Comments on: oh beautiful for purple states http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/ Blog, news, books Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:05:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 By: private network http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-29069 Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:53:31 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-29069 For hottest nеwѕ уοu havе tο pay a quick visit
internеt and on internet I found thіs web site as а finest ωeb ρage foг most uр-to-ԁаte upԁates.

Lоok into my web blog :: private network

]]>
By: JErm http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21944 Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:19:02 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21944 I love the cartograms.. they’re simply beautiful!

Your site’s great too man, love the content and esp your Free Culture book.. but the design sucks! Drop me a line if you want a free revamp! ;p

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21943 Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:59:50 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21943 you go max lybbert

keep talking about then democrats and clinton.

keep looking at that bright shiny object.

while your all consuming fear of “the left” blinds you to the fascism creeping in from your right.

]]>
By: Max Lybbert http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21942 Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:49:06 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21942 Personally, I thought the map looks more like well-marbeled meat.

]]>
By: Similarist http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21941 Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:29:42 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21941 Woo. Doesn’t the filamentous reddish network look just like an advanced fungal infection eating a blue host alive?

I think it’s clear from the map that Bushy pseudorepublicanism is a malevolent parasite in memespace attacking the once good and true great american nation.

]]>
By: Max Lybbert http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21940 Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:19:13 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21940 I think you missed the point, Alex. If the Democrats had dropped Clinton, instead of telling us how shameful it was for the Republicans to bring up sexual harrassment charges, Gore would have been President in 2000, and whomever he chose as veep (Lieberman, perhaps) would likely have have won this last election as well.

Similarly, if Bush had tried to explain that Lott “didn’t really mean anything racist” (which he didn’t), it would have hurt Bush’s attempts to clear up his race-relations scorecard (Rosa Parks is willing to work with Bush). Instead, Bush distanced himself from Lott, and stayed out of the mudslinging. Was it dishonorable to leave Lott to the wolves? In a way, yes. Did it hurt the party? No. Is there a lesson for the Democrats here? Only if they choose to learn it.

I only bring this up to point out that Card, who wrote that the Democratic party as a whole has no shame, does think of ways for the Democrats to win. I can no longer find it, but during the Trent Lott affair, Card wrote that he is registered as a Democrat because for all the party’s failings, it’s better (in his opinion) than the Republicans. He even called Lott a twit for making the remarks.

Card is a pretty good example of a Southern Democrat. He would have no trouble voting for a Democratic President if the party gave him a decent alternative (he even stated that Lieberman would have been an attractive alternative). In fact, I believe he would prefer to vote for his own party, just as my parents-in-law would. Unfortuantely, the Democratic party simply hasn’t given southerners a decent alternative for several years.

]]>
By: Alexander Wehr http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21939 Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:08:12 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21939 I must reflect… “southern democrat” was used to desribe zell miller, whose speech against his own party reminded me of the same illogical and completely uninformed “KKK style” hate “lefties” rhetoric which the republican party spews in order to invoke moblike mentality.

southern democrats are in fact republican.

]]>
By: Alexander Wehr http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21938 Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:02:32 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21938 now where.. in a sexual harassment suit waged by one person.. is a question about ADULTURY with a COMPLETELY UNRELATED PERSON appropriate?

Could it have anything to do with the fact that ken star was republican? hmmmmm?!

]]>
By: Alexander Wehr http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21937 Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:59:50 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21937 Let’s get on the defense of bill clinton’s right to a private life shall we?

“OK, let�s do, just for a moment. Clinton clearly committed perjury in order to disadvantage a woman who was suing him for actions he certainly committed.”

actually, the woman was sueing him over something he did not certainly commit… it was not a suit over adultery, it was a suit on a completely unrelated sexual harassment charge(for which there was no evidence)

As we all know, sexual harassment is the easiest and most frivolous thing a party’s enemies can throw at another to disparage them in the mass media. It is the most trite, dirtiest, lowest thing anyone can do in general, but in politics it represents a new low, the dirtiest of the dirty.

While the intent was noble, sexual harassment laws have been too broad for many years now, and have resulted , at least until recently(though i cant be sure because the news is focused on the shiny war), in what is basically a financial penalty for failing to pick up any woman who is spiteful or deceitful enough to wish to exact it.

Clinton was rich, powerful, and an enemy to all republicans, this made h im prime target for a republican engineered sexual harassment suit. In case you didnt notice.. everyone and their mothers are being accused of that “crime” in courts.

]]>
By: Max Lybbert http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21936 Sun, 14 Nov 2004 18:03:17 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21936 BTW, a better article about the lack of shame in the Democratic party by the same writer (himself a Southern Democrat) can be found here, where Card points out one of the biggest tactical blunders the Democrats made before the 2000 election was even an election:

And let’s not even get into the Democratic Party’s defense of Bill Clinton.

OK, let’s do, just for a moment. Clinton clearly committed perjury in order to disadvantage a woman who was suing him for actions he certainly committed.

The Democratic Party was already so advanced in their contempt for law that nobody seems even to have noticed that it would not have harmed the party one whit to get rid of Bill. Who would have succeeded to the Presidency? Al Gore, a Democrat. And then Al Gore would have been the incumbent in 2000, and it’s far more likely he would have carried enough states to win election to a full term.

Could the Democrats ahve looked far enough into the future to know that the election would have been close? No, but would dumping Clinton (the way the Republicans later dropped Trent Lott) have hurt the party? Not at all.

]]>
By: Max Lybbert http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21935 Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:52:03 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21935 I think the Democrats, by and large, have lost their values.

]]>
By: Alexander Wehr http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21934 Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:49:19 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21934 the democratic party represents one very important core value: RESPONSIBILITY.
The democratic party hasn’t “lost it’s values”.. its representatives for the past decade have just been hyppocritical about it, and do a terrible job hiding it..

the far right of the republican party has gotten its way because it is much better at hiding its hypocracy and transgressions, which are just as if not more serious (and frankly i think it learned from vast experience). Because it knows how to hide them, it is more adept at pointing them out in their rivals as well.

It’s time to react to this in a cohesive and effective manner, either by adopting the opposition’s tactics (dirty as i think they are) or by some other means which evens out the credibility/morality issue.

A NOTE:
I have libertarian views, and thus i have no great enmity toward moderate republicans, but those who are “flag conservatives” or “christian ultra right” are terrible, and while bush is only borderline in this regard those who he brings to power with him fall radically within these categories.

]]>
By: ALan Griffith http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21933 Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:39:10 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21933 “oh beautiful for purple states”

Oh, get off it already! Kerry and Edwards lost. Two people lost an election. The whole democrat party is still alive, well, and madder than ever. Thank God. I hope this election inspires every voter in America to write their congressmen, newspapers, and all their friends about what’s important. And four years from now which ever figurehead wins, he will be the face of a powerful army of change for the good in America.

]]>
By: Max Lybbert http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21932 Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:29:25 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21932 three blind mice wrote:

/* max lybbert, anti-intellectualism does not refer to religious faith, we didn�t even mention religion in our screed.
*/

I must be getting a little jumpy.

/* anti-intellectualism refers to this president�s ill-informed, non-questioning supporters who accept as truth and fact, what to the rest of us are obvious lies and deceptions.

WMDs in Iraq, for example.
*/

If there was a battalion of people who believed before the invasion that Iraq didn’t have WMDs, why did they not say so? Why did Clinton say that Iraq had WMD? Why did Kerry and Edwards say that Iraq “without a doubt” had WMD? Why did they spend ten years telling us that America was dumb for giving Iraq WMD?

On other issues, it is possible to reasonably disagree with the Kyoto Protocol, without being anti-intellectual. Unfortuantely, anybody who does gets rebuffed with an almost-religious faith in a large number of scientists — even if the rebufer doesn’t really know what the scientists say about the evidence.

/* (me): Which program? I honestly don�t know what this refers to. I know it�s not the VA.

(three blind mice): it�s that 600 pound gorilla to your left – the perscription drug benefit for senior citizens. it was in all the papers.
*/

Ah. Now I get it. Well, the program is more conservative than alternative proposals. However, this is an example of Bush trying to move toward the middle.

/* (me): As federal law, the Patriot Act simply can�t supersede the Constitution.

(three blind mice) well, tell that to yaser hamdi, the US born american citizen held by the federal government for over a year in a military prison without being charged, or provided access to an attorney.
*/

Was Hamdi held under provisions of the Patriot Act? I understood that he was held (originally) as an unlawful combatant — and the Supreme Court’s ruling made it very clear that (even without the Patriot Act) American citizens can be held as unlawful combatants or prisoners of war. The decision only requires a government hearing to continue that detention. Since the detention isn’t supposed to be a punishment, that seems pretty reasonable.

Oh, and there’s a decent legal argument (PDF) to be made that Hamdi really shouldn’t be a citizen just because he was born in the US. He is a citizen, but should he be?

/* the gulag at guantamano bay – operated in violation of the geneva convention – is another clear violation of american law.
*/

First, since the detainees in Guantanamo are there because they were carrying weapons and attacking US troops in a warzone, I don’t think there’s much of an argument that they are political prisoners.

Second, in Hamdi and similar cases, the Supreme Court stated that the imprisonment isn’t punitive, and that Congress has authorized it. Even the recent DC Circuit court ruling makes it clear that not all prisoners are POWs (“The government must convene a competent tribunal (or address a competent tribunal already convened) and seek a specific determination as to Hamdan�s status under the Geneva Conventions. Until or unless such a tribunal decides otherwise, Hamdan has, and must be accorded, the full protections of a prisoner-of-war” pgs. 18-19.).

/* (me): I�m impressed that somebody could keep China out of Taiwan, get back the spy-plane, and still get China to pressure North Korea..

well, that spy plane AND her crew were held for weeks by the chinese until they finished interrogating the crew and taking the plane apart. you might be impressed by that, we were not.
*/

OK, what reasonable actions could Bush have taken on the spy plane that would have impressed you?

The course Bush did take included not appologizing (although a subordinate did express “regret”). In the end, the Chinese government had to release more information to its citizens because Bush wasn’t going to give it a way to save face. Chinese opinion on who was at fault changed overnight. For the record, I didn’t know about this (the Chinese government releasing more information to its citizens to explain why it released the crew) until it was referred to in a SARS critique.

After that embarrassment, and Bush having to deal with an anxious Taiwan, I truly am impressed that China would agree to shut down an oil pipeline to North Korea for three days.

/* as for keeping china out of taiwan, read what FOX News had to say about secretary powell�s recent trip to china

�Powell�s expectation that Beijing and Taipei will move toward a �peaceful unification� violates the decades-old nuanced US policy of peaceful resolution of differences between Taiwan and China..�
*/

And the next day Chinese troops rolled into Taiwan. Wait. That didn’t happen. Later that same week, Powell “carefully avoided repeating [that] suggestion”. Powell has backpedaled before, as have many Bush Cabinet members. It appears that Bush gives his Cabinet members a lot of leeway, but gets them to issue corrections when they go too far overboard. Chinese troops are still not welcome in Taiwan.

]]>
By: anon http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21931 Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:21:25 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21931 Also recommended:

most of the US is red
*and* most of the US is blue

created by Jesse James Garrett, via Rebecca Blood:

“There’s a story even the purple map doesn’t tell. My husband decided to take a different look at the Purple map by filtering it into it’s component parts–and as you can see, most of America is red…and most of America is blue.”

]]>
By: Stewart Klein http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21930 Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:08:10 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21930 Like most arguments this one will be decided by who is able to frame the question being asked. The argument will be far less important to the outcome.

Presently liberals seem to be flailing around trying to ask “was the election fixed” “did the republicans cheat” “did the public vote for Bush by accident or due to ignorance.” All of that ignores the more critical question that needs to be looked at in earnest.

Is the election process working in its current form and if it is not what needs to be done about it?

In 2000 Bush won the election with less than a majority of the popular vote and with a federal judiciary imposing its will in place of those voters residing in the alledgedly soverign state of Florida. By all accounts that is not an optimal result of the election process.

In 2004 Bush won the election with a clear majority of the popular vote and with 30 of the 50 states supporting him. However, if only 68,000 Ohio residents had voted for Kerry instead of Bush Kerry would have won the election in the face of an opposition candidate that had a clear majority in both states and people. That would have been an even less just result.

The election process is the question that needs to be answered. We need not be concerned with unjustly defeating Bush but rather with having a system where whoever is elected is also the just result of the election.

I can accept the will of the people, even when it is contrary to my own. I did not slash the tires of my republican counterparts because a victory while they were silenced would have been less desirable than a Bush presidency that was fairly acheived.

Lets get back to the question at hand….

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21929 Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:45:16 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21929 I have no relationship with distilled spirits. Does that mean I�m not truly conservative? What about those evangelicals that belong to churches that forbid dancing and drinking?

sorry max lybbert, but you seem to be confusing puritanism with conservatism.

this may explain why america is so bloody purple.

karl rove might have sent you people an invitation, but we conservatives like our party with plenty of drinking and dancing and smoking and even a wee bit of fornicating.

to a conservative, imbibing alcohol is a family value.

as p j o’rourke explained:

“Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol,
causes the fundamental ills of society.
If we’re looking for the source of our troubles,
we shouldn’t test people for drugs,
we should test them for stupidity,
ignorance, greed and love of power.”

]]>
By: Rance http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21928 Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:17:19 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21928 I’m not the first to say it, but it’s not about Red States vs. Blue States, it’s about urban areas vs. everybody else.

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21927 Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:50:18 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21927 max lybbert, anti-intellectualism does not refer to religious faith, we didn’t even mention religion in our screed.

anti-intellectualism refers to this president’s ill-informed, non-questioning supporters who accept as truth and fact, what to the rest of us are obvious lies and deceptions.

WMDs in Iraq, for example.

Which program? I honestly don�t know what this refers to. I know it�s not the VA.

it’s that 600 pound gorilla to your left – the perscription drug benefit for senior citizens. it was in all the papers.

As federal law, the Patriot Act simply can�t supersede the Constitution.

well, tell that to yaser hamdi, the US born american citizen held by the federal government for over a year in a military prison without being charged, or provided access to an attorney.

the gulag at guantamano bay – operated in violation of the geneva convention – is another clear violation of american law.

I�m impressed that somebody could keep China out of Taiwan, get back the spy-plane, and still get China to pressure North Korea..

well, that spy plane AND her crew were held for weeks by the chinese until they finished interrogating the crew and taking the plane apart. you might be impressed by that, we were not.

as for keeping china out of taiwan, read what FOX News had to say about secretary powell’s recent trip to china

“Powell’s expectation that Beijing and Taipei will move toward a “peaceful unification” violates the decades-old nuanced US policy of peaceful resolution of differences between Taiwan and China..”

and so on and so forth.

our point is that if half drunk, blind mice like us can see serious reasons to question the “conservative” credentials of herr bush, why can’t the rest of you who call yourselves conservatives do the same?

blind faith may be fine as a basis for religious belief, but blind faith seems to us a very dangerous basis on which to form a political belief.

]]>
By: John http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21926 Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:59:08 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21926 Three Blind Mice,

I couldn’t have said it any better, so I will just restate what you’ve said:

“except for one lopsided tax cut, bush has orchestrated the largest expansion of the federal government since roosevelt, created the largest new entitlement program since johnson, run up an annual 1/2 trillion dollar budget deficit, added 10,000 pages to the tax code, handed out farm subsidies that are the envy of french farmers, given the FBI powers to spy on american citizens without cause, repudiated reagan�s position on taiwan and openly pandered to the communist chinese, he�s made nation building the cornerstone of his foreign policy, left every child behind, and created an anti-intellectual following in which conservatives such as barry goldwater and william f. buckley would find themselves totally out of place.”

–John, whose thoughts are clouded by a Glenlivet hangover

]]>
By: Max Lybbert http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21925 Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:11:20 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21925 This is a long one. Sorry.

/* (Me): I don�t see Bush acting any less conservative for the near future.

(three blind mice): have you seen bush acting conservative in the past?

***

except for one lopsided tax cut,
*/

Lopsided?

/* bush has orchestrated the largest expansion of the federal government since roosevelt,
*/

Well, he tried to take credit for the Department of Homeland Security, but didn’t he argue against it for several months?

And isn’t he accused of chronically underfunding programs such as the VA and No Child Left Behind?

/* created the largest new entitlement program since johnson,
*/

Which program? I honestly don’t know what this refers to. I know it’s not the VA.

/* run up an annual 1/2 trillion dollar budget deficit,
*/

If you remember, when the Republicans proposed a balanced-budget amendment, the amendment included exceptions for a recession or war. We now have both.

OTOH, Bush has left small-government conservatism behind. Ronald Reagan (who also had trouble balancing budgets) used to say that the most-feared words in English were “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Bush’s speech at the Republican Convention clearly overlooked that sentiment.

/* added 10,000 pages to the tax code,
*/

How long was the tax code before? Actually, yes, I know that he has added more tax credits, exemptions and deductions. He’s reworked the Alternative Minimum Tax to not affect people it’s not supposed to affect. All of that falls under “conservative” in my book.

/* handed out farm subsidies that are the envy of french farmers,
*/

Are these new subsidies? I really haven’t followed this story much.

/* given the FBI powers to spy on american citizens without cause,
*/

My understanding was (1) the FBI always had an intelligence-gathering wing that “spied” on Americans, and (2) while the Patriot Act permits searches without warrants (and searches without immediate notification), however the Constitution still prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, meaning that there is still a need for some sort of cause.

Even before the Patriot Act, the majority of searches took place without warrants (usually with permission, or via looking in windows — the Constitution permits this, but requires that if a warrant is needed under federal law, that warrant can only be obtained with both probable cause and specificity). As federal law, the Patriot Act simply can’t supersede the Constitution.

/* repudiated reagan�s position on taiwan and openly pandered to the communist chinese,
*/

I’m impressed that somebody could keep China out of Taiwan, get back the spy-plane, and still get China to pressure North Korea, while simultaneously push for tougher sanctions on Castro. Does “pandering to the Chinese” include opening up free trade as a way of undermining the Communist economy?

/* he�s made nation building the cornerstone of his foreign policy,
*/

Well, his policy of dealing with failed states. He isn’t arguing for nation-building in France, no matter how tempting that might be.

For the record, my high school history textbook had examples of campaign posters from the 1900 election, when Republicans touted the Spanish-American War. “Conservative” isn’t a synonym for “isolationist.” There are times conservatives find using military force and nation-building to be useful activities.

/* left every child behind,
*/

With co-sponsorship from Ted Kennedy.

OK, that was low. However, the “No Child Left Behind Act” simply applies MBA-thinking to education. It’s also accused of underfunding, which is definitely not “liberal.”

/* and created an anti-intellectual following in which conservatives such as barry goldwater and william f. buckley would find themselves totally out of place.
*/

Anti-intellectual? Because a large percentage of his supporters go to church? Scientists can go to church, they simply can’t explain everything as an act of God.

And religion isn’t anti-intellectual. It’s often forgotten that the earliest universities were religious schools, and that a cornerstone of religious though is thinking for oneself.

/* true conservatives have a close, loving, intimate, passionate and responsible relationship with distilled spirits.
*/

I have no relationship with distilled spirits. Does that mean I’m not truly conservative? What about those evangelicals that belong to churches that forbid dancing and drinking?

]]>
By: Alan McCann http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21924 Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:44:27 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21924 To add to the thinking here, here is a list of the generosity index (amount of charitable giving in relation to amount of income) of the red vs. blue states. Interesting in that the above claim of “liberals” being different by helping others more – doesn’t hold up under examination.

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004

(hint: all of the “blue” states are in the bottom 25 states.

Kudos for the “purple” state map, btw.

Three Blind Mice: So if Bush isn’t conservative because of all of these typical “liberal” actions, why do liberals hate him?

]]>
By: sagamore http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21923 Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:58:33 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21923 Without knowing of these efforts, I made a map that uses 7 shades of color (one for each 5-percentage-point range in votes). While not scientifically determined, the colors look good together — especially on a T-shirt.

And yes, this map includes Alaska and Hawaii, although not to scale.

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21922 Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:26:05 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21922 oh and one more thing….

true conservatives have a close, loving, intimate, passionate and responsible relationship with distilled spirits.

a true conservative would sooner accept a ride home from a party with ted kennedy than give up alcohol.

now where did we put that bottle……

]]>
By: three blind mice http://www.lessig.org/2004/11/oh-beautiful-for-purple-states/#comment-21921 Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:01:34 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/11/oh_beautiful_for_purple_states.html#comment-21921 I don�t see Bush acting any less conservative for the near future.

interesting comment max lybbert. have you seen bush acting conservative in the past?

conservatives used to be for a balanced budget and limted government. conservatives used to ridicule nation-building as a means of foreign policy and warned of the dangers of “mission creep.” conservatives used to be against large social programs and using the federal government for the re-distribution of wealth.

conservatives used to stand up against communism.

except for one lopsided tax cut, bush has orchestrated the largest expansion of the federal government since roosevelt, created the largest new entitlement program since johnson, run up an annual 1/2 trillion dollar budget deficit, added 10,000 pages to the tax code, handed out farm subsidies that are the envy of french farmers, given the FBI powers to spy on american citizens without cause, repudiated reagan’s position on taiwan and openly pandered to the communist chinese, he’s made nation building the cornerstone of his foreign policy, left every child behind, and created an anti-intellectual following in which conservatives such as barry goldwater and william f. buckley would find themselves totally out of place.

if bush is a conservative, ketchup in water is tomato soup.

]]>