Sharks, ambulance chasers, vultures, shysters, parasites.
“The first thing we do,” a minor character named Dick the Butcher famously suggests in Shakespeare’s otherwise obscure Henry VI Part 2, “let’s kill all the lawyers.”
My new sig!
Paging DRY. You do know, Origato, that Shakespeare meant that sarcastically?
There’s someone here you should meet. His name is Wildest Bill. Go seek him out and have fun. :rolleyes:
In that case, he’s cool w/ me…
Let’s meet at the Texas Chili Parlor for a Fest, actually, maybe the Central TX DopeFest should be at the Wurstfest (New Braunfels on Nov 11?).
Show interest…
BTW:
iampunha: What problem do you have with Tipper Gore?
I have a problem big time, poon! I don’t want my, or anyone else’s First Amendment rights taken away…
You are a member of this board, Ignoramus. Do you want that privilege taken away from you to “save the children”? Fuck, if I hear that phrase one more time I’m gonna puke…
Myrr21: Often, a name must be kept on the ballot because it would be unfair to the other candidates…
Bullshit, it’s unfair to the Voters.
msrobyn: Ummm, have you taken a US government class?
Well, yes, by God, I hold a BA in Government from the University Of Texas. So I fucking DO know what the fuck I’m talking about.
I will now proceed to laugh my ass off at the University of Texas…hoo boy have standards fallen (were there ever any, I dunno…).
Now get this through your small-minded encephalitic brain: there is a fucking reason he’s still on the ballot.
Simple pyschology (and a little goddamn common sense…got some?) will show you that given a ballot with the Senate choices arranged in such a way that the first one is separated from the group (if his name had been crossed out, for example), that individual will tend to draw more votes from people who are just “putting something down” or unsure of their vote. It’s really pretty simple; people will lump together the other candidates in one group, and Candidate A in another, and may not even realize that there is anybody other than Candidate A even running for Senate.
Now, I’m not saying that this is happening in Missouri; I don’t know if ballots are already printed, and where he was on the list, and how many third parties will be on it. However, this is the rational–among many others–that is used to keep candidates on the ballot, so as not to skew the results as far as the other candidates are concerned.
As for it being unfair to the voters, what the hell are you talking about? Did you let a drunk simian get access to your keyboard? Everybody knows who they are really voting for (unless they inhabit the same backwoods shack as you)–which was an admirable and upright move on the part of the Gov (/Lt Gov).
What would really be unfair to the voters would be to not provide them with a Democratic or Republican candidate because the previous one happened to die at an inconvinient time (same would go for third parties if they had any shot to begin with, but the principle is the same…and yes, I have “thrown my vote away” on one of em already).
Wow, man. I almost get the feeling from the tone of your text (and it is difficult to interpret tone from text) that I somehow have offended or irritated you about this. I really just meant it to be a lighthearted joke.
I mean guys - you have been all over the board (and a couple times in chat) dropping hints, innuendo, and enigmatic lines in .sigs and posts for months now. I thought this would be a natural continuation of that lighthearted banter.
Apparantly not. Don’t worry - seeing you and/or Anniz have sex is actually somewhere near the bottom of my Una’s Top 22,000 Things To Do This Quarter List. Nothing against you two; I actually think you are pretty cool together. But really, there is almost no one on this whole board of 10,000 + that I would want to see a live video feed of having sex. :eek: I won’t bring this up again if it won’t be taken in the same spirit of humor.
Hmmmm … anyone know if Sen. Ashcroft is a lawyer? 
Sua
You wanna know something?
Origato, what makes you so sure that his wife wouldn’t be able to do as good a job as he could have? After all, she had been married to him for many years, and had undoubtedly learned something about his job. Maybe she has her own ideas, her own ambitions?
You want to know the best thing you can do to make sure a dead guy isn’t elected? Don’t vote for him. ::rolleyes::
OK, just to clarify - there is exactly one couple on the SDMB that I really want to see a video feed of having sex together. And I’m not tellin’ who, but it’s not Montfort and Anniz, as nice as they may be. 
Una (who now wonders if anyone can guess who…)
are we allowed guess??
You really ought to pick on me too about this, as I’ve been putting this forward to some extent as well.
But let me see if I understand what you are saying here. Are you really saying that being the spouse of a Governor is, or is likely to be, equivalent to being the Governor in terms of being able to do a good job as a Senator? That the “average citizen”, or even a person exposed to more of the process and experience (such as Jean Carnahan) is equivalent to actually being the Governor and having that experience is not really what you are espousing, is it?
My SO has been with me for nearly 9 years. She could not even start to do my job. Nor I, hers. Granted, some jobs are easier or seem more straightforward than others. I don’t know if Senator is, IRL, one of those. I know many have a view in their mind’s eye that being a Senator is going to fundraisers and voting every now and again. But I think it’s probabaly, IRL, somewhat more difficult than most imagine.
I by no means am sure that she would not do as good a job, or even a better job. But what is the most likely scenario?
Of course we won’t know until it happens. Just as a college education is no guarantee for success in life, it certainly stacks the odds in one’s favor, yes? And therefore experience in being the Governor should have stacked the odds to be in favor of Carnahan’s success as a Senator. Or experience in many other areas or avenues of life. This is experience that I believe she appears not to have.
I don’t know about this debate anymore. It seems what is really going on here is an underlying thread of “Democrat vs. Republican” or “Anyone vs. Ashcroft” that I am missing, which is clouding the issue in people’s minds. Everything I’ve said on this issue applies in my mind whether the party in question is a Democrat or Republican (or Shining Path Guerilla, as mentioned earlier).
And as I said earlier, FTR, I don’t know if G. Bush has the experience needed to be President, but he does have some experience from being Governor of Texas, nonetheless. Not nearly as much as Dole did, but some.
PS: I know this is the Pit. I don’t need to be reminded of that. I will engage in civilized debate wherever the fuck I please, within the rules and boundaries of the SDMB and descretion of the Moderators and Administration.
Sure! 
BTW - the “PS” at the end of the previous post was not directed at you, TwistofFate.
Anthracite, I addressed basically the same thing in a previous post. I don’t agree. I think anyone with a basic sense of what they think is good for the country, and exhibits elements of empathy and competency in any area of life is qualified to represent.
For example, lets take my state of Indiana. I think one of the most qualified persons running for office is Dick Lugar. He’s a farmer. He’s been a senator for quite some time. He ran for president 4 years ago. I can’t think of a single occupation that I feel is more qualified to make you disposed to identifying and being in touch with the voters.
I think its unfair to take a normal occupation (I have no idea what you do) and say that someone’s untrained spouse isn’t qualified to do it, and then compare that to the job of a representative. If you vote strictly by experience and a proven record, I can’t argue with that. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Personally, I think the country would be so much better off if we just had some normal people in Washington.
The funny thing is that this guy brought it up after (or was it before?) insulting you–pretty much the only person (sort of) agreeing with him–for no damn reason. Tis a shame your logical argument must be associated with such a twit…
(of course, you’re still as wrong as the day is long ;))
Honestly, though, I think that not only is this pretty much the only fair way to run the election (though I can see the point about earlier special elections), but that someone with some experience through association could probably do a better job than many experienced politicians. Experienced politicians have a record that they have to uphold, or risk appearing inconsistant, and things of that nature. Seems to me that with the Gov’s wife, you get someone who has some idea how things work (which many political outsiders who get elected don’t), but fewer liabilities.
Anywho, just my view…
Yeah, I know it’s a joke. I was just calling your bluff. I guess I should’ve used this smiley instead:
Anyway, back to this thread, hijack over.
I’m really surprised that no one has challenged Hillary Clinton’s credentials to be a Senator yet. Or, Bill Clinton’s, circa 1992, to be President. Or, Ronald Reagan’s, circa 1972 (?), to be Governor of California.
Or mine to be an ULVAN.
Funny you know the character and the play but not, apparently, the plot or context. The line in question is spoken (a) as a joke, and (b) by a conspirator seeking to overthrow the legitimate government during Jack Cade’s rebellion. Therefore, even if the line was intended to be taken seriously – which it’s not – it is the sentiment of a villian and a buffoon.
So by all means, use it as your sig. After reading this thread, it’s seems entirely apt that you would.
Forget Shakespeare!
Let’s move on to something a little more contemporary, like this line from Tom Eagleton, formerly a Senator and now the distinguished elder statesman of the Missouri Democratic Party.
“If an incumbent member of the United States Senate can’t beat a dead man, maybe he doesn’t deserve to be in the Senate.”
Now, while you folks chew on that for awhile, we Missourians will watch to see if the positive, issues-oriented, don’t slam the opponent campaign that John Ashcroft is forced to run will bore the voters to cdeath.
OK, I agree to disagree.
That’s all.
Una
Interestingly, I remember reading about how hard the widow of a farmer had to fight in court to keep the family farm. Since thay listed her as a farmer’s wife, and not a farmer, but wanted to continue on the farm, to qualify for the programs that make farming viable she had to demonstrate that she was a farmer to the court. For years she had been helping with the planting, plowing, harvesting, etc. of the fields, as well as very involved with care of the livestock. It was difficult, this being the 70s but eventually she proved to their satisfaction that in this case being a farmer’s wife meant being a farmer.
The Governor’s widow would seem to be accustomed to being in the public eye and in other ways more familiar with what being in office means. If she is anything like most governor’s wives she is accustomed to listening to at least certain segments of the people. Also being the wife of a politician, she should at least be familiar with conducting herself in ways to avoid scandal. What more could we ask of any Senator? I believe that Senator is an entry level position. The job description I read listed age and lack of felony convictions as the primary restrictions. The qualification is being elected or appointed. Running for office is not a prerequisite. Heck, in yesteryear Senators wer not even elected in all states.
The people of Missouri know they are voting for a corpse and that it will mean that an inexperience widow it in office. She beat out the incumbant. They also knew well what they were rejecting. I doubt seriously that this was a sympathy vote. They simply wanted to take a chance and felt that was better than keeping the incumbant in office.
I hope she follows the example of Lacy Davenport and conducts herself in a way that proves the trust of the people was well placed.
This is such a good thread, I’ll fan the flames a bit more.
Did anyone see John “I lost a relection bid to a dead guy” Ashcroft screaming “voter fraud” to his supporters as the results came in last night? I always thought he was a fairly mild-mannered guy, but I was rather impressed with his vitriol.
Not that I’m glad that he lost, too, of course.
I’m curious to see how Mrs. Carnahan acts in the Senate, and if the ruling Republicans decide to challenge her admission.
Montfort. The guy you saw screaming was Missouri’s OTHER Senator, the Honorable Christopher “Kit” Bond. Ashcroft today made a very low-key, gracious, and may I say, grown-up concession statement today where he said he would neither contest the results nor support anyone who did.
The best thing about Bond’s rant was the screaming about the Democratic judge in the Democratic city blah-blah. It was noted today that Bond himself appointed the judge, when he was Governor, in 1983.