Originally Posted by David '47

Allow me to throw a pitcher of gasoline on this fire.

Here is a liberal legal academic's defense of an embarrassing second amendment.

He'd best be careful, he's not supposed to THINK things like that! His fellow liberals may decide he needs to have his sensitivity increased! :lol: :-)

Through the 20th Century, the NAACP, ACLU and NRA have been fighting Jim Crow interpretations of the Bill or Rights. The federal government has been slowly assuming police powers. The federal government - usually under the pretext of the commerce clause - has been passing laws more and more overtly intended to protect life, rights and property. The acts passed include gun control legislation. The NRA has been less successful than the other advocates of the Bill of Rights.

In fact, the NAACP-ACLU-etc alliance sees the Second Amendment and those who regard it is critical as being elements of Jim Crow.

But that's part of their basic problem. The ACLU-NAACP-etc won their battle with Jim Crow a long time ago. That's not to say that racism is dead, because it lives. But the legal structure of discrimination they opposed so long and hard is gone, broken, dead.

Today, they are reduced to trying to create Jim Crow in places where it doesn't exist, in order to provide themselves with a reason to operate, though the ACLU has other irons in the fire as well. Of course, in many ways the modern NAACP and the the rest of the civil rights movement is a fossil remnant, reduced to a support arm of the Democratic Party, anyway.

One of the interesting questions about the upcoming 4T and the 1T/2T beyond it is whether, and if so how, the civil rights movement will revitalize itself. (The last 1T was actually quite active civil rights wise, and a case can be made that more progress was made on civil rights in the 1T than was managed in the Awakening.)

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by David '47

Allow me to throw a pitcher of gasoline on this fire.

Here is a liberal legal academic's defense of an embarrassing second amendment.

He'd best be careful, he's not supposed to THINK things like that! His fellow liberals may decide he needs to have his sensitivity increased! :lol: :-)

The Embarrassing Second Amendment is a one of the early articles that prompted the academic "standard model". I quoted the later "The Commonplace Second Amendment," whose title pays homage to Embarrasing . While later articles got braver, and later research made "standard model" articles more aggressive, Embarrassing remains a decent introduction to the theory.

Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney both defeated. Both took extreme positions, so this is a move to the center. If this were still the unraveling, they would not have been defeated.

Originally Posted by monoghan

Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney both defeated. Both took extreme positions, so this is a move to the center. If this were still the unraveling, they would not have been defeated.

You may be right about that. However, the guy who beat Barr seems to vote the same way he does, so as a practical matter it may not indicate much change. I don't know enough about McKinney's opponent to make a judgement there.

Stylistically, however, it does show that extremism on either side isn't playing well with the voters.

Originally Posted by monoghan

Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney both defeated. Both took extreme positions, so this is a move to the center. If this were still the unraveling, they would not have been defeated.

The above could be added to some poll results I saw a week or so ago in the USA Today, that indicated that a slim majority of Americans reject both extreme positions in the Abortion Wars. At the very least, these items could indicate a growing weariness with the Culture Wars, and a growing desire to 'clear the decks' in preparation for the 4T that we at least sense is around the corner, if not already here.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by David '47

Allow me to throw a pitcher of gasoline on this fire.

Here is a liberal legal academic's defense of an embarrassing second amendment.

He'd best be careful, he's not supposed to THINK things like that! His fellow liberals may decide he needs to have his sensitivity increased! :lol: :-)

The Embarrassing Second Amendment is a one of the early articles that prompted the academic "standard model". I quoted the later "The Commonplace Second Amendment," whose title pays homage to Embarrasing . While later articles got braver, and later research made "standard model" articles more aggressive, Embarrassing remains a decent introduction to the theory.

Without disagreeing, I think this is important mostly for the obvious liberal position of the author. Levinson identifies himself as a card carrying member of the ACLU, which holds a contrary position.

Personally, I think the 2nd would be massaged by the SCOTUS, if it ever landed there. With the exception of the three hardest hardliners, I doubt the others would be willing to take gun control totally off the table. After all, you have three issues that scare the hell out of anyone with even a small degree of sanity:

1. If the 2nd grants individual liberties, the 14th makes the 2nd applicable to the states. That removes all government control from the table.
2. If the 2nd applies to military "arms", which it obviously does, then what is NOT covered: artillery? armor? how about flechette amunition? These are all OBVIOUSLY militray "arms". If any are NOT covered, why?
3. If "1" is true, and "2" is unlimited, then a small but active minority can block any attempt to change or repeal the 2nd, if they wish. The NRA is a lot of things, but sensible and rational are not on the list. With the rabid "gun nut" culture they perpetuate, I would expect 2nd to be inviolate - and so would most others.

I would hope - in fact RELY on the SCOTUS applying Jackson's Razor: "The Consitution is not a suicide pact". Of course, you can never be sure.

In this day and age, it is increasingly easy to do search/finds of vast quantities of text that has been digitized.

One way to test H&S's theory is the "I/We" ratio. Perhaps it is overly simplistic. But perhaps it could tell us something.

All you do is count the number of times the word "I" appears in a random (but large) sampling of text that was published in a given week.

Then do the same with the word "we".

Take the ratio of I:We. If H&S are correct, we should expect this ratio to go down during the 4T and the 1st T. It should be up in the 2nd and 3rd Ts. This pattern should cycle reproducibly and significantly.

I wonder if this would work.

Now back to the regularly scheduled debates.

Originally Posted by David '47

Without disagreeing, I think this is important mostly for the obvious liberal position of the author. Levinson identifies himself as a card carrying member of the ACLU, which holds a contrary position.

Personally, I think the 2nd would be massaged by the SCOTUS, if it ever landed there. With the exception of the three hardest hardliners, I doubt the others would be willing to take gun control totally off the table. After all, you have three issues that scare the hell out of anyone with even a small degree of sanity:

1. If the 2nd grants individual liberties, the 14th makes the 2nd applicable to the states. That removes all government control from the table.
2. If the 2nd applies to military "arms", which it obviously does, then what is NOT covered: artillery? armor? how about flechette amunition? These are all OBVIOUSLY militray "arms". If any are NOT covered, why?
3. If "1" is true, and "2" is unlimited, then a small but active minority can block any attempt to change or repeal the 2nd, if they wish. The NRA is a lot of things, but sensible and rational are not on the list. With the rabid "gun nut" culture they perpetuate, I would expect 2nd to be inviolate - and so would most others.

I would hope - in fact RELY on the SCOTUS applying Jackson's Razor: "The Consitution is not a suicide pact". Of course, you can never be sure.

1. Correct, the Fourteenth Amendment intended to grant all citizens the protections of the Bill of Rights, but Jim Crow interpretations purged the 'privilege and immunities' clause from the Fourteenth, and the 20th Century Supreme Courts have been reapplying the 14th to the states one Right at a time. The 2nd has not yet been incorporated, though a plain reading of the Constitution would do so. Thus, even if the Supreme Court had reviewed the Emerson case and came to the same conclusion as the 5th district, another case would have to be worked through the systems before state gun control laws would be struck down.
2. You might note that the Emerson decision mentions individual weapons. Militia soldiers of the revolutionary era were never expected to keep and bear cannon. The NRA and many of the academic "standard model" advocates make a distinction between the arms of a light infantry soldier and crew served weapons. Other NRA spokesman are twisting the Miller decision a bit, wishing protection of the right to bear arms, but are willing to allow the government to ban weapons that are particularly suitable for criminal abuse. Thus, some wish a right to bear pistols and hunting weapons, but not automatic weapons.
   
   My belief is the founding fathers intended a right to light infantry weapons, which would include M 16s, side arms and hand grenades, but not machine guns, tanks, fighter aircraft and nuclear weapons. However, even good faith attempts to fit the Founder's intents to modern weaponry are questionable. This is one of many reasons that the 2nd amendment might need to be rewritten, if the country ever gets united enough to pass an amendment.

I respect your hope that the Supreme Court will not protect a right to keep and bear nukes. I'm dubious about even hand grenades, myself. I feel the compromise ought to be an explicit protected right to single shot pistols and rifles with limits on magazine size. I would like to see the People have a right to keep arms suitable to enforcing the law, but not necessarily arms suitable to repelling invasions. If law enforcement agencies believe they need M 16s to enforce the law, then the People might ought have that right too. Still, as written, this would be an 'infringement,' a limit on the right to keep and bear arms. Most of the Bills of Rights created rights. Only one right was so important that no infringement was to be allowed.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" implies that the Constitution as written is fatally flawed in a modern society. If this is anything near true, we ought to be passing amendments. The Supreme Court should not have the power to deliberately misinterpret the Constitution on the basis that they think the Founding Fathers wrong. So long as the Supreme Court believes it can and ought to employ 'Jackson's Razor,' so long as they deliberately misinterpret outdated law such that there is never a need to change outdated law, outdated law will never be changed. Thus, we will move further and further away from having a meaningful Constitution.

While I could easily see others disagreeing with me, I am far more concerned with over use of 'Jackson's Razor' than with a return to the original meaning of the 2nd and 14th Amendments. I would like to see a return to rule of law and a constitutional republic.

Many were hoping the Supreme Court would review Emerson. They declined. As I understand it, the Court is very aware of how divided they are. While they fight in earnest on a case by case basis, they are deliberately keeping the scope of their decisions narrow. They fear that too much turnover in the meaning of the Constitution would ruin belief in our legal system. Thus, they let the 5th District's ruling for individual rights stand without review. The decision is rule of law in the 5th District. The case could be quoted in other districts, but is not fully binding. Thus, you have an individual right to keep and bear arms, at least in Texas, Mississippi and Alabama.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

... Thus, you have an individual right to keep and bear arms, at least in Texas, Mississippi and Alabama.

I can't think of a less hospital 3 states in the US of A, so I'll not be bothered personally. I still find it absolutely unacceptable that an issue so obviously divisive is consistenetly ignored by the SCOTUS. I expect cowardice from the political class, but these nine are supposed to be above that.

If the result is 5-4, fine. Better to have a divisive decision than what we have now. Division may prompt action.

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

... Thus, you have an individual right to keep and bear arms, at least in Texas, Mississippi and Alabama.

I can't think of a less hospital 3 states in the US of A, so I'll not be bothered personally. I still find it absolutely unacceptable that an issue so obviously divisive is consistenetly ignored by the SCOTUS. I expect cowardice from the political class, but these nine are supposed to be above that.

If the result is 5-4, fine. Better to have a divisive decision than what we have now. Division may prompt action.

Well, SCOTUS may get Emerson. Don't know the exact status of the case at this time.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by monoghan

Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney both defeated. Both took extreme positions, so this is a move to the center. If this were still the unraveling, they would not have been defeated.

You may be right about that. However, the guy who beat Barr seems to vote the same way he does, so as a practical matter it may not indicate much change. I don't know enough about McKinney's opponent to make a judgement there.

Stylistically, however, it does show that extremism on either side isn't playing well with the voters.

Kiff, I don't see how anybody can make any sort of judgment about this thing. McKinney lost for one reason and one reason only: Republican Kool-Aid drinkers mobilized in massive numbers to honor our Fuehrer by voting in the Democratic primary to remove that "infidel," Cynthia McKinney. You may have seen/heard the reports that voters were still requesting to change their party registration in massive numbers on election day in order to do this. Make sure that you have seen these unbelievable vote totals from Georgia's Fourth District:

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/met...resschart.html

U.S. HOUSE DISTRICT 4

174 of 174 precincts reporting.


Democrats
Votes
Pct.

x- Denise Majette
68,612
58

Cynthia McKinney (i)
49,058
42

Republicans
Votes
Pct.

r- Cynthia Van Auken
2,169
39

r- Catherine Davis
1,910
34

Barbara Pereira
1,515
27

Absentee ballots partially included.

==================================>


About 118,000 people voted in the Democratic primary as opposed to about 5,500 in the Republican primary. Incredible. Turnout is typically about 20% for primaries but this was the largest turnout in this district's history. There really is no mystery about what happened here. This was the real life equivalent of "Freepers" mobilizing to stuff Internet poll ballot boxes. This tells us nothing about the national mood and where the country is headed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...777567,00.html

(Excerpt. Emphasis added. :lol


Chicken hawks

Matthew Engel
Tuesday August 20, 2002


...The US is now mainly governed by men in their mid-50s, ie the Vietnam generation - except that this lot missed being the Vietnam generation. The enterprisingly original New Hampshire Gazette (www.nhgazette.com) maintains a "Chickenhawks" database to tell their stories. Most of the allegations fit with facts recorded elsewhere.

Not everyone is implicated: Colin Powell's military record is solid, of course, which may help explain his distaste for fighting; and Donald Rumsfeld, an older man, was a naval aviator, albeit in the undramatic mid-50s. Otherwise, it starts with the president, who missed Vietnam by securing a cushy number in the Texas air national guard after (so everyone assumes) his congressman father pulled strings to get him in. It is less well- known that Dick Cheney avoided the draft by getting deferments, first because he was a student, then because he was married. "I had other priorities in the 60s than military service," he has said. Fine. Me too, Dick. Some people have got other priorities now. How about you?

Consider Washington's two most prominent superhawks: Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy) and his adviser Richard Perle. Who's Who in America is curiously vague about their precise whereabouts in the late 1960s, though it is fairly clear where they were not. As the shrewd and sceptical Republican senator Chuck Hagel said last week: "Maybe Mr Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad."

The two Democrat leaders in Congress, Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle, served; their Republican counterparts, Trent Lott and Dick Armey, did not. Tom DeLay, the most powerful hawk in the House of Representatives, missed Vietnam too: he was working as a pest exterminator. Reportedly, he once complained that he would have served; but, he said, all the places were taken up by ethnic minorities.

There are similar stories about almost every other prominent rightwing Republican of recent vintage. Newt Gingrich, ex- Speaker of the House, went the Cheney route; Kenneth Starr, Clinton's legal nemesis, had psoriasis; Jack Kemp, Dole's running mate in 1996, was unfit because of a knee injury, though he heroically continued as a National Football League quarterback for another eight years; Pat Buchanan had arthritis in his knees, though he soon became an avid jogger.

The best story concerns Rush Limbaugh, the ferociously bellicose radio personality, who allegedly had either "anal cysts" or an "ingrown hair follicle on his bottom". It is not my custom to mock others' ailments, but anyone who has listened to Limbaugh's programme can imagine the dripping scorn he would bring to the revelation that a prominent Democrat had skipped a war over something like that. Also, in his case, a pain in the arse is peculiarly appropriate.

Admission: I did not serve in Vietnam either. My country was not there, and did not ask me, or anyone else. Like those named above, I was unenthusiastic about that war. Unlike most of them, I am profoundly alarmed about the one now being plotted.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by monoghan

Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney both defeated. Both took extreme positions, so this is a move to the center. If this were still the unraveling, they would not have been defeated.

You may be right about that. However, the guy who beat Barr seems to vote the same way he does, so as a practical matter it may not indicate much change. I don't know enough about McKinney's opponent to make a judgement there.

Stylistically, however, it does show that extremism on either side isn't playing well with the voters.

Kiff, I don't see how anybody can make any sort of judgment about this thing. McKinney lost for one reason and one reason only: Republican Kool-Aid drinkers mobilized in massive numbers to honor our Fuehrer by voting in the Democratic primary to remove that "infidel," Cynthia McKinney. You may have seen/heard the reports that voters were still requesting to change their party registration in massive numbers on election day in order to do this. Make sure that you have seen these unbelievable vote totals from Georgia's Fourth District:

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/met...resschart.html

U.S. HOUSE DISTRICT 4

174 of 174 precincts reporting.


Democrats
Votes
Pct.

x- Denise Majette
68,612
58

Cynthia McKinney (i)
49,058
42

Republicans
Votes
Pct.

r- Cynthia Van Auken
2,169
39

r- Catherine Davis
1,910
34

Barbara Pereira
1,515
27

Absentee ballots partially included.

==================================>


About 118,000 people voted in the Democratic primary as opposed to about 3,500 in the Republican primary. Incredible. Turnout is typically about 20% for primaries but this was the largest turnout in this district's history. There really is no mystery about what happened here. This was the real life equivalent of "Freepers" mobilizing to stuff Internet poll ballot boxes. This tells us nothing about the national mood and where the country is headed.

*barfs*

Originally Posted by takascar2

Well, SCOTUS may get Emerson. Don't know the exact status of the case at this time.

Just visited www.saf.org to check legal status. The Supreme Court declined to review Emerson. Thus, as I said earlier, the Individual Rights interpretation is official in the 5th District, though I erred in identifying the three states. The 5th is Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, and does not include Georgia.

Another case came up, in another district, where someone attempted to use Emerson to establish a right to keep and bear machine guns. The government's brief to the Supreme Court in US v Haney affirms that US v Emerson gives the better understanding of the 2nd Amendment than other 'collective rights' or 'states rights' decisions in other districts, but quotes the "individual weapons" wording in Emerson, the notion found in both Emerson and Miller that crew served weapons and weapons suitable for criminal abuse may be banned from private ownership by the government. I am not sure this is the founder's intent, but this is apt to hold up. The interesting thing is that Bush's Justice Department is arguing an individual rights interpretation based on Emerson. I don't know the status of US v Haney.

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

... Thus, you have an individual right to keep and bear arms, at least in Texas, Mississippi and Alabama.

I can't think of a less hospital 3 states in the US of A, so I'll not be bothered personally. I still find it absolutely unacceptable that an issue so obviously divisive is consistenetly ignored by the SCOTUS. I expect cowardice from the political class, but these nine are supposed to be above that.

If the result is 5-4, fine. Better to have a divisive decision than what we have now. Division may prompt action.

I suspect they are avoiding precisely because it is divisive, as they are so many other issues. There are two reasons for this practice.

1. Neither side can be sure how the 'swing' voters will act, so neither side dares bring it to a vote.

2. Rehnquist has, as deliberate policy, attempted to lower the profile and reduce the role of the Supreme Court in controversial social issues ever since he became Chief Justice. His goal was to lower the SC out of the crossfire it had become enbroiled in after handing down controversial decisions it was not equipped to decide during the Awakening.

I suspect Rehnquist may have saved the SC from having all its powers eviscerated by Constitutional Amendment.

[*]If "1" is true, and "2" is unlimited, then a small but active minority can block any attempt to change or repeal the 2nd, if they wish. The NRA is a lot of things, but sensible and rational are not on the list. With the rabid "gun nut" culture they perpetuate, I would expect 2nd to be inviolate - and so would most others. [/list]
I would hope - in fact RELY on the SCOTUS applying Jackson's Razor: "The Consitution is not a suicide pact". Of course, you can never be sure.

The NRA is what is because it is a grass-roots organization, and as such it is exceptional today. It's also one of the more responsible advocacy groups in the business. As for the 'gun nut' culture, as popularly defined, I'm going to let you in on basic secret the media hates: it doesn't exist.

The 'suicide pact' clause is an excellent argument AGAINST gun control. And yes, the 2nd is just as important and off-limits as the 1rst or any of the others (none of them are as safe as they should be!)!

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

About 118,000 people voted in the Democratic primary as opposed to about 3,500 in the Republican primary. Incredible. Turnout is typically about 20% for primaries but this was the largest turnout in this district's history. There really is no mystery about what happened here. This was the real life equivalent of "Freepers" mobilizing to stuff Internet poll ballot boxes. This tells us nothing about the national mood and where the country is headed.

If Cynthia McKinney was an Australian politican she would get away with her pro-Palestinian/Anti-Israel views and get some support especially on the left. In Europe her views would be nothing special. The USA is a fundamentaly pro-Zionist country and a lot of Americans think the PLO are terrorists (which they are) and Israel is being subjected to unprovoked agression.

In the western world no other country is like the United States politically, in Australia issues which are generally voiced only by right wing nuts are mainstream in the United States, like zero tolerance on drugs and crime, limited welfare, lower taxes, school vouchers etc. Even former governor Bill Weld would have no chance of being elected Prime Minister in Australia because he would be regarded as too right wing by the voters. Only Right Wing nuts in Australia support Bush's plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

In the western world no other country is like the United States politically, in Australia issues which are generally voiced only by right wing nuts are mainstream in the United States, like zero tolerance on drugs and crime, limited welfare, lower taxes, school vouchers etc. Even former governor Bill Weld would have no chance of being elected Prime Minister in Australia because he would be regarded as too right wing by the voters. Only Right Wing nuts in Australia support Bush's plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Tristan, are you saying that you oppose the feigned Iraqi invasion or are you throwing yourself in with the "right-wing nuts"? Also, didn't you say that you would ban even caffeine in line with "zero tolerance on drugs"? :wink:

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Tristan, are you saying that you oppose the feigned Iraqi invasion or are you throwing yourself in with the "right-wing nuts"? Also, didn't you say that you would ban even caffeine in line with "zero tolerance on drugs"? :wink:

I am throwing myself into the right wing nuts of my nation.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

... Thus, you have an individual right to keep and bear arms, at least in Texas, Mississippi and Alabama.

... I still find it absolutely unacceptable that an issue so obviously divisive is consistenetly ignored by the SCOTUS. I expect cowardice from the political class, but these nine are supposed to be above that.

If the result is 5-4, fine. Better to have a divisive decision than what we have now. Division may prompt action.

I suspect they are avoiding precisely because it is divisive, as they are so many other issues. There are two reasons for this practice.

1. Neither side can be sure how the 'swing' voters will act, so neither side dares bring it to a vote.

2. Rehnquist has, as deliberate policy, attempted to lower the profile and reduce the role of the Supreme Court in controversial social issues ever since he became Chief Justice. His goal was to lower the SC out of the crossfire it had become enbroiled in after handing down controversial decisions it was not equipped to decide during the Awakening.

I suspect Rehnquist may have saved the SC from having all its powers eviscerated by Constitutional Amendment.

While I agree the motivation is along the lines you state, I think it's a little more cynical than you state. Rehnquist knows that the SCOTUS cannot approve an umlimited and unrestricted trade in arms, and the nine would be all over the board drawing lines in the sand. In short, they would look a little pathetic. That doesn't relieve them of the task, though.

And regarding the evisceration of the court by amendment, I doubt you could get the Congress to act or even 50% of the states to go along. It would be more likely that the public would react at the polls. I'll wager that Rehnquist fears that most of all.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by David '47

• If "1" is true, and "2" is unlimited, then a small but active minority can block any attempt to change or repeal the 2nd, if they wish. The NRA is a lot of things, but sensible and rational are not on the list. With the rabid "gun nut" culture they perpetuate, I would expect 2nd to be inviolate - and so would most others.

I would hope - in fact RELY on the SCOTUS applying Jackson's Razor: "The Consitution is not a suicide pact". Of course, you can never be sure.

The NRA is what is because it is a grass-roots organization, and as such it is exceptional today. It's also one of the more responsible advocacy groups in the business. As for the 'gun nut' culture, as popularly defined, I'm going to let you in on basic secret the media hates: it doesn't exist.

If you say so, but living in a very gun-friendly state gives me real pause. I have otherwise sensible coworkers and acquaintences that own light artillery (yes, that's REAL artillery) and so called long range target rifles (actually 50 caliber machine guns modified for use as military sniper rifles). All of these folks find this perfectly OK, even when asked why their neighbors should not feel uncomfortable living next to a small military armory. They are offended that anyone should ask, but totally fail to understand that others can and probably should feel useasy if not fearful.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68 continues

The 'suicide pact' clause is an excellent argument AGAINST gun control. And yes, the 2nd is just as important and off-limits as the 1rst or any of the others (none of them are as safe as they should be!)!

Then you're OK with the unrestricted ownership of weapons only suitable for armed insurrection. Do you think you'll be needing them? If so, who's threatening you, or are the big game REALLY BIG where you hunt?

Today I spotted a bumper sticker that read:

"I WANT TO BE IRRATIONALLY EXUBERANT AGAIN"

:lol:

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

This tells us nothing about the national mood and where the country is headed.

Polls indicate that a large percentage of black Democrats voted against McKinney also. Besides, the willingness of almost all Republicans to give up their right to influence their own nomination in order to get McKinney out DOES indicate a lot about the national mood with regards to McKinney and people like her.

The "national mood" is not merely a matter of the opinions of broad majorities, but also depends on the opinions of extremely committed, energized minorities.

Yes, those numbers from McKinney's race are pretty amazing, and I suppose it's likely that a lot of Republicans crossed over to vote for Majette. How many of those same people are going to switch back to the GOP in the fall? Maybe they'll just stay home now that they've accomplished their goal.

I looked at the numbers for the Barr/Linder race; only 84,538 people voted in that one as opposed to 117,670 in the McKinney/Majette district.