well, previously, i thought horseshit only came out of horse's asses. apparently, i was mistaken, as i've just seen one man spew more horseshit in two minutes than i've seen in all the years i've been alive. the capacity of the man's stomach must be mind-boggling, to be able to store all that crap, and regurgitate it upon command.

i already thought Zell Miller was an idiot, now i'm wondering if he's even still considered sentient. if this is they guy the Republicans choose to deliver the keynote speech, then man, this country (being temporarily in their hands) is even worse off than i'd originally estimated. i really tried, i steeled myself against the crap that i expected, and thought i was prepared to sit the whole speech out, but i just couldn't do it. sitting in a room with my moderate fiance and her ambiguously conservative father, i didn't want to start going on a rant that would alienate me before the wedding plans are even finalized.

needless to say, i'm supremely interesting in seeing what those who are better at this sort of commentary have to say about his speech tomorrow.

i'll set this in motion though, with two points that stuck in my craw:

1) Partisan activity / no bi-partisan cooperation:
The republicans can hardly blame the democrats for a lack of bipartisan cooperation, as i seem to recall that, at least for the entirety of Clinton's second term, especially once the Republicans gained control of the legislature, there was limited to no bi-partisan cooperation from their side. in fact, there was such a witch-hunt against Clinton, that it seriously damaged even the possibility of bi-partisan cooperation, even among reasonable people.

Sept. 11 did a lot to overcome that animosity, but King George's actions and decisions since then have only served to bring them back. Those opposing Bush are fighting for freedom against tyranny, and this country was *founded* by a massive revolt against the established leadership.

in fact, i was thinking the other day about a series of questions to ask people who say that disagreeing with the president is unpatriotic. i now don't remember specifically the questions i was thinking of, but it boils down to asking if they considered the American Revolution to be a patriotic endeavor, then pointing out to them that the American Revolution was all about dissenting with those in charge.

so, i would argue that the people who disagree with the president are at least as patriotic, if not more patriotic than those who blindly follow him.

*** at this point, i've completed this entry once, crashed mozilla & lost everything after this point, so i'm going to try to re-create it ***

2) the second offensive thing he went off on was the whole "liberators/occupiers" thing. we may have been liberators, but after King George declared "mission accomplished" at the "end of major combat operations" we became occupiers. but that's beside the main point of why this pisses me off.

if we had gone into Iraq for the purpose of liberating the people from the evil Saddam, then i'd be all about calling us liberators. unfortunately, the reality is that the reasons we went to war had nothing to do with the freedom of the Iraqi people. we went to war because Saddam's (non-existent) WMD made him an "imminent threat" to the safety of the nation. and the war piggy-backed on 9/11 because supposedly Saddam (militant secularist) had some indefinable connections to al Qaeda (extreme fundamental religious). of course, all of these real reasons we were given turned out to be false, and so the administration and their lackeys fell back on the convenient "liberators of the Iraqi people" excuse. it's kind of like, when you're a kid, and mom finds you digging in the cookie jar, and you say "but mom, i was getting a cookie for sissie." if mom actually buys it, she's a moron with no business parenting.

now, i walked out on the illustrious idiot's speech, as i said, about two minutes after we'd tuned in (if that long), and ended up getting so pissed it had to leave right about the line "… nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators."

as i've gone back later tonight and read the text of his speech, i can see more what the imbecile meant by "liberators"–that our soldiers protect the freedoms of american citizens, thus they are our liberators. this is all well and good, unfortunately, as mentioned above, the reasons given for needing to protect American liberty turned out to be bogus. there was no imminent threat to national security presented by Saddam. of course, ask me if i think Iraq poses a significant threat to American now, and i would say, most certainly, yes. the occupation of Iraq has stirred up ill will toward this country not only in Iraq, but in most other countries around the world as well, and it has made Iraq what is was not before–a breeding ground for new terrorist groups and recruits. so much for the war on terror, eh Mr. Bush?

…

i think i'll try to update this post a few times today if i run across any good commentaries on the garbage that prompted this post.

David Adesnik on OxBlog
Steve on his NewsBlog (i almost didn't link this one because of the Nazi/Fascist hate-baiting, but he did make a few salient points).
Daily Dish on andrewsullivan.com
Jesse Taylor on Pandagon
Joshua Micah Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo
NewDonkey.com (be sure to check out the link about Kerry's weapons systems votes)
Kevin Drum on Washington Monthly (actually, i don't think i need to look for any more after this one, his post is a roundup of other's posts, so he's done my job for me.)

i've been hanging out with my sweetheart all night, so i've only got a few minutes to get today's post in under the wire. and what should i see upon ascending the stairs to the technological sauna that is our family room/computer area, but Paul the inimitable Puffin playing some funky weird game based on the struggle between good and evil. i'm sure you've all seen this, 'cause if i'm seeing it, then it has to have been making the rounds… but anyway, any port in a storm is what i always say.

how 'bout this: http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html

enjoy!

so, no luck on cancelling the insurance. i'm locked in until at least next June… unless i find a better job.

but, i've figured out a way to equalize the situation a bit—i'll just tell them to pay me more money to make up for the crappy health insurance.

also, here's a classic 2000 style weblog link to pad out this post a bit. i'm sure you've seen it making the rounds, but i wanted to point out what a great list of 10 reasons for despising Bush (though not necessarily 10 reasons for loving Kerry) this guy came up with.

personally—and, strangely enough i don't think i've really commented on this before—i'm not a huge fan of Kerry. but honestly, i think my cat could run this country better than Bush. and i mean Harriet—the crazy one. so, i'm firmly in the ABB camp, and so will vote with conviction for Kerry, because however good Kerry might not be, Bush is much much less good. (how's that for an f'ed up sentence?) in fact, if Kerry is good (which he is good, just not great), then Bush is most decidedly anti-good.

well anyway, enjoy the list of discretions.

for some reason i'm always suprised when news from Louisville finds its way out of the local scene. now, obviously, we (and the rest of the area) just made headlines because of the craziness of the past week, and there are certainly enough idiots and looneys wandering about that someone surely should be able to hit the national news circuit at least once a week. nevertheless, i'm still surprised.

as it turns out, i just read about this particular idiot (or collection of idiots) in the CJ the other day, but to see it on a liberal progressive rallying center like the Talking Points Memo makes me grieve the tarnished reputation of my beloved city. it's not like the rest of the world didn't think we were a bunch of barefoot imbeciles already…

don't get the wrong idea, world, Louisville's is a very diverse population, the majority of which are thoughtful, involved, caring, and mostly intelligent. even some of the conservatives. we're mostly bad drivers though, it seems (myself most decidedly not included), so if you decide to come for a visit be very very watchful. and be assured that idiots like the ones mentioned in the above articles are thankfully few & far between.

m@'s coworker says: i may need to eat in until pay day
m@ says: right on.
m@'s coworker says: budget
m@'s coworker says: not bush budget
m@ says: hehehehehehe
m@ says: "we are going to spend 10 dollars on lunch."
m@ says: "no, wait, i meant 20."
m@ says: "er… 25?"
m@'s coworker says: we could feed the world on what we are wasting in iraq
m@ says: true dat.
m@ says: and then some.
m@ says: we could feed, clothe, and house the world.
m@'s coworker says: naa they would hate us if we did that
m@ says: i've been reading that book "The Price of Loyalty" about former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who's spoken out against Pres. Bush.
m@ says: the bit i read last night was talking about how he figured we could go in and, for only $25 million, we could get clean water to every person in Ghana
m@ says: while the contractors said it would take $2 billion
m@'s coworker says: kick backs are hell
m@ says: no shit.
m@ says: y'know, there's nothing wrong with making a little profit, even if you're doing "charity" work. but, it's gotta be within reason.
m@ says: everyone has to survive, so profit has to be made, but some of these people are just crazy.
m@'s coworker says: mr. vice president
m@ says: hehe. no shit.
m@ says: that's the other thing that book lays out… pretty much just over 1 week after the Pres. took office, Cheney, Rove, Lindsey, and other Pres. advisors were trying to figure out how to take out Saddam.
m@ says: 1 week!
m@ says: and we wonder why they lied about the intelligence!
m@ says: what i wonder is why there's even any discussion about it, why aren't we just watching an impeachment trial and war tribunal right now?
m@'s coworker says: the republican are good at this
m@'s coworker says: or americans are too stupid to see it
m@ says: i think it's a little of both.
m@ says: there has been a rise in the social moral conservativism of the general public, and i think the Pres. appeals to those people. more & more i find people who call out a single issue and use that for their entire basis of support for the Pres.
m@ says: without regard to the other things he's doing.
m@ says: so, is *he* pulling the wool over the public's eyes? no, i don't think so. i think the liberals, the people who already question him can see plainly enough what he's doing… i think the conservatives are pulling the wool over their own eyes.
m@ says: they're pulling the pro-life blanket, or the anti-gay-marriage blanket, or the general christian-morality blanket over their heads.
m@ says: and they've got clothes-pins on their noses so they can't smell their own farts.
m@'s coworker says: yep these pro-life commerical are abound
m@ says: yup. and y'know, really the majority of the country is pro-life, or at least pro-cautious-choice.
m@'s coworker says:
and anti-welfare
m@ says: but the thing is, the government and laws supposedly exist to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority.
m@ says: i don't know that they're so much anti-welfare as anti-"handouts".
m@ says: conservatives typically say welfare's ok, but that people take advantage of it, and that's what gets their goat.
m@ says: they don't want someone else living off their hard work, if that someone else is making no attempt to do hard work of their own.
m@'s coworker says: well we can only hope the democrats will win this one
m@ says: yeah. hopefully.
m@ says: i think it's likely.

also, the subjects of this article seriously disturb me.

i know that just about every post i write lately seems to center around politics. i guess it's inevitable, since we're in an election year and currently under the rule of the most authoritarian regime this country's ever seen. for someone who said he was going to be a uniter and a champion of the people, he sure seems to have rustled up a massive hornets nest of independents and political apathists (myself included) all now dead-set against him and his party.

see, before "Dubya" charged into power–with the assist from his brother's administration in Florida, and the slam dunk by the Supreme Court–i was largely a non-partisan liberal socialist whose only agenda was that the big people should help the little people, and the large corporations should not be allowed to hurt the little people or wield any type of power over the government or its citizens. for the most part i didn't care about politics, and i was of the firm opinion that my one voice didn't count for much of anything. i didn't bother to vote, or even to learn about the candidates or delve into the issues of the day. i knew from a philosophical standpoint what type of society i wanted, and i knew that the pursuit of *my goals* in the context of this society full of idiots and greedy bastards would be a futile endeavor. so i contented myself with the idea that i could do things better, but without the responsibility (in the face of certain defeat) to attempt to actually attempt to do so.

all this changed when bush was running for president. for the first time, i felt compelled to do a little research and go to the polls to exercise my civic duty. see my post from Nov. 2000 and the two emails linked to from that post it is interesting going back to the stuff written nearly four years ago, especially the passionate political stuff and seeing what and how i was talking about the issues when i was really *just* seriously delving into them. it's also gratifying to note that i still hold the same opinions to this day, pretty much point for point, issue for issue.

i certainly railed against the Democratic party as being too centrist and in the pockets of the large corps. and lobbyists. that's one thing i've been rather pleased to have seen change with the candidates for this year's Democratic nomination–they are more liberal (except Lieberman) and there are at least a couple candidates who are non-career politicians and beholden to no industry or special interest groups (Clark & Sharpton, though Edwards & Dean may meet the latter qualification). and they are all passionately talking about the issues that matter, in no uncertain terms, and making plans that can make a difference.

now, i'm pleased to say that i'd be proud to count my voice among the supporters of most of the potential Democratic nominees, all of whom (except Lieberman, Sharpton, and Kucinich) i think would make great presidents. having studied the issues, the candidates, and their positions and qualifications, i proudly say that i whole-heartedly throw my lot in with see how he stacks up (in my mind), and take an opportunity to get yourself an education while you're at it.

as a side note, of all the people who said they'd enjoy filling out one of the blank score sheets, not a one has actually done so. there's still time, if you want to put yourself through the paces and weigh in. '04 ScoreSheet

now, i was originally going to write this post in response to President Bush's first stump speech of the 2004 election campaign (A.K.A. the State of the Union address). in lieu of that, i'll just mention that i thought it was a huge pile of crap, pandering to his conservative constituents while taking direct adolescent stabs at those who disagree with his opinions and policies (a "uniter" indeed). but rather than attempting to debunk the speech myself and recreate the wheel, i figured i'd let those more qualified point out the more obvious flaws, misleading statements, and outright lies in the State of the Union Speech.
i'll also refrain from doing anything other than mentioning the inappropriate and inapplicable moral and religious grandstanding.

finally, i've been pleased to see Wes Clark (though i strongly support separation of church & state, and am loathe to see anyone in or seeking public office touting their religion, especially touting it over someone else's) answering the long-standing and wholly inaccurate Republican idea that liberals are amoral atheistic people (this is me greatly summarizing the point). it really is time that we liberals stand up and point out that the religions we grew up with preached tolerance, brotherly-love, self-sacrifice, and the obligation of the strong to protect and/or help the weak. It was Jesus who said "Love your neighbor as yourself"(Matt 5:43-8; Lev 19:17-18; Matt. 19:18-19; Matt 22:37-40), "as you do unto the least of these my brethren, so also you do unto me" (Matt 25:40), who healed the leprous though they were outcasts, and who instructed the Apostles to go out and preach his word to the Gentiles though they were considered unclean and less than human. In favoring the rich and powerful over those not so fortunate, and in castigating and denigrating those whose race, gender, or sexual orientation differ, the Republican party takes this country in a direction entirely opposite that which was set forth by the very figure from whom they claim to draw all their inspiration and guidance.

ok, so i meant to save that whole religion thing for another post. oh well. extra fuel for the fire, i guess.

i hate to admit it, but… i agree with george w. bush.

now, before you all go into a swoon or tizzy, bear in mind that, in 3 years of policy making, there so far is only 1 (ONE–more than "none", but less than "a couple", and way less than even "some") of his policies that i agree with–the new space policy. i should also admit that i haven't read the complete policy, or read or listened to all of the speech announcing the policy, however, what i have heard and read about the policy coincides almost exactly with what i–for the last 10 years–have considered to be our best path to continued space exploration. i personally think we could establish a permanent base on the moon much sooner than 2020, perhaps even by 2010 if we really pushed it. i also think a lunar base is an imperative next step in our space program, as it will provide a (relatively) near-earth proving ground for developing technologies to get us to mars.

i know that some (Paul, if i remember correctly, being one) think that we should turn that money towards earth, towards fixing all those things that georgie boy wants to break or give to the corporate interests (our environment being one example, our "lower class" being another, and our "economy" being the third, but not final). i can certainly see the point of this argument, the extended version of which would be that most technologies that would be developed for space with applications here at home could just as easily be developed either in the private sector, or with the right government in power. i have always been a proponent of a strong space program, frankly because i have the dream that someday i might get to visit the moon or another planet, or maybe even meet an extraterrestrial being. but i also think that the space program, if handled correctly, and, as we've seen with the spirit rover, successfully, can be a great source of inspiration and motivation and promise to the populace and the entire world. successful space programs are proven morale boosters, and on top of that, they reinforce a whole-world perspective, perhaps lessening petty moral conflicts and territorial disagreements. in fact, in a recent speech Al Gore gave to moveon.org members about the environment and the bush administration's egregious environmental policies, he used, as major components of his presentation, several images that only exist because of a successful space program. he specifically called out and mentioned the power of these types of images to influence public perception and awareness of their place in the world, and in the rest of the universe. so, i see a vibrant and aggressive space program as a necessity in helping to shape the planet-wide consciousness, so that, with any luck, we'll realize how "we're all in this together," and we'll hopefully stop killing each other.

well, there's my little pro-NASA spiel. oh yeah, i suppose i should mention that i think NASA's grown fat and lazy (to put it in succinct, human terms) and that they're going to have to seriously get their asses in gear if any of this is going to come to fruition. they've been learning to be lean and mean, again as the mars rover attests, but they're going to have to maintain that zeal and versatility once they're flush with new funds… which leads me to my next point.

i'm going to make a little prediction here, if anyone remembers around Feb. or Mar. of next year, remind us about this, ok? here goes: if, by some freak chance all the people with a real conscience in this nation get the croup and die before election day this year, and georgie boy gets re-elected; and bearing in mind the administration's record on pronouncing policies, passing legislation, and then pulling funding, i think i can safely predict that, when the budget proposal is put on the table next year, NASA will not get the promised funding increase, and will, in fact, see a major funding decrease. there's my prediction. dubya will underfund NASA and his proposed space program just like he's underfunded Homeland Insecurity and the No School Left Unpunished act.

now, to my next major point, and the little bit of news that made me write this post at 6 freakin o'clock in the morning, instead of waiting 'til tomorrow: yet another controversial bush political move is made and announced on a Friday. You see, the NASA thing was announced on Wednesday, and was rumored for several weeks beforehand, so he waited 'til Friday to announce this whammy.

judge charles w. pickering gets his seat on the appeals court handed to him by King George II, who sidesteps (admittedly, legally) the regular process which has kept pickering from getting confirmed for the last two damn years. pickering is an obvious racist, who deserves more to be shit-canned than promoted. If anyone can look at this and still not understand why i fucking hate georgie porgie, then… well, i don't know what. it's completely incomprehensible to me that this president can make these kinds of moves with no repercussions. well, hopefully, the repercussion will be that he gets his ass handed to him in November.

other news: massive behind the scenes changes to the gallery scripts which will effect no-one but me & brian 'cause i just made it easier for us to add images without having to go through some huge ordeal. if anyone notices breakage, let me know. by the way, for those of you who don't pay attention, or who forget easily, remember that that dropdown list up at the top there (assuming you're on the main theme–hey, remember those?) will take you not only to other blogs or sites we like, but other bipolar-related items or sub-projects like, gasp, the galleries! yay, obtuse navigational schemes!

finally, everybody wish the puffin a happy three-oh, which'll happen Real Soon Now™

hi. uh… my name's matt. you might remember me from such hits as "posts on a semi-regular basis," or "lies, lies, and more lies." needless to say, considering the time of year, quite a bit has happened since my last post. i'm not going to try to go into it all in one post, but here's a summary, in the form of an ordered list:

1. visited nathan in bloomington over a weekend
2. followed, almost as i predicted, the fun the Courier-Journal was having with Ernie Fletcher's stupid transition team choices, and his lies about them not being lined up for jobs. he hadn't even been sworn into office yet, and already his making questionable choices and getting reamed for it by the liberal media.
3. got to meet sara's new niece Emma Rose
4. got a new cell-phone, but had to wait a week for it to work, because of the whole number-portability thing
5. went home for thanksgiving and finally got to meet my new niece Emma Ruth
6. made some modifications to the MP3 of the moment thing… anyone notice? — for a while, i was uploading the mp3 directly from WinAmp to the server, and the magic script gnomes were providing a link to it for you to download. i scrapped that in favor of…
7. more modifications to replace the previous modifications — now, if you see the little "listen (x)" link after the MP3 name, (on my side anyway), you can "tune in" to my bipolar radio stream.
8. even more modifications that basically entailed me taking the javascript that was driving the MP3otM thing, and converting it all to PHP. — oh yeah, and, it doesn't show up at all if it's been more than 30 minutes since we last listened to anything.
9. finally managed to get around to buying christmas presents, spent way too much, but found some cool stuff.

sara's working on her 1st semester finals this week, so i've been trying to keep her sane. i'm just looking forward to the rest of the month, at least until she starts her 2nd semester. it'll be nice to be able to hang out with her without her worrying about a test or having to study 90% of the time.

i'm looking forward to this next week as well. christmas with the fam is always an enjoyable time, even if i'm somewhat of a anti-social hermit while i'm there. i've been getting better over the years, we'll see what happens this time.

btw. winamp5 has been officially released.

this morning, i and around 485,000 other Kentuckians will wake up to accept begrudgingly that, after 32 years, the highest seat in the state government will now be occupied by a Republican. around 594,000 will rise with grins and self-congratulatory glances as they bask in the reality of their improbable victory. The other 73 percent of this state's citizens will… well, they'll… well, who knows what the fuck they'll think, because they couldn't be bothered to GET UP OFF THEIR LAZY ASSES AND VOTE!

honestly though, i just say that because i finally can after having been one of those lazy asses for almost 10 years.

still, Fletcher has won, and yet another layer of the government that directly affects my life has been peeled away and replaced with something i don't agree with.

at this point, i will refrain from making any direct comments about the circumstances of his victory, but rest assured, it'll be eating at my craw for a while so i'll probably throw some crap out there at you from time to time. despite my total opposition to Fletcher, i think that he has the ability to be a fine governor, as long as he can accomplish the goals he's set out for himself and also get a damned budget approved. i fear for some of the conservative agendas he'll push, i fear for some of the agendas he won't push because of his indebtedness to special interests, and i fear for his ability to fight for the betterment of kentucky outside the state–against the policies of an administration to which he has proved so blindly loyal.

i hope that he can pass his medical malpractice damage cap agenda, and that he can actually do something to shore up medicaid and reduce prescription prices in the state as he's promised. i hope that he can work to protect the individual liberties of kentucky's citizens, and that he can improve the state of the educational system.

i hope that he understands that, especially in light of the platform he campaigned on ("democrats are dirty filthy amoral people" — paraphrased) that he will endeavor to keep himself and every member of his administration scandal free; because i know that if the Democratic Party gets even one whiff of scandal off him, they will be on him like a pack of dogs. and even more so, they will be digging for it. hopefully though, they will be gracious enough to not actually hinder his efforts. the last thing this state needs right now is political gridlock.

there's also an interesting/amusing/ironic/sort-of-sad anecdote from election day relating to yours truly, but in the interest of drama and me getting to sleep, i'll postpone the actually fairly short tale until later.

well, after almost a month of little-to-no internet connection at the ol' homestead, we've finally switched to evil cable broadband access. seems pretty good so far… and it works, which is a big improvement at this point.

it's been a busy few weeks beside, with me finally taking the time to start entering comics into the database program after over a year of neglecting the task. (which i did pretty-much simply because i had no 'net connection at home, thus no ready distraction).

i also finally managed to get out of the house long enough to go visit my friend nate (a formerly frequent commenter who's been too busy trying to make people call him Doctor to pop in for inane chatter.) it's been a while since i've seen him, and we had a good visit where we did next to nothing but watch TV and video games all weekend, which, in and of itself was pretty much an off-continent vacation for me, as little as i do either of those things.

and the most wonderful event of the past weeks has been the celebration of my one year anniversary with my incredible girlfriend. i've never managed to maintain a relationship for more than 5 or 6 months at the most, so this is a major accomplishment for both of us–her, for putting up with me, and me, for not screwing things up. being with her has made this the best year of my life–one that i want to repeat and improve upon as many times and as much as possible.

in other news, the kentucky gubernatorial race has been really ticking me off. personal attack ads are (unfortunately) not uncommon in political races, but usually they're at least defensible. the Fletcher campaign has been participating in quite a bit of it's own misrepresentation (of the candidate himself, and of his opponent), but the most egregious example has been the ads put out by the Republican Governors Association. most of these ads have been denounced as outright falsehoods by every responsible media outlet in the state, and some of the statements made in them have even been denounced by RGA members themselves. but don't take my word for it, pick up a newspaper, i'm sure you'll find mention. or better yet, a page on Chandler's site collects several quotes from papers around the state. to top it off, the RGA isn't even authorized by the Fletcher campaign to place these ads (though of course, he doesn't ask them to pull them) which are also not paid for by campaign funds. is this legal? unfortunately, yes. what it amounts to is "legally" untraceable donations to a political campaign. what it amounts to is soft-money spending to promote a political candidate. they've taken steps to ensure that the ads are technically legal (they never say "vote for Fletcher" or anything like that). and now, it's prompted similar assistance for the Chandler campaign. but at least we know that Chandler is capable of acting independently from his party and any special interests, which is something Fletcher has shown no ability or desire to do.

Restoring Truth is an interesting (if poorly constructed–hey, i'm a web developer, it's a big deal to me) site run by the Chandler campaign showcasing many of Fletcher's misrepresentations, and outlining how his political speeches don't necessarily reflect his voting record. on one of the pages of this site, it mentions that it was put together for about $50, which is pretty believable when you consider the number of typos and misspellings i caught while going through it. the navigation leaves a little to be desired as well, but the information is valuable and worth the effort to retrieve.

one of the things that Fletcher constantly tries to push on Chandler is an association with the scandal-ridden Patton administration. for anyone who actually believes this line of bullshit, i'd recommend you read (at least) this page outlining Chandler's Ethics Plan. overall, it outlines Chandler's commitment to government ethics, and in several places lists supporting evidence from his years as State Auditor and Attorney General. like specifically, how he has cracked down on members of his own party when they've done wrong.

in the end, you need to get out there and vote for who you most agree with. and keep in mind while reading that a "spin-free" forum doesn't exist. Chandler applies spin, Fletcher most certainly applies spin, i apply spin. try to get the facts, and when you can't build a complete picture, at least be aware that you can't.

i'm going to vote against Fletcher because i don't like his politics, i don't like his ties to the special interests, and i don't like his lying to the public. i'm going to vote for Chandler because i generally (though not totally) agree with his politics, i love his ability to break from strict party loyalties in pursuit of justice, i like his committment to ethics in government (self-policing and watchdogging), and i like how he's tried to run a "clean" campaign (if you disregard that mess during the primaries) promoting his own merits and outlining his opponent's record without resorting to snippy and erroneous personal attacks (as far as i've seen).

but again, to reiterate, read shit for yourselves, get the facts, make your own decision. what's right to me may not be for you, which is what democracy is all about.