Such short memories people have.
Doesn’t anyone remember all the talk by conservatives about moving to Canada (or elsewhere) if Clinton ever got elected?
Didn’t happen, AFAIK. Probably didn’t happen this time, either. Words, just words, and uttered by people on both sides of The Great Divide.
I’d like to see some kind of cite supporting the allegation that there even were any kind of widespread threats by “liberals” to move to Canada. As far as I know, there were one or two celebrities speaking facetiously and that was it.
Cal! What a surprise to see you in GD, homeboy! Stick around, it’s fun.
You’re right - remember Paul Weyrich despairingly suggesting, after Clinton’s re-election, that social conservatives might be better off withdrawing from the American political process that so emphatically spurned them? (rummaging around for link … ) here.
I’d be careful with that brush, judging by the Opinion page of the Herald the past few weeks, which has been filled to the brim with bellyachers for Alberta separation.
The reality is he COULD have picked worse people…and in fact I’m surprised and pleased that he picked someone reasonably moderate (from his perspective) and definitely competent. The reality is Bush won the election so gets to select folks HE wants if folks retire…just like Kerry would have gotten that chance. And everything I’ve read about Roberts is that he is more than qualified and a pretty good choice that is actually acceptable to the non-rabid folks with a clue on the left.
As to RvW I don’t see it as being overturned as I don’t think the balance has shifted enough to do so…assuming for a moment that there is any real push TO overturn it. Frankly my lawyer friends all tell me it was a bad decision in the first place and SHOULD be overturned from a legal standpoint. Doesn’t automatically mean abortion will become illegal if it is, and in fact though I think overturning RvW has a low probability of occuring, making abortion illegal has an even lower one. The majority of Americans have a more or less pro-choice position (i.e. keeping abortion legal in the US), and politicians wanting to be elected and all, and Republicans not being complete idiots (usually), the issue is better for them on low simmer than as a full blow fight. Just MHO of course…YMMV.
What do you suppose Kerry could/would have done differently to date had he been elected…and do you seriously think it would have made any difference in how things are today in Iraq? That was John’s point…least thats how I read it. The rest of what you are saying there is just straw in the wind.
Exactly…not with the minority party ready to filibuster. Thanks for acknowledging my point, though it doesn’t seem you actually got it.
Likewise. 
I’m unsure how much ‘Bush’ had to do with it, so no…I’m not exactly listing it as an accomplishment. It IS a positive step in the right direction to get that mess under control though, and I suppose if Bush is to take all the shit, some of which also isn’t directly related to him, then I guess its plausable to list this as one of ‘his’ accomplishments. I was merely commenting that indeed the situation has improved.
Top of my head to be honest. I was merely looking back on the fact that we were in a post DOT COM bubble burst recession when Bush was elected and the economy was headed downward, and we are certainly recovering now. Perhaps the economy even headed downward was better than the current one headed up…I’m unsure and I haven’t really bothered to research it much lately. I’m pretty sure unemployment was higher just after Bush took office than it is now and the number after he took office were definitely downward, while the latest figures seem to be trending upward, so…doesn’t seem that much of a stretch to say this at least is getting better. I suppose if pressed I could dig up something on lowering unemployment and an economy thats picking up.
When Bush took office that was already being erroded (if we were even still running a surplus which I tend to doubt after the DOT COM bust) as the economy was already headed downward. Coupled with the 9/11 attacks which further crashed our economy we were certainly in a recession…and one its hard to completely blame on Bush as he had pretty much just taken over. Today though the economy is certainly no longer headed downward and we are no longer in a recession.
I agree with you whole heartedly about the deficit and Bush spending like a drunken sailor on liberty btw…its one of the primary reasons I didn’t vote for the man. To my mind he spends money like a liberal with the keys to the treasury. He reminds me a lot of LBJ to be honest…
I understood what you were saying the first time…obviously I don’t agree.
-XT
Geez, with 20/20 hindsight, maybe the rest of us should have passed the hat around and helped them out… 
Elvis: Your post #35 is so full of non sequiturs in response to my earlier post that I’m not even going to counter-reply. You think I’m a partisan hack, then fine. Let’s just leave it at that.
I always forget that one…
I suppose we will see more “encroachment”, although I blame that on the 1st amendment wording, not on Bush. I wish we did have the infamous wall of separation, but the fact is we don’t, and the 1st amendment didn’t build one. If I were on the SCOTUS, I’d probably agree with Scalia more often than not on SOCAS issues-- although I’m an atheist, I accept the constitution is it was actually written, not as I wish it had been written.
One last time: I did NOT call you that. But your inability to defend your statements above says everything it needs to.
xtisme, you haven’t acknowledged it directly, but it does seem that the best answer for how Bush has improved the world is that he hasn’t screwed up as badly as theoretically possible. He might not consider that praise, ya know.
No, he might not…but as I can’t stand the man I don’t really give a shit what he thinks or doesn’t think. And as he’s president and did so without my vote he probably doesn’t give a shit at my assessment (well, your guess at my assessment) that his big claim to fame is that he could have screwed up much worse than he has. So, I guess that makes us even.
-XT
And I didn’t say you called me that. But I’ll tell you what. The next time you reply to one of my posts in GD, tack this on the end:
“Funny, John, I never used to be sure you were stupid, but your statements above are indistinguishable from those a stupid person would make.”
If that passes muster with the mods, I’ll come back and rebut your replies. OK?
The problem with the citation here that if a celebrity threatens to move out of the country if Bush wins the Presidency, then news sources report it. If Joe Bleedingheart makes a similar threat, who takes note?
So with the understanding that all you’re going to get is celebrity cites… how many do you want?
[ul]
[li]Eddie Vedder [/li][li]Alec Baldwin (maybe - reported by his wife and later denied)[/li][li]Robert Altman[/li][li]Pierre Salinger[/li][li]Barbra Streisand[/li][li]Lynn Redgrave[/li][li]Cher[/li][/ul]
How many is enough?
(FWIW: The only one to actually follow through? Pierre Salinger).
You’re just presenting names without exact quotes or context. A lot of people say things sarcastically or facetiously or angrily or jokingly that they don’t literally mean. The conservative media acts like hordes of Hollywood celebrities were all making serious, solemn promises to go to Canada. As far as I know, Salinger is the only one who said it like he meant it and he followed up.
And since when do Hollywood celebrities represent “liberals” as a whole?
Some people just haven’t snuck over the southern border yet, there are plenty of American Mail-Order Brides still available. 
As far as I know, no one represents “liberals” as a whole. But in terms of available reporting, celebrities are the only ones whose threats to leave the USA following a Bush victory would be reported. Granted that there are other broad categories of celebrities beyond Hollywood - music, sports, literature, and the political arena all produce celebrities. But none of theose groups are as reliably liberal as the Hollywood crowd. One exception is the political arena: by definition, while not all political celebrities are liberal, we KNOW which ones are. So far as I know, no political celebrity made such a threat.
Eddie Vedder’s comments, as reported in USA Today in August 2000:
Serious? Or not?
And if those comments are not serious, why were Salinger’s substantially similar comments serious?
I think Vedder was clearly being sarcastic. YMMV.
One of my colleagues had said he would leave the country if Bush got re-elected, and he was true to his word. But he didn’t go to Canada; he went to Scotland. He and his wife sold their house, took their dogs, moved, opened a bed and breakfast, and are now quite happy. I doubt very much that they’re coming back here.
What makes you think we want you? Geez, we already have quebecers and westerners to deal with!
Let’s do a little math. There are about 100M voters in the US. Let’s assume that they split their votes about 50/50 and that 5% of either party are the disaffected potential emigrants. Do you guys want 2.5M Janeane Garofalos heading north? Actually, she’s one of the more reasonable members of that crowd…
Oops, I forgot to add, you get 2.5M Pat Buchanans, too, the next time the Dems win.
So the collective average IQ of Canada goes up a few points, what’s wrong with that?