Iraqi voter turnout

[Railroad]

I see today that Iraqis would now prefer to say that 60 - 75% of eligible voters in the country turned out to vote, and that Baghdad turnout was pretty light. But they sure have US beat! Recognizing this is the first REAL poll in awhile would be part of it, another would be the obvious historical significance, but I believe the biggest part was, they voted because the CARE and because they have a RIGHT to vote - and heretofore, rights have been few and far between, as I understand it.

 

[Bruzilla]

I heard this morning that over 8 million votes have been counted so far.

 

[tlatchaw]

Now all we have to do is wait for the dummycrats to tell us that the whole thing was invalid! Another "stolen" election, no doubt!

 

[SamSpade]

Generally - they've been quiet.

Because no matter how you look at it, this goes on the plus side for Bush.

And this is why I can't be a bona fide Democrat. Why can't they just have one day to be glad for the Iraqis? Why does it always have to be something bad about Bush? I mean, they can neither dance nor mourn without blaming Bush about something or telling us why the Republicans are so bad. They're getting so predictable, I'm pretty sure they could be easily replaced with some very simple *software*.

 

[Bruzilla]

I watched the Charlie Rose show last night on PBS, and he dedicated the show to "interpreting" the results of the Iraqi election. On the show to provide a fair and balanced analysis were the following fair and ballanced people:

John F Burns, The New York Times
Dan Rather, Anchor, CBS Evening News
Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times
Ahmad Chalbi, Co-Founder, Iraqi National Congress
Anderson Cooper, Host, CNN’s "Anderson Cooper 360"
Michael Ignatieff, The New York Times Magazine, Director, Carr Center for Human Rights, JFK School of Government, Harvard University

As you can see... PBS spared no expense in finding people to give an unbiased view of the results. With the exception of Ahmed Chalbi, all of the Libs on the show talked about how "surprised" they were by the turnout (as Coulter says, Libs are always "surprised" by things that are normal for Conservatives.) They were all deeply moved by the images they saw of the voters coming out to vote in their best clothes, and related stories of how brave the voters were and how they refused to be intimidated. There was Liberal Rather Blather all over the screen. They were also surprised that some Sunni polling places were packed while some were empty.

But then Rose asked "The Question": Doe's the success of the election vindicate George Bush, since he overcame so much resistance from home and abroad to hold the elections now?

All the Libs couldn't help themselves... they just had to attack Bush. They just had to mention the numbers of dead and wounded. They had to say things like "sure the election was a success, but was it worth the cost?" They just could not come out and say "Yeah, Bush sure showed us!"

 

[itsbob]

I see today that Iraqis would now prefer to say that 60 - 75% of eligible voters in the country turned out to vote, and that Baghdad turnout was pretty light. But they sure have US beat! Recognizing this is the first REAL poll in awhile would be part of it, another would be the obvious historical significance, but I believe the biggest part was, they voted because the CARE and because they have a RIGHT to vote - and heretofore, rights have been few and far between, as I understand it.

Wonder if the exit polls show Kerry in the lead..

 

[Railroad]

Wonder if the exit polls show Kerry in the lead..

 

[vraiblonde]

Wonder if the exit polls show Kerry in the lead..

 

[Tonio]

Sad commentary that Iraqis have a higher voter turnout than the US even under a death threat.

 

[Railroad]

Sad commentary that Iraqis have a higher voter turnout than the US even under a death threat.

Yup - that's VERY sad.

 

[Larry Gude]

Brilliant!

Wonder if the exit polls show Kerry in the lead..

...classic!

 

[Toxick]

They just could not come out and say "Yeah, Bush sure showed us!"

HAH!


That will never happen.

Never ever.

Never in a million years.

Never in a billion years.

Never ever ever ever.




There could be a videotape of God HIMSELF floating down from heaven. Landing at a podium, and physically SAY that he's been helping George Bush, and that He has, in fact, been working through Bush in mysterious ways this whole time, and everything is going according to The Plan, and the Iraqi election was an event that just happened to be the cosmic pivot point of the entire space time continuum, and the universe was narrowly saved. Then He could cure AIDS, famine, drought, pollution, obesity, and have it rain flower petals before he zipped off back up to heaven in a streak of brilliant light and sonic booms.





And the liberals would say that Bush was using a cheap political ploy by using God in such a manner, and that the whole thing was probably faked by the Religious Right anyway to once again "force God down their throats".

 

[Bruzilla]

It looks like they're beginning to crack...

http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown01.html

"For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.

"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.

"Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008."

 

[2ndAmendment]

Sad commentary that Iraqis have a higher voter turnout than the US even under a death threat.

I think it is an indication that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent the view of many in the U.S. Bot major parties pay little attention to the Constitutional limits on the federal government or the Constitutional guarantee of rights to the citizens.

 

[vraiblonde]

I think it is an indication that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent the view of many in the U.S.

It might be that but I think it's because, no matter WHO wins, we're still all going to be okay. Iraqis have a vested interest because if the wrong person is elected, they're right back where they started - sitting ducks for a vicious dictator. It's not like that in the US.

 

[Bruzilla]

I think it is an indication that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent the view of many in the U.S. Bot major parties pay little attention to the Constitutional limits on the federal government or the Constitutional guarantee of rights to the citizens.

I know which parts of the Bill of Rights the Democrats are out to do away with, but which ones are the Republicans after?

 

[ylexot]

I know which parts of the Bill of Rights the Democrats are out to do away with, but which ones are the Republicans after?

I think he was talking about the Constitution in general, not just the Bill of Rights (which is just a small, but important, addition to the Constitution).

 

[2ndAmendment]

I think he was talking about the Constitution in general, not just the Bill of Rights (which is just a small, but important, addition to the Constitution).

True

I know which parts of the Bill of Rights the Democrats are out to do away with, but which ones are the Republicans after?

Have you taken a look at Bush's AG nominee? Second Amendment look out.

Both parties endorse welfare (benevolence) which has absolutely no Constitutional authority. Both do the minimum wage game (Dems mostly) also with no Constitutional authority. Social Security, income tax (Sixteenth Amendment was not Constitutionally passed - Congress and Supreme Court ignored that fact), Air Force, NASA. I could go on, but read the Constitution and then compare what is authorized, especially in light of

Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

and I think it will be very evident what the Democrats and Republicans are violating.

 

[Bruzilla]

It was my understanding that the Constitution does not guarantee any rights. Is that true?

You specifically mentioned "Bot (sic) major parties pay little attention to the Constitutional limits on the federal government or the Constitutional guarantee of rights to the citizens". I can agree with you on the addition of new authorities by both parties, but which rights are they attempting to interfere with?

As for Alberto Gonzales, what about his record makes you think the 2nd Ammendment is in danger?

 

[SamSpade]

It was my understanding that the Constitution does not guarantee any rights. Is that true?

It's my understanding from the wording of the Constitution, that we already possess rights - given to us by our Creator. As such, the Constitution lays out not which rights it grants or guarantees - but which ones it's not allowed to interfere with. "Congress shall make no law etc.......". It merely recognizes rights we already possess.

So yes, you're right, but not in the way you might think.