John Stewart is the Rush Limbaugh of 2006 and faux news the talk radio. Forget The Daily Kos, it was The Daily show that put Democrats over the top in key races. Just as the new phenomenon of nationally syndicated talk radio is what helped propel Republicans into the majority in 1994 it was faux news and the cult of Jon Stewart that led to this year's Democratic landslide.

That's what I argue in my latest Townhall column:

Jon Stewart is an unlikely player in national politics. He's not a pundit, he's a comedian. As unlikely a candidate for Democratic kingmaker as he may be, he's a force to be reckoned with.

Ratings for The Daily Show's coverage of the '06 elections were second only to The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News. 2.0 million Americans tuned into Comedy Central on Tuesday to follow election results. That's right, more people were watching a comedian talk about the news than an anchor on CNN.

And just who is it that is tuning into The Daily Show? Young people. Lot's of them.

In fact, in the 2004 election nearly as many young people cited The Daily Show as a source of news as any other source. And Jon Stewart's Daily Show audience has only grown since then.

On the college campus where I teach, Jon Stewart's is the first and last word on all things political. His is the only name that all recognize. It’s more than that: his views are the only views considered socially acceptable. When Jon Stewart believes something, students believe it. He who Jon Stewart hates, students hate.

UPDATE: Since I know some of you didn't click on the link to see the statistical basis for the argument (lazy...) here it some of it:

The 2006 election saw the youth vote at its largest in 20 years. While younger Americans continue to vote in smaller numbers than older Americans, 2 million more voted in this election than in that last midterm.

And that vote is becoming more Democratic. According to the bipartisan Goeas-Lake exit polls, Democrats bested Republicans among 18 - 29 year olds by a 50 - 35 percent margin.

In nationally pivotal races, it was the young voter who put Democratic candidates over the top. Exit polls indicate that in Pennsylvania 68% of those under 30 voted for the Democrat over the Jon Stewart maligned Rick Santorum. Much higher than any other age group.

In the overwhelmingly Republican state of Montana, where the race was decided by less than 3,000 votes (at last count), 56% of young people voted for the Democratic challenger over the scandal tainted incumbent. The incumbent, Burns, had once argued that President Bush had a secret plan to win the war in Iraq. John Stewart joked that a vote for the challenging Democrat was a vote for blowing President Bush's super-secret plan for Iraq.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:10 AM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I tend to agree with Rusty's analysis. My 25 yo son started watching The Daily Show in his college dorm and is still an avid viewer. He too labels Fox News biased although he rarely watches.

One wonders if conservatives will ever be given the exposure and acceptance that liberals enjoy in the TV medium.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at November 10, 2006 10:31 AM (3nKvy)

2 Jon Stewart and the Democrats are a match made in heaven.
 
Jon is a comedian and the Democrats are a joke. PERFECT!!!

Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 10, 2006 10:39 AM (38GUY)

3 Interesting, Rusty, and perhaps a small factor in the Democratic win. I know my son, who is in college, occasionally tunes in to Stewart, but he would never let someone like that influence his vote. I think most students who watch Stewart tend to be liberal, and would vote for the Democrats anyway.

The margins in the election were razor-thin, and just a very few thousand votes decided who controled the Senate. I think the factors that decided the election were:

1. Burnout and fatigue-The Republican base just didn't go out and vote. One reason was the war in Iraq, and the way the MSM covered it. You and I know that most people still get their news from the antique media, and the constant railing by the networks against the war took a toll, no doubt about that.
2. There can be little doubt that enough illegal aliens, felons, the dead, and multiple voters tipped this election to the Democrats. If, for example, you think that 8,000 illegals, felons, and other fraudulent voters didn't vote for Democrats in Virginia, then I have a bridge I would like to sell to you. That is not to say I am complaining about voter fraud, as the Republicans have been in power since 1994, and have had it within their power to stop this fraud going on all over the country, especially in cities like Philadelphia, the supposed birthplace of our nation. What a joke!
3. We have sat on our hands and watched the Left mobilize for the past two years, and what have we as conservatives done? Nothing, really. We have been outworked by the Left, and it showed on election day. We spent out money on TV, while the Left got out there and organized and worked, while we sit on our hands. We can blame this on ourselves. I'm pointing a finger at myself on this one, as I got lazy, thinking that most Americans would not want to put the fringe Left into power.

I'm know that other points have been made, such as Republicans acting like liberals with the non-stop spending and unbalanced budgets, etc. I accept these as well, but the main reason to me is that the Democrats outworked, outfoxed, outorganized, and outright won. We should accept this as a challenge, and get to work. And we are not that far from taking control back, which is why I hate to see this implosion that in now going on in the Republican Party, which is doing nothing but playing into the hands of the Democrats. We just need to close ranks, and go to work! And work! And then work some more!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 10, 2006 10:56 AM (8PoNP)

4 Dead voters rock!

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 10, 2006 10:59 AM (eNwl1)

5 Sure they do to a Democrat or liberal, CafeenMan, as any means neccessary was the rallying cry. And quite frankly, it worked, but again, that is the fault of Republicans, as they have been in power for how many years, and did nothing to address this fraud.

In Virginia, and even more so in Missouri, election fraud occurred on a massive scale, and when organizations like ACORN are the ones involved, you can be sure they weren't cheating for Republican candidates. But again, I'm not complaining, just stating the obvious.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 10, 2006 11:24 AM (8PoNP)

6 Great article Rusty.. I think it's right on. It is really depressing to think we have TONS of mush-headed kids coming up who haven't developed critical thinking skills and they're going to be voting. It's like Jon Stewart will be commanding a million-man zombie army of voters who will do his will. That's too much power in the hands of one man.

Posted by: Richard H. at November 10, 2006 11:27 AM (/xUS1)

7 JesusLand - The GOP has had 6 years to show what they can do.  They showed us.  We didn't like it.  They'll come into power again.  Hopefully they learn some important lessons and keep their hands out of the cookie jar.  Maybe they'll actually try to conserve instead of waste.  I would like that.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 10, 2006 11:33 AM (eNwl1)

8 What some of the commenters there are missing is that this isn't
funny.  Jon Stewart is funny.  No doubt about it.  But
using a left (or even right) politically leaning "comedian"
to shape or reinforce one's world views is not funny.  Now if Jon
Stewart applied his humor equitably we could all share in the
laugh.  There's plenty of jokes to go around.



All we've heard from the left for six years is how stupid the American
public is.  Now suddenly they're not stupid?  They would
blindly follow a Rush Limbaugh out of stupidity, but not a Jon Stewart?



Rusty has seen a clear distinction in the students at the college he
teaches at.  That the students hang on Jon Stewart's every
word.  And they do.  I work with a lot of kids still in
college.  I listen to them talk everyday.



Let's face it.  When one is young they are far more idealistic and
the dream of everyone getting along and sharing their toys is still
possible.  Then they move out into the real world and get slapped
in the face with reality and many, if not most, become more pragmatic
and realism sets in.  Mommy isn't going to punish the other kid
anymore for not sharing something YOU want.  Others just keep
railing against all the perceived injustices and how they've been
wronged.  They grow into old lefties hell bent on defending the
virtues of socialism and an equal, indiscriminate distribution of
wealth to punish those they see as merely "lucky".  Or they harbor
the horrible guilt of being economically successful and insist that
everyone else follow their definition of "moral conscience".



Here's lucky - you were born in America.  THAT'S lucky.  From that point on you have choices.



The left has for years now talked about the hypocrisy and stupidity of
the right.  About the corruption, the scandals and the bare-faced
lies.  Even though there has been plenty of it for as long as any
of us can remember from both sides of  the aisle.  Keeping
the other side honest with shrill cries of hypocrisy while ignoring
one's own doesn't cut it anymore.  They will be held to their own
standards.  Now they need to put up or shut up.  This is
their chance to prove they're right.  That the corruption will
end, that they won't lie to the American public and that sex scandals
and bribery are a thing of the past.  Good luck.  The
Internet is watching even if the MSM won't.

Posted by: Oyster at November 10, 2006 11:50 AM (YudAC)

9 OK, Oyster - I'll say.  A lot of Americans are stupid.  At least most freepers have the courage to stand by their extreme beliefs even when they're being deservedly ridiculed.  But a lot of Americans jump from one bandwagon to the next due to societal/peer pressure.  They have not the nuts to stand for whatever it is they really believe in.  They are the same people who no matter who wins the Super Bowl, that team has always been their favorite.  Really!

So yeah, I'm happy the dems have gotten some control away from the GOP because the GOP is exceedingly corrupt.  But no, I'm not real thrilled that so many american can swap their values just like that.

I knew the war in Iraq was very wrong from before it ever happened.  I've never changed my view of it because nothing has happened that proves me wrong.  In fact, my beliefs have been proven correct over and over.  Anyone who did any research before the war started should have known it was wrong.  There is no excuse.  A lot of people are trying to claim that they were misled by Bush.  Well, if his administration is the only ones they were listening to then they are very wrong from the beginning.  If they had bothered to check their facts they would have known Bush was misleading them.  I don't forgive them and that includes the dems who voted for the war.  They have no excuse.

Anyway, things turned out well this year but not for the right reasons.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 10, 2006 11:59 AM (eNwl1)

10 CafeenMan, I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, and one of the worst faults of the Republicans was their do-nothing policy on the border with Mexico.

As an example, I live in Texas, but have been working in Arkansas for the past 8 months. In the Arkansas governor's election, the Democrat, Mike Beebe, used the border control issue quite effectively against Asa Hutchinson, who had been the Assistant Dir. of Homeland Security. In his television commercials especially, he called attention to Asa's failure to address this issue while in a position of power at Homeland Security. Frankly, he had a great point, and I feel like it hit home here in Arkansas, where illegal aliens are pouring across the borders.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 10, 2006 11:59 AM (8PoNP)

11 I don't have an opinion about what to do about illegal immigration.  I think it should be stopped but what will work best is beyond my level of understanding the problem.

I think what would go a long way toward working is making it very undesirable to hire them in the first place.  First, we stop as many as we can at the border.  Then we heavily fine employers who hire them.  If that doesn't work, we dig a 50 mile wide canal between the US/Mexican border and fill it with crocodiles.  Put lots of cameras on buoys and make it a reality tv show.  Anyone who survives the swim deserves to be an American.  Anyone who uses a boat gets sunk by the coast guard.  Should be very entertaining and create lots of revenue that can offset the costs of the whole program.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 10, 2006 12:20 PM (eNwl1)

12 Cafeenman:  Sticking to your initial assessment all along does not
make you right.  I've stuck to mine too and they are a far cry
from yours.  Does that make me right or wrong?  Only in the
eyes of the opposition can one be so completely wrong.  Have
things turned out in Iraq as you thought they might? 
Perhaps.  But that in itself has nothing do do with whether or not
it was right to go in there.  Some people felt misled.  I
didn't.  And I still don't.

Posted by: Oyster at November 10, 2006 12:23 PM (YudAC)

13 more good news for the conservatives, because with the dems in power the people with Jon's target on their back will be Pelosi, Shumer, etc... and the harvest... it is plenty.

Posted by: Jon at November 10, 2006 12:31 PM (abs60)

14 The blog where I used to post was taken down a couple years ago which is unfortunate.  At the time I said something to the effect that the first time we invaded Iraq they had mystical beliefs about us.  They didn't know us and believed us to be undefeatable giants.

Since then they have learned that we are flesh and blood and can be defeated.  They didn't lay run this time.  I knew that it wasn't going to be an easy fight.  Does that make it wrong?  No, it doesn't.  Fighting Germany in WWII wasn't easy, but we were right to fight.

What made this war wrong was that every assessment by people who were in a position to know was that Saddam did not have WMD's, that he didn't have the capability to create nukes any time soon and the entire justification for the war was fabricated.  That made it very, very wrong.

We were looking at a third world country that had tons of internal problems and wasn't capable of harming anyone else.  Saddam had no known connections to terrorists and was, in fact, an enemy of Al Qaeda.

He had a laughable army, no navy, no air force.  How in the hell was he ever going to do anything to us?  Seriously.  We might as well have invaded Iceland.

Anyway, my point isn't that because I've held the same beliefs all along that I'm right.  I'm right because I'm right and events unfolded pretty much as I expected them to.

And I'm not one pushing for us to get out of Iraq.  I don't think we should have ever been there but now that we're there I think we have some kind of duty to help clean up the mess.  The problem with that is we're a big part of the problem.  I think we're damned either way.

So when people say we need to cut our losses and let Iraq fend for itself it seems like the least of all the evils but I don't have any answers for how to make this disaster right.  Nobody does.

Some people are ego-driven and just can't stand the thought of not winning.  They're the ones who are most wrong because there is no winning.  We lost when we started the war.

Then there are those who claim people who don't agree with them are terrorist appeasers.  That's weak and simplistic and simply trying to intimidate people into falling into line.  I'm sure there are Americans who would like to see terrorist attacks on the US.  They would be called anarchists - not democrats.  Democrats may be wrong in their proposed solutions to the problem, but anyone who is honest doesn't believe the democrats want the terrorists to win.  99% of Americans would love to see the terrorists exterminated.  But we're not really accomplishing that are we?  We need a different direction but we've botched things so badly that nobody even knows where to start.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 10, 2006 12:36 PM (eNwl1)

15 more good news for the conservatives, because with the dems in power the people with Jon's target on their back will be Pelosi, Shumer, etc... and the harvest... it is plenty.

Posted by: Jon at November 10, 2006 12:31 PM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I think Jon Stewart is left-leaning but he's also got a job to do, so I don't think he will be kind to anyone doing something ridiculous - even dems.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 10, 2006 12:38 PM (eNwl1)

16 The fact that the young are liberal and Anti-war shouldn't be news to anyone . . They always have been. And the fact that they pay attention to a Cable Comedian shouldn't shock anyone . .

But, the fact that the "Swing" voter can be influenced by something that happens in a "Rumor" or "Scandal form" this afternoon, and will affect his vote on long term government issues, points to a far worse problem . . apparently, the "Swing" Voter is an Idiot!

How do you fix that?

Posted by: large at November 10, 2006 12:53 PM (fEUSs)

17

First we outlaw stupidity.  Next, nobody is allowed to vote without passing a test that shows they have some grasp of where the candidates stand on various issues.  Lastly, we don't let stupid people reproduce.  I'll be happy to be the judge and jury.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 10, 2006 12:57 PM (eNwl1)

18 The machinations of the liberal education system are guilty for frying the brains of gen x & y.  Jon Stewart is just the icing on the cake.  A careful analysis of the democratic party reveals that the majority of their base is a conglommorate of minorities (immigrants, muslims, young voters, etc.) which share only one thing in common: each minority is disaffected in some way.  They are content to feed off of half-truths and approach critical thought without the benefit of tradition and 3000 years of written knowledge.  They operate on the presumption that social 'change' is always better.  When they lose an election, they invent new psychological disorders which are entered into the DSM and they burn themselves in the streets because they have found no God, no greater purpose in life in busy their hands with useful production.
 
Therefore, to the party of the disaffected, I say that campaigning on UNDEFINED CHANGE was a perfect plan.  It was enough to seep into the imbecile brain, and mobilize those disaffected to come out and cast their misguided vote.
 
We will see that the only way to combat this is by changing the way we teach people to think.  With intelligence and critical thought many liberal platforms unravel themselves.  We need to mobilize our base to make change.

Posted by: Scourge Of Jihadis at November 10, 2006 01:12 PM (gopc4)

19 When they lose an election, they invent new psychological disorders which are entered into the DSM ...

Posted by: Scourge Of Jihadis at November 10, 2006 01:12 PM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

What D/O in the DSM is a result of losing an election?  I refer to the DSM every day and haven't seen anything to support your claim.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 10, 2006 01:44 PM (eNwl1)

20  I don't know why we are all worried anyway, because if you haven't heard yet the aliens are getting set to invade the U.K. It's posted on Drudge so it must be true. Lets see Jon laugh that one off.

Posted by: southdakotaboy at November 10, 2006 01:46 PM (JaJ3u)

21 Well Joe a lot of races especially the senate races were extremely close. However overall the totals that I have seen were Republicans 25 milion, Democrats 31.5 million in the senate races.And of course even before this election the elected Democrat senators represented a significantly larger percentage of Americans than did the Republican senators. More people live within a 2 mile radius of me than in some states.

Posted by: John Ryan at November 10, 2006 01:57 PM (TcoRJ)

22 Rusty any correlation between the ages of those killed in Iraq and those voting Democrat ?

Posted by: John Ryan at November 10, 2006 01:59 PM (TcoRJ)

23 Oh yeah Rusy and of course THE MATH !!!! so 50% voted Democrt and 35% voted Republican ........ and the other 15% ? Green? Red? Black?

Posted by: John Ryan at November 10, 2006 02:08 PM (TcoRJ)

24 Doen't matter, John, the Senate was not created for proportional representation(how do you like my math, John?), but to protect the rights of the smaller states. The House was created to proportionally represent the population of the US. That is why the US is not a true democracy, but is a constitutional republic. I wish more people would receive even half an education in this country, which is another problem exaserbated by the liberals.

The public education system in the US is now so bad that our students don't even know about their own government. Pathetic. That's why I now have my children in private school.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 10, 2006 02:16 PM (8PoNP)

25 It shows how unserious Liberal politics is.  It's all about feelings.  That's why it attracts the young so much.  Not until they learn to think for themselves do they pull back and go, hold on a minute.  That's why older people tend to be conservative.  Yet some people never grow up at all, and are adolescents in adult bodies forever.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 10, 2006 02:21 PM (8e/V4)

26 What about those wacky Diebold machines? I don't hear the Left crying like burning parrots over them this Election?
I guess when you're a Democrat and your party wins, you're the Winner! If the Republicans win, why of course it's because they cheated.

Posted by: davec at November 10, 2006 02:38 PM (QkWqQ)

27 "...that he didn't have the capability to create nukes any time soon and
the entire justification for the war was fabricated.  That made it
very, very wrong."



"Any time soon."  And just how long was acceptable for you
Cafeenman?  Until France and Russia used their veto power to lift
sanctions because el baradei said the Iraqis were being semi
cooperative?  Well it doesn't look like he was being all that
cooperative.  We found he still had intricate nuclear documents -
something they were supposed to have turned over or destroyed. We found
Russian MIGs among sundry other Russian made war materials (recent
stuff).  We found terror training camps.   We caught Russians
leaving Baghdad in a mad dash for the Syrian border when they had
assured us all Russian delegates had been evacuated before the
invasion.  We found documents indicating a relationship between
them and al Qaeda operatives.  We found that Iraqis had indeed
gone to Niger seeking yellowcake uranium.  And that's just off the
tip of my tongue.  These are not fabrications.  You're not
using your critical thinking skills.  You came to a conclusion and
did no adjustments over the course of 3 1/2 years of information. 
Frankly, more of my initial assessments have proven true than yours.



Believe what you will, but all the evidence is there that Saddam was in
defiance of every single resolution.  Every single one.  What
did he have to do to justify it for you?  Kill thousands or
millions here?  A little late for all the dead by then, huh?

Posted by: Oyster at November 10, 2006 04:10 PM (UeUAE)

28 First off : Holy @#%@#$@#$@#$ This is the most well reasoned, well thought out, logical, and non-personal conversation I have ever seen on this site. Halelujah.

Second : Jon Stewart is funny. He's occasionally hillarious. He is definitely left leaning, but since his target audience (young people who value humor in their news more than stock reports and moral high handedness) are left leaning, that's entirely appropriate. I like watching Jon Stewart because it amuses me, and I can get to hear another (opposing) view of what I think. Sadly there are a lot of people out there who will watch this as a form of 'what should I think about this'ism. We live in a democracy though, and one of the big flaws with democracy is it's susceptability to bread and circus leadership.

Finally, illegal immigration will not be solved until the public at large is against it. Against it not in theory, or in the sense that they think that the government should do something about it, but against it in the sense that it becomes socially unacceptable to hire illegal immigrant labor for any purpose. Until the rich housewives look down their noses at the one who has the illegal maid. Until consumers stop buying produce that was picked by illegals.

The only other possible solution (I see) is for us to change the Mexican-American equation so that it is not in fact better for them to sneak into the country. Public opinion is one answer, but so are creating economic opportunities south of the border (Our job? no... good for us? yes. Worth the effort? Probably), stiff penalties for getting caught in the US illegally (unpalatable, I know...) (Could we build a prison for Mexican criminals(drug smugglers, etc) in Mexico and pay the workers in Peso's? we'd get around a lot of US labor and prison problems that way...)

Posted by: Granite at November 10, 2006 04:21 PM (E7FBk)

29 Oh, and CafeenMan : I wanted to compliment you on your clarity in expressing the difference between or morality in invading Iraq in the first place (closed for debate, we did it, right or wrong) and or morality in dealing with the situation we are in over there.

I've been looking for the Dem's, Liberal's, non Bush fan's plan B for a few months now, and all I've been able to find is arguments that "We shouldn't have gone in the first place, and that means we should leave now." (I'm still looking for other answers, if anyone's got them, but until we've got a plan B, I'm for plan A)

Now if I just hadn't stuck my foot in my mouth by letting people post personal insults between reading the forum and posting my comment

Posted by: Granite at November 10, 2006 04:34 PM (E7FBk)

30 Rusty, that was a great article. I first remember the USA-hating Jon Liebowitz when he was a putz on MTV. I had completely forgotten about the guy but saw the huge influence he had on college kids two years ago when I went back to grad school. I thought then that the guy was something to worry about and you completely hit the nail on the head.
 
The guy is an arrogrant creep and nowhere near as funny as P.J. O'Rourke, either in person or in writing. Plus he is a soccer fag.

Posted by: Abdullah al-Libi at November 10, 2006 06:59 PM (PsIom)

31 Liebowitz?

Posted by: Gleep! at November 10, 2006 10:53 PM (a7sMc)

32 "Any time soon."  And just how long was acceptable for you Cafeenman?

Posted by: Oyster at November 10, 2006 04:10 PM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I was wondering how long it would take for somebody to pick up on this.  Thanks.

I wonder how many countries AREN'T trying to develop nukes.  With the US playing wild and loose with whatever international rules and treaties exist and the fact that we have every weapon known to man, I would expect every other country to be taking steps to reach some kind of parity.  I don't trust us to do the right thing with these weapons and certainly don't expect other countries to trust us.

So how long?  I have no idea.  How far was Saddam from developing a nuke?  Many years.  And then there's still the same problem.  His country was in chaos.  He was in no position to use a nuke even if he had one.  And other than being belligerant at times, he showed no signs of trying to take us on in any way.  He may have been crazy but he wasn't entirely stupid.

And that brings up my next point.  Every fabricated justification for the war in Iraq was a real justification for many other countries.

Justification #1) WMD's.  OK, a lot of countries that don't like us actually have them.  Why Iraq who didn't have them instead of a country that does?

Late Justifications:
 
Saddam was a mad dictator:  That's THEIR problem, not ours.  There are many other countries having dictators who are committing far worse atrocities than Saddam did.  Why aren't we kicking their asses?

Saddam used biological/chemical agents against his own people:  This one is true.  Unfortunately, we sound very hypocritical saying it since we supplied the weapons to him to kill the people he killed with them.

Saddam wasn't ever a threat to us.  Our military is meant to defend us - not to go around beating up puny, impotent dictators.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 11, 2006 02:15 AM (eNwl1)

33 26 What about those wacky Diebold machines? I don't hear the Left crying like burning parrots over them this Election?
I guess when you're a Democrat and your party wins, you're the Winner! If the Republicans win, why of course it's because they cheated.

Posted by: davec at November 10, 2006 02:38 PM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Here's my overall problem with this administration.  They are supposed to represent us.  Instead they rule us.  We aren't a monarchy.  Bush doesn't get it.  He reminds me of Bill at the end of King Pin where he wins the tournament and claims to be king of the world.  The presidency isn't supposed to work like that.

Shouldn't our government be as transparent as possible?  I concede special consideration and secrecy of programs that would be compromised if made public.  For example, undercover agents shouldn't be outed.

But why is our energy policy a secret?  Why are Chevron and Exxon making the policy?  They aren't?  How do you know since it was all done behind closed doors with no oversight?

Secret spying programs.  That's ok by me as long as there is non-partisan oversight.  But to have it soley in the hands of one party is scary and wrong.

Half of what Bush has done would probably be ok with me if there were somebody else who was at least able to check on it and make sure it isn't abused.

The reason open source code works so well is that it undergoes microscopic peer review.  There is no reason in the world why Diebold code shouldn't be open source.  That doesn't make it easier to hack - it makes it harder.  Does Diebold cheat?  Nobody knows except them.  I don't know if they do or don't but I would really like it if somebody were allowed to check those machines out thoroughly.  What's wrong with that?

Frankly, I don't mind if every election is recounted regardless of who won.  If somebody I don't like is elected I'd feel a lot better about it if I knew he won fair and square.  When we aren't allowed to perform recounts or somebody is saying recount these but not those then there's something really wrong with that.  It's just common sense and not a lefty ideal.

Posted by: CafeenMan at November 11, 2006 02:24 AM (eNwl1)

34 >>>Liebowitz?<br><br>
Yup, that is the real name of that dhimmi creep. Probably changed it so that his Moslem masters don't give him the HASAN, CHOP! treatment.

Posted by: Abdullah al-Libi at November 11, 2006 04:07 AM (kxhLo)

35 What, I wonder, is gregturd's opinion of all the JOOOOOOOOZZZZ in the lefturd establishment, such as Stewart?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 11, 2006 10:47 AM (v3I+x)

36 Well done!
My homepage | Cool site

Posted by: Terry at November 14, 2006 11:36 AM (QXOnh)

37 Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Mike at November 14, 2006 11:37 AM (90VbI)

38 Well done!
http://yqaeoezg.com/yfhy/xdru.html | http://zrrcyroi.com/tdpm/rofg.html

Posted by: Betty at November 14, 2006 11:38 AM (o+0N8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment