Yeah, I voted. Also, I voted for you. But I didn't see TommyBoy in the Class Clown category.

Go vote again.

As the Democrats say: vote early, vote often.

Seriously though, how do you know how you're doing so far? Where are they posting running results?

I voted for you Bill.

But speaking of voting, have you guys heard that the Presidential election is over?

Hmmmm..

Do I get Underwear, Top Rammen, and a years supply of Tostito's like Michael Moore is offering for dem votes?

I'm holding out for a better deal.

You know like Campbells or Progresso.

Regards,
Sonar5

How do you know you're getting killed? Is there some way to get the current tally? I couldn't find one.

I voted, but I didn't see a link to results so far. How bloody are you at the moment?

If Wonkette wins, just remember -- it confirms that DC is full of dicks and asses, since that's about all I ever read about over there, when I can be bothered to look. Er, well, maybe she's not so far off after all ...

I'm waiting for my cut of Jeff G's blogad. As a registered Dummocrat I'm always willing to vote early and often--for a price ;-)

PS-Voted. That one was a freebie.

Seriously though, how do you know how you're doing so far?

I don't, they aren't, but I do - I have less than 1/10 the daily traffic of Kos ...

Plus I tried to bribe the guy at the WaPo that's running the poll, and he laughed at me. Then he made a sex joke and did a happy dance about the recent deaths in Iraq - so you know who he's voting for ...

As the Republicans say, "Go ahead and vote. We'll throw 'em out and do what we want anyway."

I'm registered there under 5 different email addresses.

I've voted at least twice under all 5.

Thats 10 votes for me. . . . If each of your readers does likewise . . . . then KOS is toast

To be honest, I think you can vote as many times as you want under the same login info ...

You can only vote once.

" Please note that there is no benefit to vote-stuffing: Although you may submit more than one ballot, only the last one will count."

Gee, I saw Bill's post and went and voted another 5 times, and I come back and see George's post.

So, I see the quotes around it, but who is it quoting? Kos' talking points for the competition?

DAMN THEM!

Well, it worked for us in Florida. Maybe if we have the convicts declared ineligible, we can eliminate Kos's clout.

Sh!t, I didn't know I could vote more than once. Two down, many more to go.

She Who Must Not Be Named must not win!

Uh, Matt, you saw George's comment, right?

Considering how adept the Kossaks are at stuffing polls, just how well do you expect to do?

Ok, I voted for you Bill. Good job.

Potential topic from the Economist entitled George Bush comes out worst in our poll of academic economists.

In an informal poll of 100 academics, conducted by The Economist, Mr Bush's policies win low marks. More than 70% of the 56 professors who responded to our survey rate Mr Bush's first-term economic policies as bad or very bad. Fewer than 20% give positive marks to Mr Bush's second-term economic agenda, and almost six out of ten disapproved. Mr Kerry hardly got rave reviews either, but his economic plan still fared better than the president's did. In all, four out of ten professors rated Mr Kerry's economic plan as good or very good, but 27% gave it negative scores. (The complete numbers are available at www.economist.com/economistspoll.)

Yup. I'm aware of the economic argument against Bush's policies and I'll freely admit - it's very strong.

You mean Professors.

You mean basically teachers.

No offense, but if they are not crunching all day, but instead teaching, who are they to decide what is right.

I'll give more credence to the Federal reserve Board of Governors, and Alan greenspan than these assclowns....

I will also rely on the numbers released such as Unemployment, GDP Growth, Inflation, Money Supply, Interest rates, Short & Long, etc...

Professors...

Pffftttt.....

debunked....

ummm Anon, you may want to repost the second link as well. Just a thought.

Regards,
Sonar5

I know Anon, go find a POll of REAL Economists NOT employed as professors...

Try the real world instead, huh?

I read those 4 pages, and I have not seen a more biased Poll as to questions. What a Joke...

Looks like more of Lehrer type Questions...

here is One:

"2. How much credit/blame does the Bush administration bear for the state of the economy?
(1=none, 5=all)"

Give me a break... Credit and Blame....

Bwahahahahah.......

How stupid is that?

30% of these clowns think that the medicare Prescription drug Bill is bad...

WTF did the dems do after how many years of promising that and never fulfilling the carrot in front of the stick...

Now why would such a POll DISENFRANCHISE & EXCLUDE real world economists, I wonder....

What a Pathetic excuse for a survey.

Regards,
Sonar5

Sonar5, Greenspan doesn't live in a vacuum, he learn what he knows on his own. He listens to his academic counterparts and approaches them for advise.

You have such scorn for academia -- did you flunk out of school or what!

At least Bill is willing to admit that the economic argument against Bush is worth looking at.

http://www.economist.com/economistspoll

Anon, how can any poll not be skewed when you Exclude real world economists, and only include academia?

And you think Greenspan listens to his Academic counterparts...

First off, I call BS.....

They are not counterparts and you have no proof that Greensapn listens to them...

Or produce that proof...

They excluded real world economists, and that means the survey is skewed, IMHO....

Facts are facts,

Deal with it, or go find another survey that includes all.

Regards,
Sonar5

Sonar5 - real economist? Uh, where do you suppose these real economists learn what they know. The Economy for Dummies. You can't become a real world economist by going to community college - you learn from an academic, a professor. Pull thine head from thine heiney.

Think of these positions:

* Director, Institute for International Economics
* Member of the Board of Overseers, Hoover Institution (at Stanford University)
* Vice Chairman and Trustee, Economic Club of New York.
* Chairman of the Conference of Business Economists
* President and Fellow of the National Association of Business Economists
* Director of the National Economists Club

Sound like pretty academic posts don't they? I'm sure he's not influenced at all by any of these positions. I'm sure he formulates everything he knows on his own in a quiet room. Yea, right!

Anon Sci:
If you are going to use my line, use it right. It is, "Pull your head out of your ASS". Also, apply it to yourself, not Sonar5. He makes the well know and respected point of, "Them that know, do; and them that don't, teach". Which one are you?

I'm a programmer and industrial designer. I own my own company, and I work as a consultant for another company. We have contracts with such entities as Ellis Island, the National Reserve, and all of the RadioShack stores nationwide. We have offices in 3 countries. What do you do that makes you qualified to insinuate that professors and academics are dumber than you and Sonar5? I pulled my head out of my ass a long time ago, how about you?

It's rare that Bill's words can back up my argument but, this is his quote regarding Bush's economics, "Yup. I'm aware of the economic argument against Bush's policies and I'll freely admit - it's very strong."

Careful Sonar5, you walked into this ... 'WTF have the dems done..." What about a decade consisting of surpluses, rapid growth, balanced budgets and job creation? You're undoubtedly going to tell me none of this was Clinton's doing - when you do so, keep in mind that means W cannot, by this standard, take a lick of credit for anything he's done domestically.

And if Bush wins the election, these people will still be sitting here in 4 years complaining about Clinton. Or do you think that maybe Bush will start taking responsiblity for the state of the nation ... no, probably not. How long is it exactly before an administration is responsible for what's going on?

Presidents had pride before Bush. Heck, there was even a president that said "the buck stops here" -- imagine that!

anon sci:

problem with blogs: they don't stop for things like work, etc ... wanted to respond to your comments from earlier today.

i agree with you about the stupidity level of our society (not to paraphrase your argument) yet i have a different take on it. i think that the world is rapidly becoming divided into two sub-species of consumers. on the one hand are those that are able to pull some form of synchronicity from the millions of random images, gimmicks, slogans, newsbits, soundbytes, pictures, headlines that we are inundated with on a daily basis, and on the other are people who simply become absorbed by it. a primordal defense mechanism in which the mind simply shuts itself off - unconsciously - to the polluted mental landscape we live in. that's also why, i argue, this decade more than any other will be the decade of substance abuse - as millions seek any remedy to simply, as a famous LSD freak once said - tune out from all the chaos and distraction that runs rampant on the net, on cable, on billboards, over the radio etc etc etc. it truly will be the people that can pull from this mess some semblance of synchronicity that will mentally survive the redrawn landscape.

damn, i've turned into philip k dick.

nuff rambling, just wanted to respond...apologies for speaking out of turn and context

According to the page one can vote as often as one sees fit - But only the last vote will count. I dont know what kind of protocol WaPo uses, but if its based upon username, votes by surfers such as myself who sidestep site registration via BugMeNot.com are discarded.

CubsFan7: I enjoyed your post. There's something else I've been thinking about regarding this. Not only will illegal substance abuse go up, but so will legal substance abuse. Prior to 1990 (just an approximate easy number) doctors rarely prescribed psychotropic drugs like Paxil, Ritalin, or Xanax. At least it wasn't as mainstream. If somebody told you that they were on a psychotropic drug, you would have been shocked. Now, if you have the slightest hint of a psychological issue, you are immediately given a "cure". I call it "Normalization of Society".

This is the problem - at least I think it's a problem. In the past there were amazing artists, scientists, musicians, thinkers, etc. that by today's standards need normalizing. Creativity does not easily fit into today's world. So, normalizing these people will make them fit in better. But will we lose the next Einstein in the process? It's a scary thought -- drug companies have figured out a way to make everyone the same.

This is a high level conversation, sorry to bore those who are not interested.

you've heard that by the year 2026, if present trends continue, mental illness will be more prevalent than heart disease? now, i don't know if that points to the absurd usage of perscription drugs - children as young as five going on anti-psychotics, depressants because of some kind of genetic predisposition - or, if its a product of the polluted landscape i mentioned earlier, but regardless - it is clearly becoming one of the more relevant and pressing issues of the twenty first century - and no one, it seems, is talking about it.

also, on the creativity issue - on one hand, i couldn't agree with you more. you name it - from lincoln, to a. hoffman, incredibly gifted and creative people have thrived often because of whatever chemical imbalance was propelling them. did van gogh send his ear to a lover, or did he have schizophrenia and was trying to silence the voices? the problem with that argument is though that it can lead people who desperately need the stabalizing meds to believe that they will somehow normalize them, or, to an extent, quell whatever creative urge they nurture. i dunno, but as ludicrous as over prescribing has become (read: rush limbaugh) i still say whatever keeps people who genuinely need help and meds from receiving them is a bad thing.

if you ever want to make a true blue republican irate, tell him that lincoln had a documented case of severe depression, and ask if he would have received treatment under bush's "mental health parity" legislation.

This is the problem - at least I think it's a problem. In the past there were amazing artists, scientists, musicians, thinkers, etc. that by today's standards need normalizing.

A. It's almost impossible to "normalize," unless you are talking about future genetic treatments.

B. Those that suffer would probably trade the creative energy for peace.

on the one hand are those that are able to pull some form of synchronicity from the millions of random images, gimmicks, slogans, newsbits, soundbytes, pictures, headlines that we are inundated with on a daily basis, and on the other are people who simply become absorbed by it.

This is a topic that's near and dear to my heart. I'll do a post about it someday.

As it is your theory is missing something - that the same person can be both. Be able to prioritize but then shut off. Happens to bloggers.

agreed bill - that there is a fine line between the two extremes - if i may, i'd point out that walking that line makes it extremely difficult to know and find what is real. can bill - the host to the conversation and the blogger people refer to by a sign in name - walk that line, while in day to day non-blog talk that distinction becomes more tenuous? i'd liken it to a professional speech writer hired to write the world in black in white, yet in his reality sees nothing but grey. know what i mean?

cubsfan7 -

You may or may not appreciate this.

Bill: My point is that people were fine in the 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. without the massive amounts of psychotropic drugs we now have. Today, if a child or adult even shows the slightest sign of jumping out of the single file line, they are dosed. I call it "normalizing", but there may be a better word. It's just how I talk about it.

I'm not against drugs for those who truly need them. I agree that pharmaceuticals can improve a person's life, and allow them to be an active participant in society. I just believe that they are being prescribed to people who would do better with normal therapy. Perhaps a swift kick in the ass may even suffice in some cases.

Bill:

Point taken. I wish I would have been there to respond.

Let me just offer a theory of my own. What is the difference between true faith and delusion?

I believe the difference is doubt. The true believer doubts that he is right (how could he know with 100% certainty the unverifiable?) Whereas someone delusional knows damn well he is right.

I look at the President, and listen to him, and hear absolutely no doubt. Also, in the link you referred to, you oft times said "I believe." I'd simply ask if there's any doubt in those beliefs?

Doubt is necessary for intellectual honesty.

Agreed...I think.

Wow, a conversation that's immediately relevant to me! I'll start by saying two things. I'm a physicist and I have ADD (not ADHD) and I take Stratera (please pardon the steam of consciousness post). I have to say that many of the really brilliant people I know (I'll drop a name here for credibility: Yahkir Aharonov who discovered the Aharonov-Bohm effect), have some form of this 'physiological disorder.'
"Normalization" of these people is a two edged blade. In our current 'conform to the norm' society, we risk losing the great minds to a lack of sheepskin; however, there are plenty who are able to conform and sneak through.
That said, I'll say that in my experience, the vast majority of professors are liberal in nature. A friend of mine who is a university staff member once said to me that there is always more funding when a Democrat is in charge (he's been through at least 6 administrations).
I'll end this ramble now by saying prescription drugs aren't in and of themselves going to drag us down and professors are not necessarily unbiased sources.

What about a decade consisting of surpluses, rapid growth, balanced budgets and job creation?

"consisting of" by definition means that in the given time period the things mentioned (surpluses, balanced budgets) occured. hence, the decade consisted of these things (also, welfare reform, NAFTA, education reform, stronger environmental regulations, peace, tax cuts, lower poverty rates, large growths in the middle class, lower infant mortality rates, lower crime rates) but i didn't want to seem like i was bragging or something.

"professors are not necessarily unbiased sources."

George: I hope you didn't gleen from my words that I believe this. The Economist was responsible for assembling the 100 economists to evaluate economic strategies of Bush and Kerry. They freely admit that the using professors may automatically impose bias in the report. However, most of the professors tried to maintain a non-partisan approach. This is not an easy task, but most of these people were professional enough to provide their best non-partisan report.

It may be near to impossible for anyone to provide a completely non-partisan report on something like the presidency. So, it's best for each person to try to understand as much as they can about each subject and make their own call.

Bill:

Well, now I have! (Seen George's comment, that is.)

Listen you knuckleheads, I'm going to solve this economic problem for you real quick - Bush's ecomomic policy is considerede dangerous because he is lowering taxes while spending a great deal of money. John Kerry is spending more money, but raising taxes. Most economists think that both of their programs suck, but that Bush's is worse because in the long run it's more dangerous for the American economy to be saddled with enormous debt. The typical conservative argument, however, is that the tax cuts will stimulate economic growth that will actually bring in MORE tax revenue because of more growth. To some extent, this is happening, but it isn't outpacing Bush's spending, so unless he restrains it, our debt will grow. Another two points to the economic situation:

1. We are at a unique time in history, with a convergence of certain economic factors that haven't quite been seen before. No one knows what will happen.

2. There is another wildcard - innovation. The US has a tradition of tech innovation that blows trends out of the water, and if I'm betting where it comes from ... it comes from here.

Long story short? No one really knows what will happen. If Bush can actually cut spending he will have to be lying about some of his program promises (likely). I believe that he may actually make cuts next term.

Kerry will spend like a nutty bar, but raise taxes on $200,000+, which will slow growth and cut jobs, but balance the budget at a quicker pace in the short term.

I've left out a zillion factors.

You decide, but don't deride the Economist's panel. The Economist is not a left-wing publication, and even if their conclusions may be more equivocal than they present them, some of what they speak is true.

Bill, you have risen to the level of a god in my eyes. Well, not quite a god, but seem to really have a good grasp on reality, and I appreciate it. When you speak, I can hear myself being pulled more towards the center.

This was a GAK - Gratuitous Ass Kissing

Heh. Thanks. Most reasonable people meet in the middle on certain things. Though it's important to note that sometimes the slightest differences have huge impact.

Hey Cubs fan seven,

How about including my full quote ain context.

I was talknig specifically about Prescription drugs.

Go back and rea dit again.

I said:
"30% of these clowns think that the medicare Prescription drug Bill is bad...

WTF did the dems do after how many years of promising that and never fulfilling the carrot in front of the stick..."

Particularly read the words: "Proimising That"

Which means the prescription drug Broken dem promise...

get real, and try another tact, will ya?

Regards,
Sonar5

You know cubs Fan,

I question whether you know how Government even works. You listed a bunch of legislation and braggards about this and that with NO LINKS to back it up, I might add. You are going to talk about a Decade, please..... PROVE IT....

The President does not make Legislation.

The executive Branch does not make legislation.

That is the responsibility of Congress...

I am so tired of idiots who listen to Kerry talk about a plan for this and a plan for that, yet that MORON Senator Truant and his sidekick Senator Gone have yet to submit any of their plans to the senate as is their JOB.

And that is what I tell everyone about their ALLEGED Plans...

Do you folks even get that. It's their job to submit all of these plans, and guess what, they aint gonna happen because They don't control the senate or the House.

If their plans are so good, point to me their sponsored Senate Bills alluding to them.

Guess what You can't, because they don't exist. kerry & edwards are LYING through their teeth when they talk about plans and hypocritically don't submit them while they have the Power to do so.

It is the same as President Bush right now who has no power to submit legislation, as it takes at least One Senator and One Representative to submit every single bill that goes to his desk.

When Senator Johnson resigned his position to become Vice - President on January 3rd, 1961, he lost the Right to submit Legislation. he could no longer submit a Senate bill for a Vote.

There is no excuse for Ignorance, and when someone lists out a bunch of Bills, and somehow gives Bush or Clinton credit, they are showing their Ignorance in how legislation works. And the MORONIC meida buys right in, and the masses beleive it without researching on their own.

The only Power the executive Branch has is singing the bill into law, or using the Veto. that's it.

Everything else, they have to rely on allies in the hOuse and the Senate BOTH before naything gets done.

One only has to look at the number of bills in the house that come to a vote compared to the senate to understand how much legislation doesn't even have a chance.

I give more credit where it belongs, to the Congress, so why don't you give us a breakdown of those bills that became law, that led ot that Surplus, alomg with who Sponsored them, what the votes were along party lines, and what political Parties had a Majority in each body during your ALLEGED DECADE.

Then we can talk about who did what.

If you can handle that, that is. All I've seen is spin thus far.

And you will have to look long and hard to find me saying Bush is the FULL credit for our economy growing right now. I say Congress is the main body on that one.

I am actually more concerned about Senate and house races than I am the Presidency, since they really dictate the laws in this country. When the Republicans ad a seat or two in the Senate, the rules will change, and no more screwing around, as th erules will be designed so that the Dem Obstructionist agenda will be limited, and the Full Advise and Consent of the Senate will be heard, not some irrelevent whiner dems who want to control the WHOLE of the Senate. Stay Tuned.

Here, I suggest you go here to brudsh up, maybe some dems would like to read it. It appears they need the help.

How LAWS Are Made

Regards,
Sonar5

PS - Another 96,000 Jobs have been added according to today's job report, not that any dem would be be happy about that.

You know considering the aftermath of 9/11/01, I'd say the Country is recovering pretty well, not as fast as I would like, but we've not been in this situation before, either. Low interest rates, Low Inflation, Hostorically LOW Unmployment. read that one again, HISTORICALLY LOW UNEMPLOYMENT. I'd say the Administration as a whole, along with Congress, and the Federal reserve have managed this pretty well. Even with Interest rates rising, Inflation is still held at bay. And after 9/11, I'd say all three need to be commended, Administration, Congress, and the Federal Reserve.

Oh yeah, 2 MILLION JOBS in the last year....

I'd say not bad... And it's a GREAT Start attributable to the tax cuts approved by Congress.

Who's Wonkette?

i voted for you!

wow. zing .. sonar5 and how laws are made, you put me in my place. and i see the light...i agree with you that that's the way a bill's made, and how congress works.

that's why i support senator kerry. (twenty year? veteran of congress).

6355 http://www.totallyfreecreditreport.org

6518 http://texas-holdem.ownsthis.com texas holdem

376 http://www.online-casino-one.com
online casino
craps