I CAN'T STAND THE FACT THAT OUR PRESIDENT IS DEPLORABLY INARTICULATE

hrm.

As for my take on Bush, I think his inarticulacy is especially grating combined with his stubornness. Maybe there's a world of difference between inability and unwillingness to answer questions and criticisms, but the two are very much linked in my mind.

(xpost)

FYI I vote in nearly all local elections and care far more about them than I do national ones as I see very real effects from them.

Jesus Christ, get over yourself.

I think my opinion's as valid as the person but I don't for my own sake I don't feel informed enough to make sound choices always.

As far as being selfish. . .I have my very personal, own reasons for choosing not to give as much of a shit as I know I should. I do not feel bad about this nor do I have to justify it to other people (not that I think anyone here is asking me to).

Politics are ultimiately a very personal thing and issuing blanket statements about people on this basis is something we should all avoid.

a.) big domestic policy reasons;
b.) big foreign policy issues; and
c.) The Supreme Court whose members' influence spans generations.

I disagree completely. They are about people other than you.

i "won't vote" (i'm not sure if i'll vote or not, and was just trying to explain an attitude) because i don't want to endorse policies i don't believe in, using a system i don't believe in. i don't think that's narcissistic.

you did refer to policies, but you also referred to personalities

same as everyone on this thread and bush.

He'll be judged by and remembered for his actions far more than anything that comes out of his mouth.

Well, his actions are a thousand times more reprehensible than his inability to pronounce reasonably rudimentary terminology.

the energy is involved in caring enough to be properly informed rather than just voting blindly. I'm not going to vote for Democrats just b/c I hate Republicans. That's disingenious (sp?).

I don't understand this. You're saying that Republicans might be better than Democrats? Or that you'd have to be properly informed to decide between a Democrat and a third party? If the latter case, by not voting you're neither trying to prevent the Republican from being elected nor "sending a message" to the Democrat or the system by voting for a third party (and even if you believe that voting for a third party candidate sends a message, the failure to vote sends no message because no one knows how you would have voted).

Not sure, but I'd like to see. I think it has to do with some innate belief that our leaders should accurately represent the people.

Something as simple as moving election day to Sunday might correct for some of this. I'm not sure how excited I'd be about other remedies, like turnout threshholds, or fines for not voting. (Doesn't Australia do the latter?)

xp

Other issues where women are at risk in terms of equality under the law are jeapordised by having a neocon in the White House; Bush has not yet gotten his mitts on the Supreme Court and if elected, Kerry will at the very least appoint someone unlikely to repeal Roe v. Wade. The only kind of men who want to see women unequal to men in terms of rights, pay, etc. are conservative, selfish assholes. Please do not vote for a man like this.

I'm fine with Kerry, BTW. Although I promise I won't intone 'you rang?' if ever introduced to him, I can get over anyone's Lurchness if they're articulate and just a little bit angry in the right way. I don't think he's an expedient choice.

so voting should not bring about a result, it should only express a passion?

Something as simple as moving election day to Sunday might correct for some of this.

absolutely. I'd rather get rid of, say, Presidents Day, and make Election Day a national holiday. But you can't deny that there are millions of people who are able to vote who don't.

Other issues where women are at risk in terms of equality under the law are jeapordised by having a neocon in the White House

well, I'm not sure it's accurate to call Bush a neocon, even in foreign policy, though his policy in Iraq and likely elsewhere matches that of, and may possibly be run by, the neocons. but they are social liberals, if personally traditional, and many support or at least do not vocally object to abortion rights.

Sure. What I meant in my earlier post was that if these people don't vote simply because they don't care, then their decision isn't necessarily making the vote as a whole any less representative.

I haven't seen Magnolia, but I take the point. Passion is necessary only if one does not believe that the issues are sufficient. I regard the latter belief as a matter of apathy and/or alienation. Passion can be an effective response to alienation, admittedly. And I can understand someone who is alienated due to social forces. But I think that anyone alienated for other reasons is simply alienated as a byproduct of apathy. And I think that apathy is in part produced by people who individually or collectively are not unlike Tom Cruise in Magnolia who seek to or incidentally suggest that someone's vote doesn't matter or that neither of the major party candidates is worth voting for.

Which makes it easier for me to ignore the Democratic Party's total failure to offer any kind of heartfelt opposition.

A question though: aside from arguably the 60s and 70s - did they EVER? I don't mean Kerry himself; I'm sure he's heartfelt about a lot of things. I mean the party itself, as a organization with a platform of stated goals, and a machine that can get out the votes, and can whisper in the right ears.

There's no party now that inspires people's best instincts.

Passion is important but it's not everything and if we're gonna make this marriage work, we're gonna have to try....ahem, sorry wrong speech.

What makes you so sure Laura wants to shag dubya?

With a few exceptions, the Democratic Party has largely achieved its goals in terms of institutions and policies. Which doesn't mean it wants to merely preserve the status quo - many of those institutions and policies have yet to be extended as far as they could or should be, and a Democratic administration would seek to extend them. But those are largely complex bureaucratic endeavors. Thus, it's hard to articulate a bold-sounding message other than more of the same and prevent the Republicans from undoing this stuff (which many people don't believe they're doing because the Bush administration pays lip service to the underlying aims of Democratic policies while undoing or impeding the relevant institutions).

The one arena in which I think mainstream Democrats can articulate a vision that inspires a large number of people is in the intersection between the economy, energy and the environment - government can play a role in developing technology that will create new energy sources for America while cleaning the environment and creating jobs. The reason it might inspire is that it would articulate a national project that is hopeful and forward-looking and creative. I'm not sure how inspiring or far-reaching its implementation would be though. I think Kerry might be announcing something like this later in the campaign.

Kind of like Clinton!!

Michael: Well, you know what they say about librarians ;). Anyway the possibility of the presence of a vibrator in the White House out of necessity is where I hand over to my co-host, Dan Perry.

Damn Fuckin' Right!

yeah, I know. do you think that Blair favors Bush?

of course the problem is that politicians would have their own braino-bots that would be analyzing the totality of people's decisions and determining their preferences in advance - and then they'd change their positions to match - or would they?

short of this, voting's personal because your guess about who's going to be the best governmental(ist) representative for everybody is going to be your own kerrazy take on things isn't it?

well, it certainly seemed that way. and they shared at least an interest in a particular approach to policy. but then there were these Bush-era stories about Blair finding Clinton strange? did they really come from Blair?

Nellie, who's met the man twice, confirms Clinton's weirdness (it's only part-sexual) and says in all probability he has a photographic memory which can put people right off a person if they don't have some extreme social dexterity (her mom has this, but is more awkward socially, so she is seen as freak/elite by mild-mannered Midwestern neighbours).

she's not the only one who thinks so

Near the end of his presidency Clinton supposedly took Blair aside and told him to "keep Bush close" to him, "even closer than you were to me."

suzy what do you mean, that Nellie was put off by Clinton because Clinton has a photographic memory? My mind is reeling with what she might have done that he can't quite get out of his head.

this sums up my feelings a good deal.

many are on point with talk of supreme court nominations and the reasons Suzy states (re: women and civil rights) are what will motivate me, in the end probably, to vote in the presidential election. Not mentioned previously is the fact that I live in TX which makes presidential voting merely an exercise of priniple for me.

I do think political views are personal in that I don't have to justify them to anyone but myself. And choosing not to participate is a form of participation in and of itself.

Hang on Tracer, you are in the crossfire.

By the way I think Bush is pretty Southern. Yeah, he went to schools in the northeast but his accent is real. Although Bush Sr-ism will slip out near the ends of words sometimes, it's weird! During his press conference he made a couple of hand gestures that were like TOTAL Dana Carvey flashbacks. But the "not a REAL Southerner" thing doesn't convince me. I knew plenty of good ol' boys like him when I was growing up.

Bush won TX 60-40 in 2000. What will the margin be like this time? Maybe it will increase due to the attention to the election and the home-state factor and a desire to support the war and the appeals to the base. Maybe it will decrease due to the attention to the election and the intensity of opposition and the weakness of some support and the rise in the hispanic population and a desire to protest the war.

I think that Bush losing Texas is extremely, massively unlikely. But not completely impossible. I know for sure that everyone who doesn't vote against him marginally increases the chance that he will win.

xfire: suzy you CHECKED?? (I know, I know, I'm sorry)

If the mark of a good man is his wife, then Kerry's a better man than we think. His wife seems pretty cool & a straight-talker in every interview I've seen of her. Plus, he isn't deplorably inarticulate.

Over at the Daily Kos, lately I've been getting pretty angry at some Nader people & especially Dean supporters who haven't gotten over Iowa and think the man walks on water - and now seem to believe Kerry ought to adhere to a very uncompromising set of ideals and anything less becomes selling-out and then it's waaaah, I'm gonna vote Nader!

And I'm biased but I think the Washington Post is a much better paper than the New York Times lately.. the NYT campaign coverage is so often focused on trivia, it's been driving me crazy.

I can't stand that our "leader" is inarticulate either - it's like having Boomhauer for president.

But what really bugs me about him .. (makes me angry too, but this is just from a purely annoyed point of view right now) .. is that he's an arrogant liar.

in terms of domestic coverage, you're right. and the LA Times isn't too shabby either. but neither has the international reach.

thanks. number of Americans that my vote affects that fall into the category of "me" - 1. number of Americans that my vote affects that do not fall into the category of "me" - ~300,000,000 minus 1. while your vote may be "personal" in the sense that it expresses your belief about the best government for all those non-you people in the short or long term (I vote only for the short term; you have four years to work on the long, and getting the wrong short-term leader may hurt your efforts more than any message you send; i think that voting Nader for instance led to the Democrats moving to the Right because Bush got into office and kicked the ball of public opinion that way), failing to vote is an abdication of responsibility to those non-you people.

I'd tend to agree that there is a degree of sociopathy there, but as for the root of it I think it's more connected to the absolute power, the legions of partisan yes-men that surround the president, and a general shyness that brings it on rather than some sort of harbored evil. I think it's identifyable in each of the past five presidents as well.

That may be the trend at the margin, at least at the moment. But overall, ~60% or more of hispanics vote Democratic. So the more who vote in 2000, the better Democrats will do. And the most reliably Republican hispanics - the Cubans - are unhappy with Bush because he has not met their expectations re Castro.

Clinton is rockabilly.

While a dour man in his '60s who began his career reacting against the car culture wouldn't seem an obvious choice for many young people, the fact that Nader is unmarried suggests that he can speak to their alienation from personal experience.

It's either "dad" or "greenbacks"

Yeah, I think there's a degree of it there, or at least introversion. I think that's part of the reason he's so awkward when he tries to act bold or confident.

BUSH ON LACKAWANNA 6 (in Buffalo, NY):
"As a matter of fact we got a couple of them overseas, isn't that right?" -- Bush to FBI agent
"Yes, sir." -- Agent to Bush
"Maybe I wasn't supposed to say that." -- Bush

Oh, good grief.

No wait, sex appeal.

http://www.stereogum.com/img/teany7.jpg

Who do you think West Virginia will vote for?

Actually, I agree that Bush is shy. He's definitely awkward. Furthermore I think if he had 100% confidence in his own convictions and decisions he wouldn't need to say this so emphatically at every opportunity. The thing is, Bush covers up his awkwardness with his fake cowboy style and plain talk, and mostly gets away with it, but you're always kind of nervous watching him because you're waiting for the next uncomfortable moment or gaffe, and when it comes you (if you support him) have to work hard to explain it away and make excuses. And thus you get angrier than necessary at others who dare to call bullshit on Bush's inarticulateness and so forth.

I tend to think this very quality forges a very strong emotional bond with some voters, paradoxically - I think this is precisely what happened with Dean, and you still run into plenty of people who attribute his fall to media/DNC/DLC conspiracies and not the man's own shortcomings as a candidate. Gore was obviously quite socially awkward and weird as well, it's just that he didn't find a good way to cover it up and everybody figured it out before the election.

For what it's worth I don't get the weird socially awkward vibe from Kerry. At worst, maybe he can act like an arrogant jerk sometimes, but there's nothing too strange about that.

Christ, I just heard 30 seconds of speech from Blair regarding the EU from BBC World. Fuck. Compound sentences. Multiple elements brought together succinctly in support of his argument. Rhetoric.

I don't know whether to take heart because for all his verbal acuity Blair is still W's bitch, or despair because W is our preznit.

I don't know that I've seen many Bush supporters work that hard to explain away his gaffes. The stock explanation is too often something along the lines of, "Well, who would YOU rather go fishing with -- a regular guy, or a long-winded elitist like Kerry?" Does the "regular guy" argument actually sway voters? Or is it just the best defense they can muster?

Voting is the least-involved you can possibly be in the political process (short of ignoring it completely). Why don't you make a positive argument for once instead of attacking, gabbneb/Colin?

Why should a progressive/liberal/leftist in Texas vote in November? Don't give me any "personal responsibility" or "civic duty" bullshit, give me a valid reason. Why should I take fifteen minutes to find my polling station and waste my time to cast a ballot for a loser?

What, exactly, would constitute a valid reason for you? The civic duty/responsibility arguments make perfect sense to me and it's hard to figure out what it is you're looking for. And even if Bush is a lock to win the state, what about voting because of the rest of the races on the ballot? Or are you not willing to waste two seconds of your time marking your choice for president while you're at it?

911 was a disaster, but it was actually also an opportunity, if you had someone who could use it to genuinely enact a seachange. Instead we got "with us or against us", and anyone who tried to even trace the geopolitical roots of this was howled down as appeasers.

The US is in a fairly unique position in that your voting habits impact so far beyond your borders, and those who live there just have to hope that you take voting seriously. Watching Arnie win California doesn't provide much comfort.

So, for all our sakes, and for this one fucking election, just put all of your rights to do nothing if you want aside and elect someone to the position of control over your nuclear switch who will be responsible there. Sure a visionary genius progressive would be great, but right now a serious guy like Kerry, for all is faults, looks pretty good to me.

(x-post)

see, I think we do have one, legally. this is the problem. the President believes that he is in fact the President. his denial of the fact that he isn't up to the job prevents him from admitting that he just follows Cheney's "advice".

Why should a progressive/liberal/leftist in Texas vote in November? Don't give me any "personal responsibility" or "civic duty" bullshit, give me a valid reason. Why should I take fifteen minutes to find my polling station and waste my time to cast a ballot for a loser?

"find [your] polling station"? I've already made my case here, and don't think that your Texas-sized sense of entitlement deserves any additional response. I could care less if you vote. Actually, I think I want you to vote for Bush. I mean, he's not so bad, right? Even if I did care, given the high standard that apparently must be met to convince you, I don't see how it would be worth anyone's time to provide the relevant education.

No actually, I've opened my heart and changed my mind. You should vote for the "loser" for one reason - he is not criminally insane.

lately I've been getting pretty angry at some Nader people & especially Dean supporters who haven't gotten over Iowa and think the man walks on water

it's a cult of personality. not that Kerry has been much more specific than Dean about what he'll do - that's a political decision. but these people are decrying Democrats' choice of one of the more liberal Senators (National Journal rates him as voting more liberal than 97% of Senators on economic, foreign policy and defense issues) over a guy who governed as a centrist and was close to the DLC. and then there are the leftists who bemoaned the loss of the definitively more conservative Edwards - such naivete. I mean Kerry - with 100% ratings from the AFL-CIO, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Campaign, NAACP, American Association for University Women, Bread for the World, Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, ASPCA, and Humane Society and a 95 percent rating from Ralph Nader's U.S. Public Interest Research Group, not to mention 0% ratings from the Business-Industry Political Action Committee, American Bankers Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Right to Life Committee, and Christian Coalition - he's just going to sell us out, right? Maybe because he is rated a "Fence Sitter" by Vote Hemp?

The reason Dean is not the candidate is because, no matter how much of a centrist he may think himself, he was much less likely to win than Kerry. And as Gabbneb noted, Kerry will be a much more reliable liberal than Dean.

"Criminally insane"? That sounds like a post from some Freeper regarding The Smartest Man Who Was Ever President.

*who was the exception? LBJ in '64. Why was he an exception? In part, because he was from Texas.

yeah, similarly, chirac is a bastard in many ways, but he actually includes in his impromptu talks and press conferences sentences that have several compounds such that he might have had to plan them several seconds in advance. it's amazing!

that was, what, like a century ago or something?

This is a short poem made up entirely of actual quotations from George W. Bush. These have been arranged, only for aesthetic purposes, by Washington Post writer, Richard Thompson.

MAKE THE PIE HIGHER!

I think we all agree, the past is
over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and
uncertainty
And potential mental losses.

Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the
Internet
Become more few?

How many hands have I shaked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of
opportunity.

I know that the human being
And the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds
hope,
Where our wings take dream.

Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher!
Make the pie higher!

Did he actually say this?

your Texas-sized sense of entitlement deserves any additional response

what the hell is that supposed to mean? It's just acknowledging facts to say that in a presidential election (and usually senate) someone not voting republican here doesn't make a lick of difference.

last presidential election there were some interesting web sites where voters in swing states could trade votes with people in states like TX for their conscience's sake.

I do care to vote for my congressional representatives (and senatorial) when they're on the ballot. It's really on the presidential one where I truly believe my specific vote doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

A valid reason? I see two valid reasons to vote: one, my vote can make a difference. This is simply untrue in my case. The other would be that a candidate is worth supporting, that I'm not just voting for the lesser of two evils out of some misguided sense of loyalty/duty.

And even if Bush is a lock to win the state, what about voting because of the rest of the races on the ballot? Or are you not willing to waste two seconds of your time marking your choice for president while you're at it?
Not a single race on my ballot, from TX House on up is competitive. (The matter of preferring to spit on TX Dems after the 2002 race rather than vote for them is another issue) Texas is a one-party state.

Gabbneb, that's what I thought. The more Democrats whine about Bush for stupid reasons, the worse they look. You can criticize Bush without screaming "criminally insane!!!" I'd like to hear more about this "sense of entitlement." What does that even mean, other than being a nifty attack phrase that you think sounds cool?

while it is ridiculously unlikely to make a difference, it is false to deny that it "can" make a difference.

Texas is a one-party state.

yeah. and not so long ago it was the Democratic party. the more you give in, the more true it will be. do you give up on other things in your life?

You can criticize Bush without screaming "criminally insane!!!"

see? he's not so bad. really, i think people who are upset with the democrats should vote for him. i mean, you want to send a message, send a message. that's gangsta.

Glass Box
You know, it's the old glass box at the—
At the gas station,
Where you're using those little things
Trying to pick up the prize,
And you can't find it.
It's—

And it's all these arms are going down in there,
And so you keep dropping it
And picking it up again and moving it,
But—

Some of you are probably too young to remember those—
Those glass boxes,
But—

But they used to have them
At all the gas stations
When I was a kid.

—Dec. 6, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing

yeah. and not so long ago it was the Democratic party. the more you give in, the more true it will be. do you give up on other things in your life?

We all have to pick our battles gabneb. I've chosen different ones than you, obv.

(also, not so long ago = 40/50 yrs?)

(also, not so long ago = 40/50 yrs?)

about 15

no one's asking you to be interested. they're asking you to vote.

don't worry about my head exploding ... worry about the WORLD exploding if bushco wins.

Why should a progressive/liberal/leftist in Texas vote in November? Don't give me any "personal responsibility" or "civic duty" bullshit, give me a valid reason. Why should I take fifteen minutes to find my polling station and waste my time to cast a ballot for a loser?
Weren't you just standing up for those who don't vote just D or R? Propogating this notion that the left has nothing to do with the south is just going to alienate potential southern Dems further. Though the likelihood that Kerry will win Texas is pretty small, a stronger showing than expecting could SERIOUSLY impact 2008's campaign. Ever noticed all the Red State/Blue state, battleground talk?

yeah. and not so long ago it was the Democratic party. the more you give in, the more true it will be. do you give up on other things in your life?
And when it was one-party Democratic, the politics were basically the same across the board.

But I haven't "give[n] up" on anything. I reject electoral politics.

see? he's not so bad. really, i think people who are upset with the democrats should vote for him. i mean, you want to send a message, send a message. that's gangsta.
Yeah, "not so bad" is exactly what I said. The problem with being a partisan hack is that everyone knows it. I despise Bush, but not just because he doesn't have a 'D' next to his name.

If you want to get into a little contest over who has a bigger problem with the guy, or argue that those of us not willing to shill for the Democrats are saying he's "not so bad" go ahead. You're probably going to lose to anyone from Texas, though. I'm still mad about a certain 12-year old bond election.

no one's asking you to be interested. they're asking you to vote.

No, that's the problem - you're not asking people to vote or saying "voting is good." You're berating and demonizing those with a different outlook than your own. There's a difference.

Colin - I don't care if you want to vote, go ahead. If someone believes in a candidate (or hates another candidate) and wants to vote, that's a good choice for them to make. What you need to recognize is that some people look at the system, look at the choices, and look at the probable effect of their vote and say "Fuck it." This is a perfectly valid and defensible position to take.

I'm tired of the "vote or else" harangues, I'm tired of what inevitable follows that (the "if you don't vote for Kerry you're voting for Bush!!!" line), and I'm really tired of the attitude certain Dem-boosters have here.

This is a perfectly valid and defensible position to take.

if it were, you wouldn't have to say it

if it were, you wouldn't have to say it

So you shouldn't have to champion or defend Kerry, then, right?

No, "fuck it" is not a valid and defensible position. A non-vote isn't a vote against voting, no matter how much you'd like it to be. You think continued apathy is going to end the electoral system in this country? Propose some fucking solutions then. If you can take the time to hash out your "fuck the system, maaan" rants on a messageboard, you can take the time to vote, you're not really making any tangible difference here either.

know why i haven't been caring too much about this presidential election? because of my job.

teaching in an inner-city school has drained every ounce of energy-intellectual, creative, literal - out of my being. I have nothing left, for anything.

yes i realize that especially in my position i should care about who's in the white house. trust me, the no child left behind act has affected my personal job situation IMMENSELY.

but local politics (like our state's current school-finance reform) affect my kids' lives more. Hence my profession of more interest in local politics.

i have been more involved before. w/out a doubt. like i said i've worked on three previous big democratic campaigns. at this point in my life though, staying on top of a presidential election is not at the top of my list of priorities.

and i don't feel bad about this. I feel like I'm giving my share, and then some, back to society every day just by showing up at work.

so stop telling me i'm self-involved. if anything, my inability to raise interest is a result of the exact opposite.

What is a "vote against voting"? If we get a "none of the above" choice on ballots, then you're right. Until then, taking part in the sham is just acquiescing to it. If someone doesn't find any of the major candidates represents them, why vote? Should voting be mandatory?

And I'll say it again - I don't care if you want to vote, or don't want to vote. I don't care if you want to travel from city to city registering voters.

But what you and gabbneb have done is go on the attack against anyone who disagrees with your view of the importance of voting, Colin. That's the problem - you're unwilling to accept that there can be a differing view there. Which is, I suppose, just a symptom of the partisan mindset (cf. JD's post in another thread about how atrocities are OK when it's 'our guy' in office, how everything that generates anger now will become OK with Kerry elected, just like the right shut up when Bush came to power).

Because it acomplishes nothing. While you'll probably never cast the deciding vote in a Presidential election, you have even less say without voting at all. It has more to do with what you think than what I think.

What is a "vote against voting"? If we get a "none of the above" choice on ballots, then you're right. Until then, taking part in the sham is just acquiescing to it. If someone doesn't find any of the major candidates represents them, why vote?

What's the sham, Milo? If you don't feel like a major candidate represents you, vote for a third party. Even the Nadar people have figured that out. But furthermore why does a candidate have to represent everything you stand for? It's not just about YOU.

Should voting be mandatory?

My instinct is yes, but I haven't really thought about it enough or read enough analysis of places like Australia where voting is mandatory to make an informed decision.

My instinct is yes, but I haven't really thought about it enough or read enough analysis of places like Australia where voting is mandatory to make an informed decision.

that line of thinking is *so* wrong. See poll taxes.

But furthermore why does a candidate have to represent everything you stand for? It's not just about YOU.

WRONG. One of the great things about our country is we have freedom. Freedom to do what we want and think what we want. Choosing how and why we participate in our political system is one of those freedoms.

The more you try to browbeat me into thinking that my decision to vote is not mine and mine alone, the more determined you make me to not vote at all.

Which is, I suppose, just a symptom of the partisan mindset (cf. JD's post in another thread about how atrocities are OK when it's 'our guy' in office, how everything that generates anger now will become OK with Kerry elected, just like the right shut up when Bush came to power).
I don't know which post you're referring to, but if you're charaterizing it correctly, I disagree with JD wholeheartedly. The frustration I (and others) often have with third party voters is not out of the feeling that something is wrong if Bush does it but ok if it's Kerry, but the feeling that many third party voters are ignoring HUGE differences in the two parties in favor of a few similarities.

were you alive in the year 2000?

but local politics (like our state's current school-finance reform) affect my kids' lives more

so you should be particularly concerned that the Bush administration is trying to take the Texas public school model national. why do you think Rod Paige is in charge? and that your state's fiscal troubles are the product of decisions made by Bush at the national level. national politics are local.

staying on top of a presidential election is not at the top of my list of priorities

no one is saying that what you do isn't important. and no one's asking you to stay on top of campaign politics. they're asking you to vote.

One of the great things about our country is we have freedom.

are you familiar with the concept of negative freedom? your abstention from voting reduces the negative freedom of other citizens.

Yeah, an individual's vote (or lack thereof) is about that individual. Wow, huh?

you've just outed yourself as a laissez-faire capitalist. I don't know what you're doing voting for Nader.

So you shouldn't have to champion or defend Kerry, then, right?

bingo

just a symptom of the partisan mindset

I know. We need to get past this partisanship. I mean, Bush isn't so bad.

our state's *educational* fiscal troubles have nothing to do with bush's national decisions. they are the result of about 20 years of bad state politics.

I stand by my right to actively choose not to be a part of the national vote. and if you don't like it. . .hey, it's a free country.

So then why be self-righteous about it?

you know which 'philosopher' said that? geddy lee.

To say it again, voting is the absolute least-involved you can be in the political process without not taking part at all. Don't act like voting is some grand, meaningful gesture. For most Americans who even bother to vote, they're voting against one guy. It's a purely reactionary response.

What's the sham, Milo? If you don't feel like a major candidate represents you, vote for a third party. Even the Nadar people have figured that out. But furthermore why does a candidate have to represent everything you stand for? It's not just about YOU.
What's the point in voting for a third-party? Unless I live somewhere that I can elect Bernie Sanders (and let's be honest, dude might as well join the Dems), a third-party vote is meaningless.

I voted for Nader in 2000 hoping beyond hope for 5%. Now, if Democrats were interested in anything but their own power and influence, they would have encouraged Nader voters in Texas, or in New York, or anywhere that the election was locked up before it began. They would have encouraged a progressive voice, and they would have welcomed a message from the left that wasn't bought and sold by corporate donors. Instead they attacked and vilified and attacked and vilified and did what they have to do to win elections, made it a contest of who could scare people more. And continue to do so (cf. Alterman v. McGruder).

The sham is the idea that the major parties are interested in anything more than their own power (ironically, the Republicans are more interested in serving their voters, perhaps because their voters are into power too), and that voting is a meaningful action.

As for the self-involved, "it's not about you" - bullshit. You're not stumping for Kerry out of altruism. It's not a question of the goodness of your heart. You're voting for your own selfish reasons, just like everyone else. Kerry's beliefs are something you support, so you're going to vote for him. Or Kerry's beliefs are just better enough to let you vote against Bush.

My instinct is yes, but I haven't really thought about it enough or read enough analysis of places like Australia where voting is mandatory to make an informed decision.

Forcing someone to vote when they don't want to would be a disaster. What next, enforced voter education, to make sure the decisions are informed?

You want to solve voter apathy? Don't have people like Kerry and Bush at the top of the ticket.

******

you've just outed yourself as a laissez-faire capitalist. I don't know what you're doing voting for Nader.

Your vote has nothing to do with you, you're voting for Kerry out of the goodness of your heart, just a gift to the rest of us.

I know. We need to get past this partisanship. I mean, Bush isn't so bad.

That's the thing, and this goes back to what John D. said in the other thread - you wouldn't have a problem with Bush if he had a D next to his name. You're OK with Clinton fucking poor people and killing people halfway around the globe and refusing to do anything for basic civil rights.

Your problem isn't that Bush is "so bad," but that Bush is on the wrong team.

That's the problem with your partisanship, it has no basis in principle.

I'm a little drunk and going to bed, so I'll get to the rest of your post later, but I just wanted to point out that I never said supporting Kerry (or Bush or Nader or anyone) had anything to do with altruism. I was responding to two things. 1) Sam saying that "voting is an extremely personal thing", which is absolute bullshit. She's not voting for the President of Sam. 2) The idea that becuase one individual vote doesn't mean everything, it means nothing.The fact taht voting is the least involved you can be in the poltical process while still participating doesn't mean it's a bad thing. It's one of many of the reasons you SHOULD vote, even if you're like Sam and you devote so much time to local politics that you it's going to be difficult to make it to the polls.

No, but you did complain about self-involvement and "it's about you!" and so on. Indicating that you're not voting for yourself or for personal reasons, but for the greater good.

I'm going to phrase this more generally, as it shouldn't just revolve around Sam's choice (and it would be incredibly lame for you and I to argue about said choice).

Everyone is voting for the President of [Sam]. You're voting for the President of CB - the candidate who best embodies your beliefs and choices, because you think one candidate fits well enough (or you hate the other one enough for it to not matter). Your choice is just as self-involved and narcissistic as anyone else's. Your vote is no less personal than someone voting for Bush or not voting at all. You think that your personal beliefs are more open, caring, democratic and freedom-loving than the Bush voter or the non-voter - thing is, that's what they're thinking too.

To argue otherwise is just paternalistic - "well, I'm not voting for me, I'm voting for what's best for y'all." And that is bullshit.

The fact taht voting is the least involved you can be in the poltical process while still participating doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
Nor has anyone said it was.

Remember, Colin, no one's waging a war on voting. No "Don't Rock The Vote" campaigns exist. I, for one, am responding to repeated attacks on those who choose not to vote.

Vote if you want, don't vote if you don't want. Encourage people to vote (ie make a positive argument) if you want. Don't demonize and attack people for taking a different view than what you hold, that's all I'm saying. Recognize that those who don't vote aren't necessarily lazy or uninformed or stupid - but that some of them looked at the choices, and said "fuck it." And that for many more, the apathy and ignorance is born of generations of bad choices and being fucked over by politicians.

Can you explain why it's better for someone to vote for a candidate they dislike or don't care about (esp. when that vote is irrelevant, as in TX or for a third-party) than to not vote at all?

"or some other direction" - i don't know if that was intentional, but haha. the problem isn't your ideological position, it's your level of education.

The sham is the idea that the major parties are interested in anything more than their own power (ironically, the Republicans are more interested in serving their voters, perhaps because their voters are into power too), and that voting is a meaningful action.

As for the self-involved, "it's not about you" - bullshit. You're not stumping for Kerry out of altruism. It's not a question of the goodness of your heart. You're voting for your own selfish reasons, just like everyone else. Kerry's beliefs are something you support, so you're going to vote for him. Or Kerry's beliefs are just better enough to let you vote against Bush.

I'm guessing you listen to O'Reilly and Limbaugh a lot? why don't you just admit that you're a Republican.

That's the thing, and this goes back to what John D. said in the other thread - you wouldn't have a problem with Bush if he had a D next to his name. You're OK with Clinton fucking poor people and killing people halfway around the globe and refusing to do anything for basic civil rights.

Again, Bush isn't so bad. Just admit it. It's not that hard. I'm not OK with Clinton doing those things, because Clinton DIDN'T DO THOSE THINGS. And you're unfamiliar with the things that Clinton did do (and some of the things Bush is doing) in part because you don't care enough to be informed, but in part because both parties play down the less centrist things that they do, Clinton on the left, Bush on the right.

Remember, Colin, no one's waging a war on voting.

so naive

That's uncalled for.

B-b-but you get to keep berating them. Surely that counts for something...?

"left" can be a direction, as in "turn left"

And also falls foul of an unnecessary neo-con trap of insisting that everyone's got an angle, everyone's picking sides. I'm not interested in your parties, they're each as bad as each other, but Bush is worse than either of them. I'd happily vote Powell-McCain over anyone likely to be thrown up by the Democrats (maybe not as happily as four years ago, due to Powell's disappearing backbone), but I don't have that option.

Er, if I had a vote at all:)

staying on top of a presidential election is not at the top of my list of priorities

no one is saying that what you do isn't important. and no one's asking you to stay on top of campaign politics. they're asking you to vote.

is completely OTM. Not voting in 2004 because of idealistic "I must be completely informed beforehand" civics class reasons is bullshit. Sure, ignorant voting will slowly erode the usefulness of your vote, but has no-one noticed the alternative is looking like Your Last Chance to Vote?

Argh, this is getting me too overwraught. My "angle" is frustration that this shit will affect me but I can't effect it. The world can't afford another four years of George Bush.

Honestly, is "yr a right-winger!!!" the best you can muster?

How about responding - how is my not voting (which, actually, isn't a decision I've made yet - I might vote just for the satisfaction of writing my own name in against Joe Barton) any more self-involved than your vote for Kerry?

Again, Bush isn't so bad. Just admit it. It's not that hard. I'm not OK with Clinton doing those things, because Clinton DIDN'T DO THOSE THINGS. And you're unfamiliar with the things that Clinton did do (and some of the things Bush is doing) in part because you don't care enough to be informed, but in part because both parties play down the less centrist things that they do, Clinton on the left, Bush on the right.
Clinton didn't do those things? Under Clinton, real wages declined and the wage gap increased. We saw a rollback on the social safety net straight out of the GOP playbook. A half-million Iraqi kids died on Clinton's watch, for zero purpose. Continued support for Colombia's narco-government that revels in killing labor leaders and leftists. Attacks on Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq that all killed innocent people and didn't do a damn thing to disrupt terrorists or Saddam's life.

Don't tell me "CLINTON DIDN'T DO THOSE THINGS" when they're part of the fucking public record. This ain't Christopher Hitchens conspiracy theory bullshit, this is the facts of the Clinton Presidency. It's nice to pretend that Democratic Presidents are knights in shining armor who stand up for the little guy and don't kill people, but it isn't fucking reality.

Was Clinton better than his GOP counterparts? Yes. But Attila the Hun would have been an improvement over Reagan and the Bushes, so let us not overstate the case for him.

-----

if everything changed tomorrow and the Greens could muster 47-50% of the vote, and the Democrats could only get about 1%, you think the Greens would act any differently than the Dems did in 2000?
Yes, in that the Greens are less concerned with power than principle and aren't beholden to the wealthiest among us.

-----

And also falls foul of an unnecessary neo-con trap of insisting that everyone's got an angle, everyone's picking sides.
Partisans are picking sides. Gabbneb has shown no principle, not a single instance, outside of "vote Democrat or else."

Instead of admitting that Clinton was a severely flawed President who governed from the center-right, did a lot of nasty things and co-opted a great deal of the GOP agenda - he just flat out denies that any of it ever happened. That's partisanship at its worst, no different from the pathetic GOP specimens like Stuart who cling for life to their illusions about Bush being a wonderful public speaker and man of the people, fighting terrorism and securing liberty, etc..

Stuart and gabbneb are two sides of the same coin - driven not by honest examination of the issues and candidates, but blind allegiance to a party.

and if they got 47-50% of the vote, their "principles" would stay exactly the same, mmhmm yeah.

(I'd say that also explains the fascination with John McCain by people who wouldn't normally support someone with his politics in a hundred years.)

That's the point I've been trying to get across here - some people choose not to vote because they recognize that neither of the candidates speaks for or to them, and that voting for a third-party also doesn't express their views.

NB people who are voting Democrat will insist every four years that "this election is too important"

Well, that and "wouldn't be great if you had one of those electoral systems where you could vote your conscience AND do main-event good"?

But I never made that argument. I said Democrats have abdicated their principles in pursuit of power. There is no "because" in there - it's not a cause and effect. Pursuing power doesn't necessarily mean an abdication of principles - Bush and the Christian Right stay well within their stated principles (if not their campaign rhetoric) after attaining power.

Truth is, I think the strategy has been a disaster for Democrats, power-wise. They're a lesser-evil party now, they can't stand on their own. That means you never get more power than is necessary to keep the greater evil in check. The Democrats, as they stand today, will never get a mandate from the populace (even a faux one, like Newt's) that lets them pull off a Contract With America.

And why is "voting your conscience" inherently better than compromising in order to acomplish anything?
Because nothing gets accomplished. The "not this year" speech seems to go for actual progress in addition to elections.

And because the Democrats don't compromise, they cave. They're in a constant game of playing catch-up with the GOP now.

If you realy think that Bush and Kerry are the same thing, you're not paying enough attention.
Who said that? Kerry and Bush are somewhat different (far more different than Gore/Bush were in 2000, if only because Bush has pushed so far)

And furthermore, how are guys like John who always vote third party any more thoughtful or open minded about the issues than a Yellow Dog Democract?

Not all of them are - but John seems to have put some thought into who he supports rather than voting for anything in the right party.

But I haven't seen a Nader supporter flatly deny anything like gabbneb flat out denied aspects of Clinton's Presidency up there.

How is Ralph Nader's agenda, apart from the "third party for the sake of third party" party, THAT much difference than Kerry's as far as this elections major issues? Nader isn't Robert LaFollette or Eugene Debs, he's not even Ralph Nader circa 1968.
You're right, Nader's a fairly wishy-washy candidate in and of himself (hardly so beholden to corporate interests as Kerry, certainly not as craven in his war stance, etc.). Oddly enough, I won't be voting for Nader if I do bother to vote this year. I voted for him purely in the hopes of a third-party getting matching funds. If the Reform or Libertarian candidates had a shot at 5% and weren't too offensive, I would have considered voting for them.

Not all of them are - but John seems to have put some thought into who he supports rather than voting for anything in the right party.
John has offered no more evidence of this than I have (and I wasn't really saying John doesn't put thought into his choice, I have no idea, but if someone who always votes Dem is unthinking, the same goes for someone who alwayas votes third party).

But I haven't seen a Nader supporter flatly deny anything like gabbneb flat out denied aspects of Clinton's Presidency up there.
Greens have been pretty keen on flatly denying Nader's stock holdings (which don't really matter, but Nader pretty fiercely attacked Gore for similar holdings) and most importantly, Nader has never held public office, Clinton was President of the United States, it's not like Nader has proven himself AT ALL or had deal with anything close to the pressures Clinton faced as President of the United States. I wouldn't go as far as gabbnebb necessarily, I disagree with a lot of what Clinton did, but he was still a good President.

Why is it that Bush managed to push through so much of his ideological agenda without the mandate (of actually being elected) that Clinton had either term? It's not just 9/11. Under Clinton, as I said, we saw real wages decline, the wage gap increase, rollbacks to the social safety net, military spending stayed the same, "don't ask don't tell," etc..

What have Democrats gotten by co-opting the GOP-lite pro-business agenda? Nothing. It hasn't even won them elections.

John has offered no more evidence of this than I have (and I wasn't really saying John doesn't put thought into his choice, I have no idea, but if someone who always votes Dem is unthinking, the same goes for someone who alwayas votes third party).
But I never said anything about your voting patterns or habits. You haven't indicated, at all, the level of blind support for anyone with a 'D' that gabbneb has.

Greens have been pretty keen on flatly denying Nader's stock holdings (which don't really matter, but Nader pretty fiercely attacked Gore for similar holdings) and most importantly, Nader has never held public office, Clinton was President of the United States, it's not like Nader has proven himself AT ALL or had deal with anything close to the pressures Clinton faced as President of the United States. I wouldn't go as far as gabbnebb necessarily, I disagree with a lot of what Clinton did, but he was still a good President.
No, Nader hasn't held office, but that's irrelevant. I've never seen the levels of blind support, the cult of personality around him that would deny any wrongdoing on his part. And, it has to be said, no one who voted for Nader really thought he'd be President.

If you want a good cult following to match up, I'd point to Noam Chomsky's followers. Some of those people are just as scary in their worship as gabbneb (or Stuart).

This is why I am afraid of Dems - Clinton bombed, invaded & fucked with countries in a way that would give Dems conniptions if Bush were doin' it/when Bush is doin' it, but they still get misty about the guy who brought us such revolutionary acts of egalitarianism as "don't ask/don't tell." Please God spare me gutless center-leftists like President Clinton.

Perhaps the third party revolution or whatever really has to come up through the state level to have any chance of success. "voting your conscience" these days seems to be the same as "throwing away your vote on someone who can't even get 5%". I like to think that as (if) the states get more progressive, the national gov will inevitably follow suit (to justify to myself a vote for lousy Kerry).

I think all *three* of us would agree that people can be terrible disappointments, that political parties and especially American ones at this point in time can be and are walking and talking contradictions and potential examples of hypocrisy, and that regardless of what happened in the past there is definite folly in the White House at present, yes?

(xpost Ned, there's nothing particularly special about the flaws of American political parties unless you are also implying that Americans are by default worse human beings than everyone else on the Earth.)

No, I meant that given America's particular role and place in the world their flaws are more magnified and also more understandably worthy of scrutiny than the flaws of political parties in Kiribati or Martinque, say.

And I thought I was bad when it came to reductum ad absurdum arguments!

While that's certainly part of the story, but Clinton and Les Aspin failed to adequately armor the troops he reinstated after he pulled out and violence flared again. Still, there's a clear difference between (even major) mishandling of an extremely complicated situation the minute one starts a term (Clinton never had the grace period given to almost every other President) and Bush's premeditated Iraq attack.

But you just said yourself that that kind of compromise is inherent in the Presidency? Nader or any other Third Party candidate might not have to make any of the campaign compromises the Dems and Repubs have to, but those same checks and balances would still the minute they entered office.

There's a name I haven't thought of in a long time...

(C0l1n: point taken, but I really didn't want to write an entire essay to highlight the basic point, namely the situation in Somalia was not the same thing as the situation in Iraq and equating them solely so that you can ride your hobby horse against someone who is actually more sympathetic towards you than 80% of the people on the thread is FUCKING STUPID.)

I think he died a few years after he resigned.

Reading JD's comments again - at no point does he equate Somalia and Iraq. He cites Somalia as an example of a place where Clinton fucked up, and where he was given a pass by Dems, and stating that if it had been Bush II in the exact same situation the Dems would be livid.

Dammit Ned I came back to this thread to rant, not to hear reaonsable people mending bridges and whatnot

Yes Ned, we can agree that Bush sux, etc. I am even, as I have said before when foolishly choosing to enter discussions like this one, going to bite the fucking bullet and vote for the wealthy white plutocrat that the primary voters ran like sheep to nominate after he'd won one primary and the news weeklies had announced that he was the guy with momentum. OK? You guys win, I'll vote for a guy from the party that had to be dragged kicking & screaming into the age of civil rights, conspired with their "opposites" to squash the Equal Rights Amendment, hasn't got the fucking balls to say out loud "of course gay people have the right to marry, what are you people, insane?", etc. etc. etc. I'll vote for the guy who is by no means worth my vote, or yours. It just infuriates me, to the point of spitting frothing rage, that I'm supposed to not only vote for this privileged fuck, I'm supposed to get all happy about it and pretend like Kerry is some vast improvement over the asshole presently in office. He isn't. He won't appoint quite so many born-agains to his cabinet, so there's that. But he voted to bomb Iraq when my gut said, and the guts of so many on the left (and in the center! and on the right! worldwide!), that it was premature at best and deeply fishy at worst. "If I'd known then what I know now" is a disingenous line of argument: it's not like he couldn't have cocked an ear toward the very demographic he'd be courting a year later. He smelled which way the wind was blowing and voted to doom thousands upon thousands to a death they didn't deserve. He'll do more shit like this in office, and when people on the far left complain about it, we'll have to hear how he's better than Bush, or how Roe v. Wade isn't in as much immediate peril (though the Democratic party has done so much backpedaling over the right to choose in the years since Reagan that to imagine Roe v. Wade is "safe" under a Dem president seems wildly optimistic to me), or how he's working real hard to stop drilling in Alaska, but it's going to be a slow process and not to expect any miracles overnight, and so forth.

But yes. You guys win, and you'd won already because you kind of do have a point: the guy who'll only kill three of my sisters is marginally better than the guy who'll kill all five. I'll vote for the lowest common denominator in November, and I'll vote to re-elect him in four years, and so on. But please. Don't ask me or others to pretend that the Democratic party likes the left except when it finds the rhetoric convenient every four years, 'cause it doesen't.

Didn't mean to call you a zombie Dan, but you did say I had a defective mind. I mean sure I didn't go to HARVARD or nothin' but

kidding, kidding

No, what I said was that the current two party system breeds compromise. Which is why, unless things change drastically, I've been voting for third party candidates since 1990.

The two major parties are not the same at all, but the reality is that they tend to act similarly once in power. It's what you have to do to retain that power.

(from one of my posts further above:)

And I thought I was bad when it came to reductum ad absurdum arguments!

And I thought I was bad when it came to reductum ad absurdum arguments!

and I...a..t..e...re...ctum

Or even:

and I...a..t..e........c.um

x-post Ned u r $$$

sorry that my language was imprecise - i was amused by my assignment of an implication to your language (that some on this thread who claim to be of the left may in fact be of the right) that you likely did not imply. i was not amused in any way at your expense.

The Democrats of yore were hardly heroes, but they managed to actually have a few principles outside of "cash check, get elected." That was the wonderful thing about Dean (and to a lesser extent "honest, I'm pro-choice!" Kucinich) - even if his principles weren't to my liking (or to the liking of someone who supported him), he actually had them.

Ah, advertising. The wonderful thing about Dean is that he managed to bring back to the fold those who pay more attention to rhetoric than action.

...and Milo's right to be suspicious: the "you must vote" lecture is almost always followed by an explanation of how third parties are good in principle, but "now isn't the time," because "this election is too important," because "there's too much at stake," etc.

No, I think third party presidential candidates are always bad in principle as long as our government maintains the current constitutional order, if for no other reason than because they threaten to disenfranchise a plurality if not a majority. But I do think that "there's too much at stake" this year, because BUSH IS THE THIRD PARTY. I am indebted to Andrew for being a nonpartisan who can articulate this point rather than one who is tinged with the scarlet D.

As for the great horrors of Clinton's tenure in office, I am of course aware of the evidence presented on the thread (and of course don't agree with certain of his decisions, though I do agree or at least am agnostic on others) but I stand by my statement. I'll substantiate it some day when I don't have to work all night, and if I feel like it.

and fyi, milo, I have in fact voted for third party candidates to the left of the Democrat before. not in national elections though.

No, I think third party presidential candidates are always bad in principle as long as our government maintains the current constitutional order, if for no other reason than because they threaten to disenfranchise a plurality if not a majority.
Voting for a third-party candidate causes disenfranchisement? How does that work? I took away someone's vote by casting a ballot for Nader?

and fyi, milo, I have in fact voted for third party candidates to the left of the Democrat before. not in national elections though.
"My third-party friend..."

I wasn't necessarily talking about you.

Voting for a third-party candidate causes disenfranchisement? How does that work? I took away someone's vote by casting a ballot for Nader?

you're aware of the desire of many in the third party community for instant runoff voting? work backwards.

"My third-party friend..."

yeah, well I guess I don't have your "blind allegiance"

you're aware of the desire of many in the third party community for instant runoff voting? work backwards.
The desire for IRV is irrelevant. What you said was, "they threaten to disenfranchise a plurality if not a majority." How does voting for a third party disenfranchise anyone?

you think I was saying that you're the only person who supported Dean?

Or does that depend solely on whether or not you think can come up with a response?

but conscience doesn't necessarily translate into "i will vote for the candidate whose stated views approximate my own, or if there is no such candidate, i will not vote"--it can just as easily translate to "my conscience compels me to make the vote that i feel will translate most effectively into ensuring the survival or augmentation of certain policies and programs that i feel are just, or the ending of other policies which i feel are unjust"

dan writes: "There's absolutely nothing wrong with supporting a third party if neither of the major parties appeal to you. My issue is the characterization that neither party appeals to you, ergo they are the same. IT'S NOT TRUE. It's akin to saying "People from New York City are exactly like people from Chicago.""

this is my feeling entirely. vote for nader if you prefer, but saying that the democrats and republicans are ideologically close as parties are not say, here in france (though this is arguable), is not the same as saying they are identical. and i truly believe that in their distinctions, however small they may be from a certain perspective, are the fates of a lot of americans' lives.

I was quite clearly talking to you (but not only you), and never said I wasn't (note the word "about" upthread). Yes, your post suggested to me that you had "support[ed]" him at least in the sense that you wanted him to win the nomination (I obviously have no way of knowing if you would have voted for him in the general, and would be skeptical about the likelihood of your doing so), though this wasn't necessarily clear. But I wasn't basing my point on the imagined possibility of your support alone - did you think that I was saying that the great thing about Dean is that he got one extra vote? Whether you "support[ed]" him isn't relevant to my point, which was that to me your characterization of him accurately described why he received extraordinary support from many young people who aren't you. Is there really a need for this kind of exegesis?