In addition, Munger said, not all voters have the same impact on the Electoral College.
For example, the largest state, California, has roughly 70 times the population of the smallest, Wyoming. But California has only about 18 times the Electoral College votes (55 to 3). That means a vote in Wyoming has potentially four times the impact in the Electoral College.
But other scholars disagree with efforts to change the college.
Robert Loevy, a political scientist at Colorado College, has joined a group opposing that state's efforts to change to a proportional system. He said it would mean that Colorado would be ignored in future elections because instead of fighting for its nine electoral votes, candidates essentially would be vying for one. The state's elections are perennially close enough, he said, that the winner would take only a 5-4 advantage out of the state.
"It means Colorado would never be a battleground state again," Loevy said.
Still, he said he thinks the Colorado initiative has a chance to pass when voters go to the polls Nov. 2. The provision would mean that the loser in the state would be virtually guaranteed four electoral votes.
___________________________________________________________________
*J.R.'s Take:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-24-electoral-college_x.htm
Here we go folks, you knew this was coming. They want to eliminate the Electoral College System that was setup by our forefathers so that states with smaller populations would be counted in a national election. If this system is abolished in favor of the popualr vote, states like California, Texas, New York, and Florida could determine the election because of their enormus populations. Candidates could ignore the smaller states and still win the election, this would definitely be an unfair disadvantage to the smaller states and the people who live in them.
They Democrats weren't satisfied with bringing in foreigners to monitor our election, now they are making a pitch to change the elction process and only those states mentioned above will be electing the President if this were to become the law of the land. In essence, if you live in any other state your vote would probably not count, our forefathers envisioned the potential for this to happen and did something to correct it, and now the Dems want to abolish it.
The Democrats shouldn't be upset with the Electoral College system at all. Consider that the system benefitted them on several occassions, ( and you didn't hear them sniveling about it then). Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton were all Democrats, and all were elected President even though they did not win the popular vote, but received the most Electoral Votes.
Our Electoral College system as we know it today has been in place in this country for 200 years, having been modified in 1804 with the ratification of the 12th Amendment. It was modified once more in 1961 by the ratification of the 23rd Amendment which permitted the District of Columbia to choose Electors for President and Vice President. This system has worked fairly well over the course of our history. However, in 2000, when President George W. Bush was elected by receiving the most electoral votes, but not the popular vote, the Dems were up in arms, partly due to a contoversy over ballots and a Supreme Court decision. The cries for the abolishment of the Electoral College were bandied about by the Democrats, eveidently forgetting or ignoring the fact that four of their candidates were elected because of that process. However, now a republican candidate was elected by this system so now it's not fair, it's outdated, President Bush does not have a mandate because he didn't receive the majority of the popular vote, you know the rhetoric that they spewed back then. It's funny that you didn't hear them saying that when President Clinton was elected, TWICE, the same way, and without a MAJORITY of the popular vote.
I'm J.R. and that's my take !
WASHINGTON � The quadrennial questioning of the Electoral College has greater intensity in 2004, in the wake of the dispute over Florida in the last election and fresh attempts to change the way Americans elect their president.
Two congressmen have introduced a bill that would abolish the use of electors, which the founders established in the Constitution to elect presidents and vice presidents. The bill is not expected to pass, but it has raised the viability and fairness of using a winner-take-all system in a nation that is far more populous and far different than when the founders wrote the Constitution more than two centuries ago.
Currently, Americans vote for a slate of electors � usually party leaders or officials � when they cast ballots for president. There are 538 electors spread over 50 states and the District of Columbia, based on population. They gather in their states about six weeks after the election to cast ballots for the slate they pledged to.
"Every citizen's vote should count in America, not just the votes of partisan insiders in the Electoral College," said Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, who sponsored the bill along with Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash.
In addition, Colorado voters will decide in the Nov. 2 election whether to abandon the winner-take-all provision now followed in 48 states and apportion its nine electoral votes based on the state's popular vote. If so, Colorado would be the first state to do that. Maine and Nebraska currently have provisions dividing their electoral votes based on the winners of congressional districts.
Proponents say the Colorado initiative adheres more to the principle of one person, one vote. But because the initiative would go into effect immediately if it passes, critics claim it is a stalking horse to help Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry peel away a few electors in what could be a very close election. Had the Colorado system been in place in 2000, Al Gore would have won the presidency regardless of the outcome of the Florida ballot recount fight.
There have been more than 700 attempts to change the Electoral College since its inception. The founders saw electors (they never used the term "Electoral College") as a way to protect small state interests. They also envisioned electors as educated and connected citizens who would have better insight on leaders in a nation beset by illiteracy and isolation.
"The Electoral College was necessary when communications were poor, literacy was low and voters lacked information about out-of-state figures, which is clearly no longer the case," Green said.
Michael Munger, chairman of the political science department at Duke University, said too much of the country is ignored in the current political atmosphere, in which national presidential campaigns are often concentrated in less than half the states.
"Too much rides on a few votes," said Munger, who would support a nationwide system of apportioning electoral votes. He said that would reduce the possibility of fraud in close elections because it would "sharply reduce the incentives for 'finding' extra ballots in endless recounts." Florida, for example, would have been a fight over one electoral vote, not all 25 � probably not enough to sway the 2000 election either way, he said.
Munger also pointed out a common complaint, that the biggest states � New York, Texas and California � have been virtually ignored by Kerry and President Bush because they are perceived to be strongly in one camp or the other (New York and California for Kerry and Texas for Bush). In addition, Munger said, not all voters have the same impact on the Electoral College.
For example, the largest state, California, has roughly 70 times the population of the smallest, Wyoming. But California has only about 18 times the Electoral College votes (55 to 3). That means a vote in Wyoming has potentially four times the impact in the Electoral College.
But other scholars disagree with efforts to change the college.
Robert Loevy, a political scientist at Colorado College, has joined a group opposing that state's efforts to change to a proportional system. He said it would mean that Colorado would be ignored in future elections because instead of fighting for its nine electoral votes, candidates essentially would be vying for one. The state's elections are perennially close enough, he said, that the winner would take only a 5-4 advantage out of the state.
"It means Colorado would never be a battleground state again," Loevy said.
Still, he said he thinks the Colorado initiative has a chance to pass when voters go to the polls Nov. 2. The provision would mean that the loser in the state would be virtually guaranteed four electoral votes.
___________________________________________________________________
*J.R.'s Take:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-24-electoral-college_x.htm
Here we go folks, you knew this was coming. They want to eliminate the Electoral College System that was setup by our forefathers so that states with smaller populations would be counted in a national election. If this system is abolished in favor of the popualr vote, states like California, Texas, New York, and Florida could determine the election because of their enormus populations. Candidates could ignore the smaller states and still win the election, this would definitely be an unfair disadvantage to the smaller states and the people who live in them.
They Democrats weren't satisfied with bringing in foreigners to monitor our election, now they are making a pitch to change the elction process and only those states mentioned above will be electing the President if this were to become the law of the land. In essence, if you live in any other state your vote would probably not count, our forefathers envisioned the potential for this to happen and did something to correct it, and now the Dems want to abolish it.
The Democrats shouldn't be upset with the Electoral College system at all. Consider that the system benefitted them on several occassions, ( and you didn't hear them sniveling about it then). Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton were all Democrats, and all were elected President even though they did not win the popular vote, but received the most Electoral Votes.
Our Electoral College system as we know it today has been in place in this country for 200 years, having been modified in 1804 with the ratification of the 12th Amendment. It was modified once more in 1961 by the ratification of the 23rd Amendment which permitted the District of Columbia to choose Electors for President and Vice President. This system has worked fairly well over the course of our history. However, in 2000, when President George W. Bush was elected by receiving the most electoral votes, but not the popular vote, the Dems were up in arms, partly due to a contoversy over ballots and a Supreme Court decision. The cries for the abolishment of the Electoral College were bandied about by the Democrats, eveidently forgetting or ignoring the fact that four of their candidates were elected because of that process. However, now a republican candidate was elected by this system so now it's not fair, it's outdated, President Bush does not have a mandate because he didn't receive the majority of the popular vote, you know the rhetoric that they spewed back then. It's funny that you didn't hear them saying that when President Clinton was elected, TWICE, the same way, and without a MAJORITY of the popular vote.
I'm J.R. and that's my take !
Mark O. Hatfield: For me, choice for president is clear: Bush
Thursday, September 23, 2004
As a young Navy officer in World War II, I was one of the first Americans to see Hiroshima after the atomic bomb was dropped in 1945. That experience lives with me today, and it helped to shape the view I held during my public service career: a view that war is wrong in nearly every circumstance.
As Oregon's governor, I was the only governor in the nation who refused to sign a statement supporting President Johnson's Vietnam War policy.
As a senator, I joined with Sen. George McGovern in an unsuccessful effort to end that war. I was the only senator who voted against both the Democrat and Republican resolutions authorizing the use of force in the 1991 Gulf War.
In my final years in the Senate, I opposed President Clinton's decision to send American troops to Bosnia.
During my 30 years in the Senate, I never once voted in favor of a military appropriations bill.
I know that this record will cause many to wonder why I am such a strong supporter of President Bush and his policy in Iraq. My support is based on the fact that our world changed on Sept. 11, 2001, a day on which we lost more American lives than we did in the attack on Pearl Harbor.
I know from my service in the Senate that Saddam Hussein was an active supporter of terrorism. He used weapons of mass destruction on innocent people and left no doubt that he would do so again. It was crucial to the cause of world peace that he be removed from power.
Having seen atrocious loss in World War II, I understand the devastation of armed conflict. We have paid dearly with American and Iraqi lives for our commitment, but we cannot afford the alternative. Nor can we afford a president who puts a wet finger in the air and turns over his decisions to pollsters.
President Bush has indeed taken heat for his resolve in pursuing the war on terrorism and efforts in Iraq. His steadfastness and resolve in the face of his critics are deserving of praise.
As terrorists continue to plot against our country and our interests, the American people must choose between action and inaction, between security and insecurity.
I believe the choice is clear. I will proudly cast my vote for President George W. Bush.
Mark O. Hatfield served as a Republican U.S. senator from Oregon from 1967 to 1997.
As a young Navy officer in World War II, I was one of the first Americans to see Hiroshima after the atomic bomb was dropped in 1945. That experience lives with me today, and it helped to shape the view I held during my public service career: a view that war is wrong in nearly every circumstance.
As Oregon's governor, I was the only governor in the nation who refused to sign a statement supporting President Johnson's Vietnam War policy.
As a senator, I joined with Sen. George McGovern in an unsuccessful effort to end that war. I was the only senator who voted against both the Democrat and Republican resolutions authorizing the use of force in the 1991 Gulf War.
In my final years in the Senate, I opposed President Clinton's decision to send American troops to Bosnia.
During my 30 years in the Senate, I never once voted in favor of a military appropriations bill.
I know that this record will cause many to wonder why I am such a strong supporter of President Bush and his policy in Iraq. My support is based on the fact that our world changed on Sept. 11, 2001, a day on which we lost more American lives than we did in the attack on Pearl Harbor.
I know from my service in the Senate that Saddam Hussein was an active supporter of terrorism. He used weapons of mass destruction on innocent people and left no doubt that he would do so again. It was crucial to the cause of world peace that he be removed from power.
Having seen atrocious loss in World War II, I understand the devastation of armed conflict. We have paid dearly with American and Iraqi lives for our commitment, but we cannot afford the alternative. Nor can we afford a president who puts a wet finger in the air and turns over his decisions to pollsters.
President Bush has indeed taken heat for his resolve in pursuing the war on terrorism and efforts in Iraq. His steadfastness and resolve in the face of his critics are deserving of praise.
As terrorists continue to plot against our country and our interests, the American people must choose between action and inaction, between security and insecurity.
I believe the choice is clear. I will proudly cast my vote for President George W. Bush.
Mark O. Hatfield served as a Republican U.S. senator from Oregon from 1967 to 1997.
Retired Colonel: Bush Volunteered for Vietnam
A retired National Guard officer now living in East Tennessee is weighing into the debate over President Bush's service record.
Volunteer TV's Eric Waddell says the man who swore then-Lieutenant George Bush into the Air National Guard, is rising to the President's defense from his Blount County home.
Retired Colonel Ed Morrisey served in the Air National Guard and is familiar with the President's record since the beginning of his service.
Opposite a portrayal of a soldier not performing his duty he describes a flyer, near the top of his class.
Retired Colonel Morrisey has trained, developed and commanded lots of soldiers over a distinguished career.
He also swore in one very notable officer.
"George W. went to pilot training, seated well, being selected to be a fighter pilot, which is at the top of the line in the Air Force selection process. Came back to train in the F-102 at Ellington. He stood alert like anyone else," says Colonel Morrisey.
According to Morrisey, then-Lieutenant Bush more than fulfilled his guard requirements.
Morrisey says in the six years the President served he never failed to meet participation point requirements.
"Bush averaged 176 per year. In no year did he have less that 50," says Morrisey. "He was rated by his commander, Col. Maurice Udell in the top 5 of his pilots."
One of the criticisms leveled at the President is that he sought guard service to keep him from serving in Vietnam.
Morrisey says, "not so."
"The Air Force, in their ultimate wisdom, assembled a group of 102's and took them to Southeast Asia. Bush volunteered to go. But he needed to have 500 [flight] hours, but he only had just over 300 hours so he wasn't eligible to go,� Morrisey recalls.
Despite that, Lieutenant Bush stayed busy.
"He flew in active air defense missions, training missions. Day, night, regardless of inclement weather," Morrisey says.
Colonel Morrisey assured us that to the best of his knowledge Lieutenant Bush was treated like any other officer in the Texas Air National Guard.
Morrisey says he considers himself to be more of a Libertarian than Republican or Democrat. Nonetheless, Morrisey says he is voting for George Bush come election day.
Volunteer TV's Eric Waddell says the man who swore then-Lieutenant George Bush into the Air National Guard, is rising to the President's defense from his Blount County home.
Retired Colonel Ed Morrisey served in the Air National Guard and is familiar with the President's record since the beginning of his service.
Opposite a portrayal of a soldier not performing his duty he describes a flyer, near the top of his class.
Retired Colonel Morrisey has trained, developed and commanded lots of soldiers over a distinguished career.
He also swore in one very notable officer.
"George W. went to pilot training, seated well, being selected to be a fighter pilot, which is at the top of the line in the Air Force selection process. Came back to train in the F-102 at Ellington. He stood alert like anyone else," says Colonel Morrisey.
According to Morrisey, then-Lieutenant Bush more than fulfilled his guard requirements.
Morrisey says in the six years the President served he never failed to meet participation point requirements.
"Bush averaged 176 per year. In no year did he have less that 50," says Morrisey. "He was rated by his commander, Col. Maurice Udell in the top 5 of his pilots."
One of the criticisms leveled at the President is that he sought guard service to keep him from serving in Vietnam.
Morrisey says, "not so."
"The Air Force, in their ultimate wisdom, assembled a group of 102's and took them to Southeast Asia. Bush volunteered to go. But he needed to have 500 [flight] hours, but he only had just over 300 hours so he wasn't eligible to go,� Morrisey recalls.
Despite that, Lieutenant Bush stayed busy.
"He flew in active air defense missions, training missions. Day, night, regardless of inclement weather," Morrisey says.
Colonel Morrisey assured us that to the best of his knowledge Lieutenant Bush was treated like any other officer in the Texas Air National Guard.
Morrisey says he considers himself to be more of a Libertarian than Republican or Democrat. Nonetheless, Morrisey says he is voting for George Bush come election day.
'KIDS' QUIT KERRY
By DEBORAH ORIN Washington Bureau Chief
September 25, 2004 -- Democrat John Kerry has lost his lead with under-30 voters because the iPod generation is getting more optimistic that the country is headed in the right direction, a new Newsweek poll found.
President Bush and Kerry are now in a dead heat among the youngest voters with Kerry getting 45 percent and Bush 44 � a big switch from last month, when Kerry had a 9-point lead of 50 to 41 percent among under-30s, the GENext voter poll found. Its error margin is plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Democrats had been hoping for a big boost from younger voters with music stars like Wyclef Jean, Mary J. Blige, Bruce Springsteen, the Dixie Chicks, Dave Matthews and Pearl Jam lining up for Kerry.
The most recent Newsweek poll of voters of all ages gave Bush a 6-point lead. He tops other national polls by margins ranging from a few points to double digits.
Meanwhile, Kerry yesterday claimed Bush "let Osama bin Laden slip away" � just days after his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, took the opposite tack and hinted Bush has a sneaky plan to produce bin Laden just before the November election.
Bush, meanwhile, slammed Kerry as unfit to lead the United States and charged that Kerry undercut a key ally by accusing Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi of covering up the real problems in his country.
"You can't lead this country if your ally in Iraq feels like you question his credibility. The message ought to be to the Iraqi people: 'We support you,' " Bush said.
For the past week, Kerry has taken an increasingly anti-war stance on Iraq as he struggles to come back.
"The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy, al Qaeda," Kerry said in a speech yesterday at Temple University in Philadelphia, claiming Bush "outsourced" the bin Laden hunt "to Afghan warlords who let Osama bin Laden slip away."
By contrast, Kerry's wife suggested Wednesday there could be a secret Bush plan for an October surprise entailing the capture of bin Laden before the election, saying: "I wouldn't be surprised if he appeared in the next month."
Kerry yesterday accused Bush of diverting troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, adding: "All you have to do is ask Gen. Tommy Franks" � just days after Franks, who's pro-Bush, said that Kerry claim was false.
"That's absolutely incorrect. You know, hey, my name's Tommy Franks and I don't lie," Franks said this week.
September 25, 2004 -- Democrat John Kerry has lost his lead with under-30 voters because the iPod generation is getting more optimistic that the country is headed in the right direction, a new Newsweek poll found.
President Bush and Kerry are now in a dead heat among the youngest voters with Kerry getting 45 percent and Bush 44 � a big switch from last month, when Kerry had a 9-point lead of 50 to 41 percent among under-30s, the GENext voter poll found. Its error margin is plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Democrats had been hoping for a big boost from younger voters with music stars like Wyclef Jean, Mary J. Blige, Bruce Springsteen, the Dixie Chicks, Dave Matthews and Pearl Jam lining up for Kerry.
The most recent Newsweek poll of voters of all ages gave Bush a 6-point lead. He tops other national polls by margins ranging from a few points to double digits.
Meanwhile, Kerry yesterday claimed Bush "let Osama bin Laden slip away" � just days after his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, took the opposite tack and hinted Bush has a sneaky plan to produce bin Laden just before the November election.
Bush, meanwhile, slammed Kerry as unfit to lead the United States and charged that Kerry undercut a key ally by accusing Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi of covering up the real problems in his country.
"You can't lead this country if your ally in Iraq feels like you question his credibility. The message ought to be to the Iraqi people: 'We support you,' " Bush said.
For the past week, Kerry has taken an increasingly anti-war stance on Iraq as he struggles to come back.
"The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy, al Qaeda," Kerry said in a speech yesterday at Temple University in Philadelphia, claiming Bush "outsourced" the bin Laden hunt "to Afghan warlords who let Osama bin Laden slip away."
By contrast, Kerry's wife suggested Wednesday there could be a secret Bush plan for an October surprise entailing the capture of bin Laden before the election, saying: "I wouldn't be surprised if he appeared in the next month."
Kerry yesterday accused Bush of diverting troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, adding: "All you have to do is ask Gen. Tommy Franks" � just days after Franks, who's pro-Bush, said that Kerry claim was false.
"That's absolutely incorrect. You know, hey, my name's Tommy Franks and I don't lie," Franks said this week.
Man who swore Bush into Air Guard speaks out
Man who swore Bush into Air Guard speaks out
2004-09-24by Lance Colemanof The Daily Times Staff
Ed Morrisey Jr. has his opinion about rumors President Bush received preferential treatment when he was allowed into the Texas Air National Guard in the late 1960s.
The Blount Countian also has firsthand knowledge.
The 75-year-old Jackson Hills resident is a retired colonel with Texas Air National Guard. He swore Lt. George W. Bush into the service in May 1968.
On Thursday, Morrisey said the argument that Bush got off easy by being in the National Guard doesn't take into consideration the context of the 1960s.
``Bush and the others were flying several flights day or night over the Gulf of Mexico to identify the unknown,'' he said. ``The Cold War was a nervous time. You never knew. There were other things going on equally important to the country, and the Air National Guard had a primary role in it.''
Morrisey said the commander he worked for at the unit in Texas was sent there to rebuild the image of the unit. There were only two to four pilot training slots given to them per year, he said. Individuals questioned by an evaluation board and then chosen by the commander had to be the best.
``Bush was selected and he turned out just fine,'' he said.
According to Morrisey, after Bush began working as a fighter pilot, he became regarded as one of the best pilots there. Unit commander Col. Maurice Udell considered Bush to be one of his top five pilots, Morrisey said.
``The kid did good,'' he said.
Each pilot had to perform alert duty where they patrolled for unidentified aircraft during the threat of the Cold War, Morrisey said.
``Bush Jr. did good for us,'' Morrisey said. ``He pulled alert and he did it all.''
Morrisey said that while Bush didn't get preferential treatment, not everyone was allowed into the National Guard.
``We wanted the best we could get. We never knowingly took an unworthy individual in the units I belonged to,'' he said. ``You're only as good your worst individual.''
This isn't the first time a reporter called Morrisey asking whether or not Bush received preferential treatment. Shortly after Republicans nominated Bush for president in 2000, a reporter from Texas called Morrisey.
``That floored me. The only people that got preferential treatment was when Jimmy Carter pardoned those guys that went to Canada,'' he said of individuals who fled to Canada to avoid the draft during the war in Vietnam.
Speaking of the controversy surrounding Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam era, Morrisey said: ``I think it's tragic. I think real people can filter through this. At least I hope so.''
Morrisey said he agreed with Bush's work as president and supported the administration's aggressive stance toward fighting terrorism and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
``We've got to eliminate terrorists,'' he said. ``Let's get them where they're living instead of them getting my grandkids and great-grandkids here.''
Morrisey worked as the executive officer of the 147th Fighter Group from February of 1967 to July of 1968. From Texas he came to Alcoa where he was the first commandant of the Noncommissioned Officer Academy at McGhee Tyson Air National Guard Base. He also was ``dedicated to the development'' of the Air National Guard Leadership School and the Officer Preparatory Academy to commission Air Guard officers.
He was commandant for all three schools and became the first commander of the I.G. Brown Professional Military Education Center.
Morrisey has been involved in the community, including being a former member of the Blount Chamber of Commerce, president of the Maryville Kiwanis Club, Blount County Boys Club board member and on the ALCOA Scholarship Selection Committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)