Sex, Jogging and Politics

By Mary Lynn F. Jones, AlterNet
April 8, 2004

Caryn Schenewerk was hanging out with some friends at the Washington, D.C. International Wine & Food Festival in late February when talk turned to politics. Everyone agreed that "Bush is a threat to our privacy rights, health and security," said Schenewerk, a 26-year-old attorney who hails from New Boston, Texas. Then an idea occurred to them: Why not form a group and call it Women Against Bush?

Schenewerk and friends talked more the next day and started thinking about ideas. They wanted to make the group fun, such as offering free panties to members who pay $25 to join. Think of it as "Sex and the City" meets politics: "It was one of those ideas that you can't just leave alone because it's so good," Schenewerk said.

So Schenewerk created a website, and she and her friends planned a launch party at a Washington club, hoping 100 people would attend. "There were a lot of sleepless nights and early mornings involved in that," Schenewerk said. The idea spread, thanks to the Internet and email. (A mention in the Washington Post didn't hurt, either.)

On April 1, about 300 people attended WomenAgainstBush.org's kickoff bash. The group raised more than $5,000 in one week for its political action committee, Running in Heels. (WomenAgainstBush.org is a project of Running in Heels.)

Babes Left and Right

Schenewerk isn't alone. Across the country, Americans are forming coalitions that combine politics with non-political activities to get people excited about voting this fall. There's Babes Against Bush ? which offers a regime change countdown calendar that runs until Inauguration Day ($11, plus $1.95 shipping) ? as well as Babes for Bush, whose calendar goes for $20, plus tax and shipping.

The Bush campaign Web site is offering Republicans the chance to buy event packs, including navy caps, bumper stickers, buttons and a yard sign. The campaign is hoping supporters will host 2,004 "Parties for the President" on April 29; 1,675 events had been scheduled as of April 6, according to the website.

The rise in such groups can be traced in part to the success of Howard Dean's grassroots Internet campaign and Meetups, and the empowerment they gave voters. But with the electorate essentially split between the two parties, Democrats and Republicans are looking for any help they can get at the voting booth.

"Each side is trying to prime the pump for themselves," said Brad Bannon, a Democratic political consultant in Washington, D.C. "Both sides understand that this could be a very close election." Bringing new voters to the party "could very much dictate the course of the election."

Grassroots Games

Voters aren't the only ones taking the election into their own hands. The presidential campaigns are focusing on grassroots efforts, which both parties recognize as important. "Fewer people get their information from the three major television networks than they used to," Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman told the Los Angeles Times in February.

Non-campaign affiliated groups make it easy for members to join by arranging low-cost, local events. WomenAgainstBush.org plans to hold get-togethers the first Thursday of every month. Members get to choose a pair of panties ? a blue thong with "Bush Free Zone" written in red, or a black bikini with "Kiss Bush!" and lips on the front and "Goodbye! 11.02.04" in hot pink on the back.

Rich Khoe and his seven co-founders began discussing the idea of Run Against Bush in October; it opened for business in February. Despite the group's name, only half of the founders are runners; the others are light joggers and walkers. "The one thing we have in common is the 'against Bush' part," said Khoe, a 33-year-old consultant in Washington, D.C. Members of Run Against Bush, which schedules runs regularly in major cities, pay $20 to join and get a free T-shirt.

"At the core, it's concern about the direction the country's heading in and concern about raising these concerns and whether we get painted as unpatriotic," added Khoe, noting that Run Against Bush's most famous member is Michael Moore. The group has given T-shirts to John Kerry, Wesley Clark and Bill Clinton.

Neither Schenewerk nor Khoe has ever been politically active. "I've always followed politics and have attended fundraisers, but this is the first time I've really taken on something big," Schenewerk said. "I really want Bush out!"

Khoe, who volunteered for Clark's campaign, said "The stakes are higher. It's not just terrorism and security but the economy as well. This administration as far as abusing the public trust ? it's unprecedented what they are willing to politicize for political gain."

Attention Grabbers

Their enthusiasm is spreading. Schenewerk said she has received emails from people in other cities who are interested in holding events. The group's next party in Washington is dubbed "Wax Away Bush" and will be held at a local salon. For a $50 minimum, donors will receive a gift certificate good for any service at the salon, although Schenewerk hopes they'll use the certificate toward bikini waxes (swimsuit season is coming, after all).

"It's an attention grabber ? we're trying to have fun with this, it makes people laugh," she said. "We're all about the double entendres that we can back up with substance." The April 24 event comes one day before the March for Women's Lives in Washington.

Khoe said he thought at first that Run Against Bush ? which is a project of its political action committee, Running for Change ? would be lucky to raise $5,000 and get 100 members. It now has more than 1,300 members in 40 states who have raised $38,000 for Running for Change. "It's gone well beyond our friends and our friends' friends, which is how it started out," Khoe said. The money will go to Kerry, swing state committees, candidates opposed to Bush who are in tight congressional races, and media campaigns in swing states.

"We are getting a lot of people to get out and do something who would otherwise be sitting on the sidelines," he added.

Schenewerk agreed, noting, "Something about us is appealing to people who haven't been involved." Now she's dealing with "nuts and bolts" issues, such as the group's board and filing organization papers with the Federal Election Commission. Running in Heels will not only donate to Kerry's campaign, but to House and Senate races as well.

Sky's The Limit

Starting the groups has even had side benefits for their founders. Khoe, who used to run about once a month, now runs three times a week. "It's just another example of how we're feeling extra-motivated," he said.

Khoe said Run Against Bush plans to go to the Democratic convention in Boston to recruit new members and to the Republican convention in New York, where members will make a "quiet and visible statement." He added, "We're planning on running circles around the convention." Schenewerk said it's too early to decide what her group will do.

On the GOP side, Babes for Bush was founded in late 1999. According to the group's website, "A babe is someone who has internal as well as external beauty, which defies age and gender. A Babe for Bush is one who shares President George W. Bush's values of God, family and country, living a life with high character and integrity."

Groups affiliated with campaigns include Democrats for Bush, which Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) launched on March 24. Both Kerry and Bush have coalitions aimed at reaching out to core voting blocs, such as African Americans and women.

As Schenewerk said, "We want to get women to vote and vote against Bush. We want them to start thinking of politics as something worth their time, interesting and hopefully fun. ... When you get a bunch of fun, intelligent women together, the sky's no limit!"

Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

A big 4T sign...

Finally! It appears liberals nationwide have reason to finally cheer this morning:

• Voters in Inglewood Turn Away Wal-Mart
  
  Los Angeles Times
  By Sara Lin and Monte Morin Times Staff Writers
  
  A bid by the world's largest corporation to bypass uncooperative elected officials and take its aggressive expansion plans to voters failed Tuesday, as Inglewood residents overwhelmingly rejected Wal-Mart's proposal to build a colossal retail and grocery center without an environmental review or public hearings.

So what does this west coast fourthturning portend for the rest of the country? Well, liberals entered the halls of power in 1933 with the slogan of helping the "forgotten man." Now the sexism aside, unemployment in 1933 was 23%. Seven years later, just before America began turning what little bread and butter there was into bombs and bullets, the unemployment rate was 18%.

Here's the dirty little secret (sexism aside, of course): how many jobs do you suppose Wal-Mart would have created for the "forgotten man" in Inglewood? Well, for the liberals this is a big victory, because those "little people" are much better off on the government dole than working at a Wal-Mart anyway!

Or...what might have happened is that no new jobs would have been created...that all the jobs in nearby shops and stores would simply have moved to Wal-Mart as the smaller enterprises went out of business. Such might have created "Dead Zones" where those former small businesses existed, which wouldn't have exactly spelled "mother" for the neighborhoods surrounding them.

Then again, maybe not. Wal-Mart might have indeed been a boon to Inglewood. An environmental impact study (EIS) would at least have been an honest effort to determine the overall impact of building a Wal-Mart, one which would have allowed the City to make an informed decision. Wal-Mart, in attempting to circumvent the process, showed their true colors, and they certainly aren't Red, White and Blue. So kudos to the people of Inglewood...some of whom I know for a fact are Republicans.

Evidence that we're moving towards 4T, if not there already:

(This article posted for educational and discussion purposes only)

N.America tops world genocide list- Belgian minister

BRUSSELS, April 8 (Reuters) - Belgian Defence Minister Andre Flahaut came under fire on Thursday for approving an official document asserting that the biggest genocide in the past 500 years occurred in North America.

The 16-page report entitled "Genocides" was released to commemorate this month's 10th anniversary of the 1994 massacre in Rwanda, in which 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered by Hutu extremists.

The document put North America at the top of a list of genocides, saying an ongoing genocide of Native Americans had claimed 15 million lives since 1492, when Christopher Columbus sailed to the Americas.

The Flemish daily De Standaard accused Flahaut, a Socialist who opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq, of insulting the United States with the report, published as a supplement to a magazine circulated to the armed forces.

Belgium has only recently improved ties with Washington after tensions over Iraq, European Union defence plans and a controversial Belgian war crimes law, since amended, that led to attempts to prosecute senior U.S. leaders.

"This publication puts our relations with all North and South American countries at risk," De Standaard said in an editorial, calling Flahaut "unfit or incompetent."

The report ranked South America second with 14 million deaths of indigenous people since 1500 and suggested both genocides were continuing, leaving the timeframe open with three dots.

A spokesman for the Belgian armed forces said the document was based on data collected from the two-volume "Encyclopaedia of Genocide" edited by historian Israel Charny.

Flahaut has a history of irking Washington. He briefly threatened to close Belgian airspace and the port of Antwerp to the U.S. military ahead of the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

More recently, he criticised the U.S. army in January and said that if he were an American he would vote Democrat in the November presidential election.

Along with Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt and Foreign Minister Louis Michel, Flahaut travelled to Rwanda, a former Belgian colony, to attend commemoration ceremonies this week.


04/08/04 09:23 ET

Copyright 2004 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

While the Leftists here might agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Flahaut's contention (or perhaps contend that he doesn't go far enough in singling out the United States as the sole offender in the above item), I cite the above article because S&H mentioned that a 4T is the time when the agenda of the previous 2T is revived, addressed, and in many ways consummated. Thus, the total delegitimation of the United States that began during the last 2T can be expected to re-emerge as a major 4T issue demanding decisive action, one way or the other. Here, as I see it, is an early sign of this, ands thus evidence that, even if we still be 3T, we won't be for much longer.

This certainly does not bode well with future international relations if this issue came into fruition.

In fact, the interesting thing is that this particular event has officially begun the destruction of a 2T concept called "cultural relativism".

Obviously when Europe applies their moral filter on other nations, just as we might on Iraq and Iran, the idea of considering the factors of the other side have fallen by this blinding sense of self duty.

Interestingly enough, I think it is up my generation to try and put a stop to the selfishness disguised as internationalism. The whole thing is a charade, a pan-Eurasian front to try and conquer the West (Europe is no longer the Western world in my opinion).

If this were to become full blown. I have nothing but shame for those who have taught me to be receptive to the world around me and then turn on their own words to perform their agendas.

Andy:

I'm interested in your contention that Europe is no longer part of the West. How would you define the West so as to exclude Europe?

Titus:

It seems to me that genocide needs to be deliberate. The great majority of Native American deaths caused by the advent of Europeans were due to the smallpox plague, the greatest epidemic in the history of the world. The Spanish didn't bring smallpox to the New World on purpose.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Titus:

It seems to me that genocide needs to be deliberate. The great majority of Native American deaths caused by the advent of Europeans were due to the smallpox plague, the greatest epidemic in the history of the world. The Spanish didn't bring smallpox to the New World on purpose.

Brian,

I agree with you. Far be it from me to back anything a PC Nazi like this Belgian fellow might say. But we should keep in mind that even though the Spanish did not bring the smallpox here intentionally, they (and I believe others) did occasionally use it intentionally and probably didn't give a damn about Amerinds dying one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I'm interested in your contention that Europe is no longer part of the West. How would you define the West so as to exclude Europe?

It's more of a "New World" versus "Old World" mindset. In fact, I simply shifted the longitudes so that the Prime Meridian would fall somewhere in the Western Atlantic, effectively shutting out Europe and adding areas such as East Asia and Australia in to the New West. So even Japan, China, India, and Australia no longer belong in the Orient, but rather the far West boundary. The Americas would be now the Easternmost end of the West. The Pacific Ocean serves as the unifying bond between the nations that ring it.

As for the "deligitamization" of the United States.... Is this in the eyes of elites or in the eyes of the American general public?

If the disconnect-the gap-is is wide enough we must wonder if elites will be de-legitamized in the eyes of the general public. If so, we must expect some sort of backlash during the Crisis era.

Andy:

May I ask on what basis, except for arbitrary geography, you would include China in the West and not France or Britain? I really don't understand that.

When we say "the West," we usually mean that civilization which grew from the shards of the western Roman Empire, and has such events in its history as the feudal system, the divine right of kings, the Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the wave of democratic revolutions. It isn't really geographical. It includes those European countries which either are or once were part of Roman Catholic Christendom, together with their former colonies in the New World and Australia -- although some would exclude Latin America from the West, and I think there are good reasons to consider Latin America a separate civilization even though Spain and Portugal are part of the West.

By this reasoning, of the countries you mentioned, only Australia would be part of the West. So would New Zealand. But not Japan or India, and certainly not China!

Maybe you were thinking in terms of some idea of free-market capitalism, and see western Europe as having gone too far towards socialism?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Maybe you were thinking in terms of some idea of free-market capitalism, and see western Europe as having gone too far towards socialism?

I sometimes contemplate a fuzzy line in Europe. Ghengis Kahn did not get west of this line long enough to significantly alter culture. Napoleon didn't get east of this line long enough for the Code of Napoleon to take hold. The Iron Curtain came down right about there too. West of that line, both the economic and political aspects of Industrial Age culture are well entrenched. To the east, Industrial Age technology is entrenched, but capitalist economics is new, and the politics are new. The former Marxist states to not have the experience and practical safeguards in place to be considered fully mature Second Wave cultures.

I sometimes imagine a similar divide between Catholic southern Europe and the Spanish / Portuguese speaking former European colonies and Protestant northern Europe and the English speaking former European colonies. The Protestant Reformation was a vital first step in creating the Industrial Age Second Wave paradigm. Democracy was a second and equally vital step. Industry was the third. The Anglo-American tradition blazed the trails, especially with respect to politics and industry. Southern Europe and her colonies have consistently lagged behind.

(Samuel Huntington distinguishes between Orthodox, Western and Latin American civilizations, lining up countries like Spain, Italy and Portugal with The West rather than Catholicism. This is a respectable position.)

The other persistent pattern is that while the Anglo American tradition developed Protestant religion first, Enlightenment government second, modern technology third, other civilizations generally reverse the order. They will attempt to embrace wealth producing technology first, maintain autocratic government, while keeping the local religion. Generally, I expect the politics to eventually follow the technology. Autocratic government is just not responsive enough to compete with democracies. I also expect the local religions to morph somewhat, to adopt to the new values of the new environment, but while other civilizations might adopt technologies, economic methods and political systems developed by the 'West,' the local religion generally sticks, with some modifications.

In short, I wouldn't confuse Toffler's Waves with Huntington's civilizations. One can measure how far along each civilization has progressed in adopting the Second Wave industrial pattern. One should not assume that a civilization that has partially or fully embraced the Second Wave pattern has merged with "The West."

And one should not totally dismiss the notion of the hypothetical Third Wave.

I also expect the local religions to morph somewhat, to adapt to the new values of the new environment

Yes; as will Protestant Christianity.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

As for the "deligitamization" of the United States.... Is this in the eyes of elites or in the eyes of the American general public?

If the disconnect-the gap-is is wide enough we must wonder if elites will be de-legitamized in the eyes of the general public. If so, we must expect some sort of backlash during the Crisis era.

That is certainly a strong possibility in this country.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_2_its_morning.html

This article seems to showing some Crisis signs in American society, for example X'ers are starting to settle down in a big way. Along with many other social trends which started in the unravelling and increase in the coming Crisis and High

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_2_its_morning.html

This article seems to showing some Crisis signs in American society, for example X'ers are starting to settle down in a big way. Along with many other social trends which started in the unravelling and increase in the coming Crisis and High

Originally Posted by Tristan

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_2_its_morning.html

This article seems to showing some Crisis signs in American society, for example X'ers are starting to settle down in a big way. Along with many other social trends which started in the unravelling and increase in the coming Crisis and High.

Woohoo! Strauss & Howe in the mainstream press!

Originally Posted by Tristan

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_2_its_morning.html

This article seems to showing some Crisis signs in American society, for example X'ers are starting to settle down in a big way. Along with many other social trends which started in the unravelling and increase in the coming Crisis and High.

Woohoo! Strauss & Howe in the mainstream press!

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by Tristan

This article seems to showing some Crisis signs in American society, for example X'ers are starting to settle down in a big way. Along with many other social trends which started in the unravelling and increase in the coming Crisis and High.

Woohoo! Strauss & Howe in the mainstream press!

A quote from "article":

• Look, for instance, at what?s happening to teen alienation. If Millennials have a problem with authority, it?s that they wish they had more of it... Young voters are also more supportive of President Bush than the public at large, with 18- to 29-year-olds giving him a 62 percent approval rating.

They probably felt the same way about Harding or Calvin Coolidge. After all, according to S&H, these new authoritarians started coming of age right after WWI, in 1920 (which is the year 2000 on this cycle's watch).

In the meantime, this ain't a good sign for the party of William Jefferson Clinton or JFK. Maybe Hillary can woo 'em in 2008, eh? 8)

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by Tristan

This article seems to showing some Crisis signs in American society, for example X'ers are starting to settle down in a big way. Along with many other social trends which started in the unravelling and increase in the coming Crisis and High.

Woohoo! Strauss & Howe in the mainstream press!

A quote from "article":

• Look, for instance, at what?s happening to teen alienation. If Millennials have a problem with authority, it?s that they wish they had more of it... Young voters are also more supportive of President Bush than the public at large, with 18- to 29-year-olds giving him a 62 percent approval rating.

They probably felt the same way about Harding or Calvin Coolidge. After all, according to S&H, these new authoritarians started coming of age right after WWI, in 1920 (which is the year 2000 on this cycle's watch).

In the meantime, this ain't a good sign for the party of William Jefferson Clinton or JFK. Maybe Hillary can woo 'em in 2008, eh? 8)

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by Tristan

This article seems to showing some Crisis signs in American society, for example X'ers are starting to settle down in a big way. Along with many other social trends which started in the unravelling and increase in the coming Crisis and High.

Woohoo! Strauss & Howe in the mainstream press!

A quote from "article":

• Look, for instance, at what?s happening to teen alienation. If Millennials have a problem with authority, it?s that they wish they had more of it... Young voters are also more supportive of President Bush than the public at large, with 18- to 29-year-olds giving him a 62 percent approval rating.

They probably felt the same way about Harding or Calvin Coolidge. After all, according to S&H, these new authoritarians started coming of age right after WWI, in 1920 (which is the year 2000 on this cycle's watch).

In the meantime, this ain't a good sign for the party of William Jefferson Clinton or JFK. Maybe Hillary can woo 'em in 2008, eh? 8)

Maybe she could, come to think of it. Depends on how authoritarian she proves to be.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by Tristan

This article seems to showing some Crisis signs in American society, for example X'ers are starting to settle down in a big way. Along with many other social trends which started in the unravelling and increase in the coming Crisis and High.

Woohoo! Strauss & Howe in the mainstream press!

A quote from "article":

• Look, for instance, at what?s happening to teen alienation. If Millennials have a problem with authority, it?s that they wish they had more of it... Young voters are also more supportive of President Bush than the public at large, with 18- to 29-year-olds giving him a 62 percent approval rating.

They probably felt the same way about Harding or Calvin Coolidge. After all, according to S&H, these new authoritarians started coming of age right after WWI, in 1920 (which is the year 2000 on this cycle's watch).

In the meantime, this ain't a good sign for the party of William Jefferson Clinton or JFK. Maybe Hillary can woo 'em in 2008, eh? 8)

Maybe she could, come to think of it. Depends on how authoritarian she proves to be.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

A quote from "article":

• Young voters are also more supportive of President Bush than the public at large, with 18- to 29-year-olds giving him a 62 percent approval rating.

They probably felt the same way about Harding or Calvin Coolidge. After all, according to S&H, these new authoritarians started coming of age right after WWI, in 1920 (which is the year 2000 on this cycle's watch).

In the meantime, this ain't a good sign for the party of William Jefferson Clinton or JFK. Maybe Hillary can woo 'em in 2008, eh? 8)

I'm not sure how you conclude that the statistics cited are a bad sign for the Democrats. True, specific party identification is somewhat lower among this group than among the voting population at large (58% vs 71%), but this is to be expected, since both political parties consciously represent themselves as the bearer of (now outmoded) traditions; i.e. as the parties of the Millies' parents. The increased willingness to support military action was also predicted by S&H (as stated in the article), so this should be no surprise either.

In fact, the news for the Republican party is significantly worse, because the article points out that support for Bush is mostly due to his personal popularity ("Young people are trending Republican because they like Bush.") That is clearly one of his strong points, but it also means that support will be quite fickle. We see this already in a more recent poll: College students now saying they like Kerry better. It also highlights a lack of support for GOP positions in general (rather than Bush in particular); the only position mentioned is "going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do", which is of course also John Kerry's position (for what it's worth.) This indicates a serious lack of "coat-tails" on the part of Bush (i.e. his support does not translate to others on the ticket.) Other polls support this: Bush's poll numbers are consistently 8-10% higher than "generic Republican" support, across all demographic categories. (In contrast, Kerry's support is approximately the same as for the Democratic Party in general.)

Thus, come November, even if Bush wins the White House, the GOP will likely lose some seats in Congress. My prediction is for a loss of 2 Senate and 5 House seats; that gives Democrats control of the Senate, and leaves the GOP with a razor-thin majority in the House. (That's actually a best-case scenario for the GOP; if the Democrats win the House but Bush is still in the White House, I suspect impeachment proceedings would begin almost immediately -- impeachment only requires a simple majority.) We shall see.

And Marc, does your wife know about this unhealthy obsession you have with HRC? Titus too; "depends on how authoritarian she proves to be" sounds like somebody wants to be tied up and spanked! Seems like our Righties are getting a bit randy... (the music for "Harper Valley PTA" keeps running through my mind... 8) )

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

A quote from "article":

• Young voters are also more supportive of President Bush than the public at large, with 18- to 29-year-olds giving him a 62 percent approval rating.

They probably felt the same way about Harding or Calvin Coolidge. After all, according to S&H, these new authoritarians started coming of age right after WWI, in 1920 (which is the year 2000 on this cycle's watch).

In the meantime, this ain't a good sign for the party of William Jefferson Clinton or JFK. Maybe Hillary can woo 'em in 2008, eh? 8)

I'm not sure how you conclude that the statistics cited are a bad sign for the Democrats. True, specific party identification is somewhat lower among this group than among the voting population at large (58% vs 71%), but this is to be expected, since both political parties consciously represent themselves as the bearer of (now outmoded) traditions; i.e. as the parties of the Millies' parents. The increased willingness to support military action was also predicted by S&H (as stated in the article), so this should be no surprise either.

In fact, the news for the Republican party is significantly worse, because the article points out that support for Bush is mostly due to his personal popularity ("Young people are trending Republican because they like Bush.") That is clearly one of his strong points, but it also means that support will be quite fickle. We see this already in a more recent poll: College students now saying they like Kerry better. It also highlights a lack of support for GOP positions in general (rather than Bush in particular); the only position mentioned is "going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do", which is of course also John Kerry's position (for what it's worth.) This indicates a serious lack of "coat-tails" on the part of Bush (i.e. his support does not translate to others on the ticket.) Other polls support this: Bush's poll numbers are consistently 8-10% higher than "generic Republican" support, across all demographic categories. (In contrast, Kerry's support is approximately the same as for the Democratic Party in general.)

Thus, come November, even if Bush wins the White House, the GOP will likely lose some seats in Congress. My prediction is for a loss of 2 Senate and 5 House seats; that gives Democrats control of the Senate, and leaves the GOP with a razor-thin majority in the House. (That's actually a best-case scenario for the GOP; if the Democrats win the House but Bush is still in the White House, I suspect impeachment proceedings would begin almost immediately -- impeachment only requires a simple majority.) We shall see.

And Marc, does your wife know about this unhealthy obsession you have with HRC? Titus too; "depends on how authoritarian she proves to be" sounds like somebody wants to be tied up and spanked! Seems like our Righties are getting a bit randy... (the music for "Harper Valley PTA" keeps running through my mind... 8) )

Originally Posted by Tristan

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_2_its_morning.html

This article seems to showing some Crisis signs in American society, for example X'ers are starting to settle down in a big way. Along with many other social trends which started in the unravelling and increase in the coming Crisis and High

(music please) "...there's got to be a Morning Afterrrrrr, it's waiting just outside the storrrrrm.....and we'll escape the darkness, we won't be searching any morrrrrrrrre!" :-)

Originally Posted by Tristan

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_2_its_morning.html

This article seems to showing some Crisis signs in American society, for example X'ers are starting to settle down in a big way. Along with many other social trends which started in the unravelling and increase in the coming Crisis and High

(music please) "...there's got to be a Morning Afterrrrrr, it's waiting just outside the storrrrrm.....and we'll escape the darkness, we won't be searching any morrrrrrrrre!" :-)