As much as I hate to say it, I think that unless something horrible happens, Bush's gonna be nigh unbeatable next year. He just holds all the cards - he'll play 'em at strategic points between now and November. *sigh* More Bush :(

I hate to say it... But Bush can be easily beat, but the Democrats need to change their attitude.

The Democrats have become quite good at their own version of the "Southern Strategy" -- dividing us all into groups based upon race, ethnicity, religion, wealth, sexuality, age and then pitting each against the other -- that they have forgotten what a Liberal once was.

Liberal politicians were once open-minded and forward looking folks who spoke with enthusiasm and optimism for our country. Their policies were often wrong, but they were optimistic They believed in a brighter future.

Now all we hear from liberal politicians is how bad things are, how they will only get worse, and how "group xxx" is being persecuted and abused by "group yyy".

If they remember how Kennedy got elected they can easily beat Bush. Kennedy was a dreamer. He had grand plans and great hope for our Republic. Even Dean could beat Bush were he to find some principles and optimism.

Bush can be beat.

Good point

Was a comment deleted?

There was a comment above my first message that pointed to an external link. While I was writing that comment was apparently deleted?

When are you going start your political career? Your reasoning is sound and the values you express are those I would like see in a political candidate.

Woohoo, Wil is a Deaniac? :) Check out the blog at www.blogforamerica.com

Dean has some flaws, but good lord he can be refreshing to listen to. I just wish more people would open their minds and their ears and see what he (and all of the opposition to Bush) has to say. I think overgeneralizations and propaganda about the democrats, and about the more liberal-minded populace in general, is what really powers Bush right now.

Both parties sell themselves to their special interests. They just have (somewhat) different interests. Personally, I vote for gridlock. It's best way not to get reamed by the gov't.

Side note: As I was watching Celebrity Poker Showdown, I was amazed at how... well, boring it was. Apparently, being an actor doesn't necessarily mean you have a personality. It ALSO apparently doesn't mean that you know how to play poker. Sheesh, that show could've used you, Wil. :)

Also the Democrats would never win if they came out and said their core agenda was nailing interns in the oval office. If you boil any party down to a single statement and then give it a negative slant I call that propaganda, not fact. You might as well say Jesus is bad because catholic priests molest boys. The fact is the economy just grew faster than any time in Clintons 8 years. The fact is I feel safer because Sadam is in jail. Those are facts, not propaganda.

And democrats would never get elected if they just told minorities that they really didn't give a damn about them. Until they try to leave the ghettos and move into their neighborhood that is.

I'm as against Bush as any man you'll find, but this post was pure bull. Ever see a piece of right-wing propoganda that had no factual basis whatsoever? This is the same, but on the other side of the spectrum. The core of the Republican party is not "selling America piece by piece", any more than the core of the Democratic party is "taking away jobs, money, and freedoms from white people".

Partisan bickering helps nobody. Ever. I'm shocked (okay, not shocked, but definately disappointed) to see Wil post a quote that's so completely unfounded in reality.

I think it's a bit soon to talk up Bush and the economy. At this point, he's still at a net job loss for his term. Yes he inherited an economy that was going down, but nevertheless, things are hardly great.

As for your safety, I don't get why ANYONE would feel safer with Sadam in custody. I'm glad he's gone. I hope the Iraqi people form a solid stable and honest government and that in 5 or 10 years our men and women are all home.

But Sadam was never a particularly big threat to us. Certainly not the imminent threat that we were lead to believe (by both parties).

The reality is we're no more, nor less safe than we were 2 months ago (despite the raised terror threat).

As for who will get elected, I can't imagine Dean winning. He'll have to move way to the right to get to the center. And while the hard-core democrats may like what he's saying, I don't see him pulling in enough of those in the middle.

Personally, I'd be more comfortable with Kerry or Edwards. I don't know much about Braun, but from what little I heard a few months, I thought she sounded intelligent and well spoken. However, I don't think we're at a point where a Woman can get elected, much less a black woman. Hopefully it will happen in my lifetime

I enjoyed reading Wil's post and feel he is a very well-spoken man. I totally agree with what Kevin had to say above...except that I have yet to find a candidate I really want to support. They all have faults. I hate to have to vote for a lesser of evils but it might end up that way.

The Dems won't win until they ditch the current weak party leadership. The fact that this election so far has been about process instead of issues shows how badly managed the party is. It's ludicrous to have stories about how hurt Lieberman was that Gore came out for Dean and how Gore did it to spite or ward off the Clintons. Who cares?! I want to hear about what these yahoos are gonna do if elected.

Given my wish, I'd chose Clark mainly because I agree with most of what he says and he passes the credibility test when it comes to foreign policy matters, which Dean has shown himself to be no more prepared than George Bush. Dean's latest Osama thing was just icing on Bush's cupcake.

One of the biggests strikes against Clark for me though, is when he said he'd consider Hillary as his running mate. Hell no. No Clinton in the Whitehouse ever again. I'm not all that terribly unhappy with Wm Clinton's job performance (other than NAFTA, draconian welfare reform, and the idiotic anti-gay policies he instituted--DOMA and DADTDP), but rather his personal lack of manners and discretion. While Hillary is according to a recent poll the most admired woman in America, she is also the most reviled woman by conservatives and would only serve to galvanize and activate the Rethuglican party. If she thought there was a vast right wing conpiracy to *uck her up, she ain't seen nothing until she runs for the presidency/or the VP spot.

Shame on Gore for handpicking a candidate and shame on Clark for green-lighting his doom.

One thing the Dem leadership should have done is rally all the party faithful in a rousing jeer and chastisement of any news anchor who hosts a debate and makes the whole show about themselves or about process rather than the issues at hand.

And the leadership should take Clinton and Gore out back behind the wood shed and tell them to shut the *uck up. This election has nothing to do with either or them and no family squabbling will be permitted.

Of course, being Democrats, they're used to losing elections and nothing will change. It'll be Roger Ramjet (stuffed crotch and all) for president again. Karl Rove must be giggling in anticipation, assuming he's not shredding memos about Valerie Plame.

Neil Bush makes one day profit of over $170,000.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/01/elec04.neil.bush.ap/index.html

Is any other comment really needed?

And the Democrats are pure as the driven snow?I agree we need political reform.

Kevin, a quick read of Dean's policy statements will reveal that he's a centrist, not a radical. And a quick look at his growing numbers will reveal that he's no flavor-of-the-month.

Personally, I'm voting for whoever is nominated, but I'd say my top choices are Dean, Clark, or Edwards. I'm a little further away from Edwards on the issues, but he's not full of crap, unlike Kerry and Gephardt, who have spent way too much time in Washington for me to believe a word they have to say.

Damn, nobody out there likes my boy Dennis Kucinich? I must admit, if Dean is the front runner out of the Democratic party, than Kucinich doesn't stand a chance. Oh well, fellow liberals should check out www.kucinich.us

I think the most frightening thing about this process is that alot of people actually buy the party line BS. And the Democrats, honestly, aren't much better in alot of respects, but they're seemingly only viable alternative.

What needs to be done is this: We need a viable, common sense third party that has REAL people behind it. But thanks to the current system, based solely on money, it doesn't quite stand a chance. But it needs to go forward all the same.

Wheaton in '08.

No. Seriously.

Thoughts from a life-long Republican,

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122803D.shtml

I know you said that you were not interested in running, but I would vote for you tommorow and you know that, many others would too.
What better way to effect change wil? seriously.

once again Wil, you and I are on the same page... Tonight I felt compelled to add another rant of my own to my website. Now all we have to do is convince all these people to get out and vote. I know it will be my first time since '92. Now I understand why it is so important, now i am not full of angst, now I know what we must go out and make a difference. Having a child in this world is the best way to truly understand.

I don't agree with President Bush's politics, but still I think that the only way the democrats could win the election was if Clinton was candidate. And since this is more than improbable, let's prepare for another four years of Bush. But look at it like this: After that at least it's gonna be over. In Germany, we had 16 (!!!) years of Kohl... Yuck...

The quote is from Howard Dean, isn't it? I think I read this a few days ago.

Substitute a few names and party affiliations and Will's post would describe either party.

Come on WIll, you are smarter than that.

Politics. A waste of time, money, and resources. Politicians, The epitome of greed and squandering.

I see no useful purpose of either.

Which is exactly why Republicans are supported by a majority of white males (the latest poll). If something is not done soon, we're going to have four more lousy years of Baby Bush with all the old white men owning the world and everyone else in soup lines and street corners. It's scary. If you read a 2003 breakdown of each state, the states that Baby Bush won in 2000 have actually become MORE Republican. Moreover, those states have GAINED electoral votes while the states that Gore won have LOST electoral votes. What does that tell everyone? Something to think about.....

Well, Happy New Year to everyone on WWdN. Here's hope for a more positive and "honest" 2004!

Wil, that's probably one of of the most heartfelt rants that anyone in your profession would have the balls to say. The Republi-CAN'T party holds power through the money it controls. Today, MEDIA corporations hold that power for them. FOX News, so called "fair and balanced". ABC controlled by Disney, NBC owned by General Electric and CBS owned by Westinghouse. There was a brilliant Robert Smigal cartoon for SNL, Conspiracy Theory Rock which was only allowed to air once. (Gee, I wonder why?)

Where we are headed as a nation is almost as nightmarish a world like in the show "Max Headroom", but with a much more sinister undertone. Pollution control laws are ignored, because corporate pigs won't make enough money. The rich are allowed to get richer while taking any chance of financial freedom away from the poor. Government is controlled by the military industrial complex as well as the oil companies. September 11th was the Reichstag fire all over again, with Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft the three people who most benefited from it.

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

If you go to that website, you'll see something's MISSING from all those pictures of the Pentagon after the September 11th attacks. Namely the AIRPLANE! The photos raise serious doubt on what really happened at the Pentagon. Hitler said that the bigger a lie was, the more people would believe it. All the world was focused on was watching the collapse of the World Trade Center in shock and horror.

Even THAT was a preventable tragedy because the city of New York UNDERSTOOD the possibility of terrorists crashing a plane into the WTC from the first day it opened. New York had trained helicopter gunships with orders to protect the city's buildings. There was a 14 mile no-fly-zone all around New York City long before September 11th. Someone (possibly Cheney?) gave the direct orders that the helicopter gunships were to STAND DOWN that day! Plus note which way the two towers collapsed, they collapse INWARD, suggesting a controlled detonation. Explosives could easily have been smuggled into the WTC weeks prior by teams disguised as maintenance workers.

We have born witness to a national tragedy far worse than that of what our parents saw 40 years earlier with the cold blooded murder of JFK. We have seen the rise of George Orwell's Big Brother, perhaps twenty years off but still just the same. This is not the America of our forefathers anymore but instead a corrupted facsimile.

http://www.nramadness.com/nra_q.html

See the film that the National Rifle Association DOESN'T want you to see!

SCIENTIA REMOVEOBLIS TERROR DEUS GLORIFICA!

Take care, Wil.

Rocknar

Did anyone actually go and *read the article*? I thought it was well written and made good points about how Dean could be the new FDR if he stuck to his guns about economic justice for all. Personally I like Dean (but I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being) for his willingness to take Bush to task on his record and actually voice the concerns that I have been feeling, but everyone else has been too chickensh*t to say outloud for fear of being branded "unpatriotic". I don't mind being patriotic, I love my country, but I'm not going to fall into this NATIONALISTIC trap that the citizens of this country are falling into. Disent is patriotic and I'm not the first to say so:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President."
- President Theodore Roosevelt

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1912
yanked from: http://thomasmc.com/dissent.htm

Well, I think that comparison of yours between Bush and Hitler is VERY farfetched... you can think about Bush whatever you want, but there's no reason to compare him to Hitler. That doesn't do him justice at all. What Hitler has done hopefully remains unique. Hopefully...

It's hard to know where to begin . . . I'm no friend of the Republican party, mind you, but I couldn't help but notice a few things.

For starters, the claim that Republicans want to "sell America piece by piece to their campaign contributors" makes absolutely no sense. It is a hollow bit of rhetoric that, if you try to analyze it, describes nothing whatsoever. Notice that this phrase doesn't actually describe a specific type of behavior or transaction. Instead, this kind of language is derived from a whole host of re-cycled left-wing straw-man propaganda (which was pioneered by the socialists of the late 1800's, who once they had power imprisoned and brutalized the people of Europe, culminating in the oppressive anti-liberty regimes of the 1930s).

Also, the part about living "from one paycheck to the next" fails to account for a few basic facts -- that true poverty hasn't existed in this country since the 1930s (when the Democrat FDR was in power prolonging and exacerbating the Depression for the sake of his own lust for ... more power). Of course some true poverty exists, but it is on a miniscule level by historical standards. In modern America, the factor with the strongest correlative factor to OBESITY is POVERTY (that is, you are more likely to be obese the lower your income). There are televisions in over 98% of American homes, and cable service in 94%. And JUST MAYBE a lot of these people would be able to make their paychecks last longer if they weren't subject to an immoral and unconscionable host of TAXES (beginning with the income tax) that confiscate their hard-earned wealth before they get access to their own money.

And Bill Clinton, our "first black president," chose to put his over-priced office in Harlem ... why? Could he have been pandering to a low form of black/white prejudice? When his lawyer stood up before Congress during his perjury-impeachment trial and she argued that we shouldn't worry about his having violated Paula Jones's civil rights because Clinton had such a fine political record on civil rights, was THAT a low form of black/white prejudice? Couldn't THAT be called pandering?

It's a little late for the Democrats to start whining about racially divisive politics.

Wil,

Why do you do that? Why not stick to what you're actually good at? Story-telling, jokes, geekdom, trivia, etc... That's where you shine! When you post these types of entries it tarnishes your reputation as a thinking man. Now your just sputtering someone else's contrived conspiracy theory.

Yea, it's me again.

I am ashamed to admit that I had the opportunity to be at the event where Dean gave that speech, but that despite my support for Dean and my belief that he is probably the only one of the Democratic candidates that has a chance against the GOP machine, I didn't go.

Ok. So technically, I had to teach that day. But I still wish I could have been there.

I don't get it. How old do people have to be before they realize that voting is a joke, as are the mainstream political parties? Apparently, a thousand years old, because even old people are still voting and talking about this or that Republicratitarian hope.

The people who run things want to put all the races into a blender. Just turn on the television! A race-less people is a rootless, purposeless people who are easily enslaved and herded about like cattle. "Cattle" or "goyim" is a name jews have seen fit to give to gentiles.

"Republicans" dividing the races? Give me a break. They pander to all non-Whites and always screw their White voter base: every, single, time. And that isn't a new pattern, but one easy to miss when you have a bad memory.

What about the jews? They have more political power than any other group (3 trillion U.S. dollars total to Israel for example- beat that! we even go to war on their behalf), and so are the only power. Its all or nothing in politics. There is no "sharing" of power.
Even mentioning them is supposed to bring the sky down on the infidel. Who is in power? The ones your NOT allowed to critize. For many years now (almost a century), those who are supposedly above criticism are the jews.
WHO on television, the supposed replacement for reality, is ever critizing jews? I'm not talking about some "Israelis", I'm talking about jews themselves. No one.

Sure there are plenty of White politicians who are screwing their own people, but they are just the frontmen anyway, regardless of their crime. Its like the mafia- the Italians are the frontmen and take all the heat and do the dirty work, and the financial "managers", who are almost always jews (Bugsy Seagal, et al.), make the money.

I for one am sick of "uniting" with non-Whites who don't consider me a human being. I do not want to "change their minds" or "reason" with such people. I rather be left to make my own decisions, without having to constantly guard my very life (and those I am responsible for, including children) against impulsively violent races who would attack me on a whim of resentment or dissatisfaction.

Am I the only one living in reality?

Thanks for posting this, Wil. It's an important article to read and think about, and it was an important speech to read/listen to and think about... for a lot of reasons.

I realize that Wil and most of the people who comment on this site have liberal philosphies about politics. I do not. I would like to comment on today's post because I am troubled by it. I am a proponent of open thought and respect everyone else's beliefs. I hope that readers on this site realize that I am offering my thoughts not to be inflamatory or disrespectful, but rather to comment on what I think is a harmful statement.

First, I believe that the biggest problem with American politics is that people of all viewpoints put out overly simplistic statemnets full of half truths. If these statment are said enough some people accept them as accurate.

First, where did the message in this post come from? Who wrote it and what is their credentials? Is this "Southern Stragegy" something that is well documented? Is it the truth or an urban legend? Without a source who is to know?

Second, if such a strategy was indeed employed by Nixon, where is the proof that Reagan adopted it? Nixon was not an honest guy, and might embrace something like this, but this doesn't mean that Reagan or other republican's after them were/are.

This post upset me because I am so sick and tired of the slander that republicans (and especially white males) are these greedy people who are anti-minority. I am a white male republican and I want women to succeed, have good friends of many ethnicities, and want harmony over strife. The reason that I usually vote republican is that I believe that free markets, low taxes, and policies that are friendly to business result in the greatest prosperity for all people regardless of whatever "group" they may be a part of.

For some reason some people think that corporations are out to screw everyone. Yes, there are some corrupt business leaders like the criminal Enron executives. In my opion most CEOs are also paid way too much. But, the truth is that without globlally competitive corporations America wouldn't have such a high standard of living. A lot more people would be living in poverty. Corporations are where a great many American workers get their paychecks. Corporate stocks are where a great many Americans invest for retirement or to save for college for their kids. Their is a direct relationship between the success of corporations and the financial well-being of the general American population.

To be fair, people on the political right have made equally glib statements against the democrats that are also destructive. A good example is that the democratic leadership is for illegal immigration becuase they think it will build their voting base. I'm sure that some democrats have thought this way. But, I'm also sure that some others are appalled at the accusation. Condeming a whole party over a statement like this is called stereotyping.

What we all need to do is carefully examine any political statement before we accept it as a truth. A lot of crap is spewed out by both sides. The beauty of democracy and America is that as citizens we can choose our leaders. By not carefully analyzing any propaganda that we come across, we are cheating ourselves.

Oops! I didn't see until after sending my comment that there was a link and that this comment was part of a larger article.

But, I still think that my remarks are applicable. Howard Dean is saying something, but where is the proof? We need to really need to challenge what a politician says regardless of their party.

you know, everyone seems to be forgetting how jfk won the election back in the day.

nixon won the popular vote. kennedy won the electoral vote. i don't recall hearing people having a shit fit back then about it.

and hell, jfk was elected by dead people!

The sad thing are people who make politics black and white like this. There are good reasons to be a Republican and there are good reasons to be a democrat. Neither party is pure goodness and neither party is pure evil. Both parties have their share of idoits, bigots, *phobes, but both parties have their share of thoughtful, caring, wonderful people. Both parties have politicians who are scoundrals, people who twist and break the rules, people who play the race card, etc.

Instead of painting the other side as evil, it worthwhile to take time to understand them, to approach them with an open mind. A quick test -- if you can't understand why someone is a republican or democrat without painting them as a baby-killer or a woman hater, anti-rich or anti-poor, invoking the terms evil, greedy, hateful, unsuccessful, angry, etc. then you real don't understand them. Do you understand why someone could be against affirmative action and not be a racist? Why someone could support abortion and not want to see babies killed?

Our nation will become stronger only if the populance proceeds with an open minds (on both sides), discusses the real issues (instead of lining up as party lines tell us too), and throw away the brand-names of "Democrat" and "Republican".

FWIW.

Amen, its good to see you checking things out here in the twin cities too! Time for some good strategy to win this election!

Well, I'd just like to quote Michael Moore in saying that if Bush wins the upcoming election, Canada won't be looking so cold anymore.

Seems to me the Democrats are the dividers. They embrace the notion of hyphenated americans. Republican core values consist of every American having the same chance to go as far with that as they can with as little intervention from the govt. as possible. Tax cuts for the rich? The rich pay most of the taxes. Our govt. is not (or should not) be here to provide for us. Thats the individuals responsibility. Even G.W. got it wrong with the prescription drug entitlement. It's not the govt. job to buy drugs for seniors. Most seniors didn't even want the program.

The racial/ethno/whatever division I see exsists in the left wing. 'What's in it for the afro-americans? What about the hispanic americans? What can we do for the homosexual community?'
Aren't we all Americans? (no slam intended for those outside the USA)

I think the Dem.s would have a better chance if they started embracing some of the major successes(despite a major terrorist attack, black outs, shuttle disaster, earthquakes, etc.) that G.W. has had,(a growing economy, capture of a ruthless dictator and bringing liberty to a terrified county)and offer IDEAS to make it even better. They wouldn't look as evil hearted to the mainstream as they do.

Dean is an angry moron.

I agree with the person that said Wil should stick to story telling. I'm all about free speech and people's right to their opinion, but Will is plain wrong on this and he should stick to what he knows. It sounds like that Wil has been around so many leftist entertainments types that he has started to believe all the lies. Dean is a perfect example of a democRAT that has done things to divide, yet it has only helped him. Anybody remember the comment about the confederate flag? Tell me that wasn't a ploy for southern white male voters.

wow, i'm really glad to hear that Steven Ginty doesn't vote.

I'm a long time Democrat. I didn't vote for Bush the last time, and I won't vote for Bush this time either. However, I don't see Bush loosing the election this year for 3 basic reasons. One, people aren't blaming Bush for the bad economy. Two, people aren't blaming Bush for the problems in Iraq. And Three, the democratic party refuses to confront Bush on any issues, because they don't want to appear unpatriotic. Its sad, but true. I can only hope I'm wrong. There is only one solution, Wil you've got to run for President. I've got 3 words for you:

President Wil Wheaton

Kind of has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

Rocknar, I could call you names based on what you posted about conspiracy theories related to 911, but I don't think that would help you. Perhaps some advice to seek professional help would be better. You say "The buildings collapsed inward..." due to explosives placed there by Bush's people. As Doctor Evil said, "....riiiight...". You honestly believe that? Don't know much about physics eh? I saw that video over and over, and the collapses were caused by the airplanes and the resulting fires. Anyone with the sense to open a box of cereal in the morning can see that. How about the order in which the towers collapsed based on where they were struck? The first tower hit collapsed last if I remember correctly. It was hit closer to the top, and something like 20 to 30 minutes before the second airplane. Less weight above the damage meant that it took longer for the structure to fail from the heat because there was less load. The second tower struck collapsed first because the damage was lower and there was more weight above that structure to support. So if as you say explosives were planted, how did they decide to detonate the second tower that was struck first? Pure luck?

Also, when you watch shows about building demolition on the discovery channel, you see lots of holes drilled in columns...I guess you could do that without anyone hearing it. The outside structure of the towers was the main skeleton...so you are saying that you could set off explosives and not break any windows? All the independent experts that looked at the footage would have noticed that kind of thing don't you think?
To sum it up Rocknar, you are a fraggin' idiot. Try spending more time in the real world than reading pro Democrat Bush is Evil websites. Pull your head out. The level of hatred for Bush astounds me. No he's not perfect, but I shudder to think what would have happened after 911 if Gore had been in office. The blood of the people killed on 911 is on Clintons hands. He could have had Bin Laden, but he was more interested in his next hummer from an intern or building his "legacy". Both parties are corrupt to a certain level, but when I look to see who's picking my pocket for money to give to someone who's "more in need of it" than I am, it's not George Bush. The left wing media is very effective at programming I suppose, I'm seeing the results. Every time I hear "Mr. Bush" and not "The President", I just shake my head and say, "Rush is right on that".
Politics, makes my head hurt.

The problem with Wil [and you wil-ites] is:

With all his bitching about Bush [most of which I agree with], he [and YOU] offer little to no other alternatives to him [Bush]. For EVERY argument you all have against Bush, the same based types of arguments can be said for your guys [gals].

Challenge yourselves. Please?

Where do you really stand, Wil?!? I mean, now that all the O'Riely book deals are all signed that is. ;)

Your political rants coming out now after so long with nothing to be said disappoints me, Wil.

Did you fear perhaps that with little more than word of mouth and your web site as a peddling point for your book sales in light of a failed acting/comedy career might have been affected by your extreme political one sided views?!? Don't go and censor me now, lad -- I'm just curious.

By the way, love your book. Got it by my bed and the wife and I are reading it! ;)

Wil,

NAFTA was signed by Clinton.
Clinton is responsible for the largest increase in the drug war over the past 15 years.
Dems get just as many campaign contributions as repubs.

Your complaints about republicans are so unoriginal and cookiecutter I think I might not come here anymore.

Didn't you once call yourself a libertarian? Are you ever aware what Libertarian policy is about?

Typical Democratic strategy: accuse Republicans of what they themselves have done. It is to the Democratic Party’s advantage to draw out racial differences. That is the only way they ever win office anymore. The Democrats have to keep bringing up race. When are they going to learn that race is irrelevant? Dean knows what he is saying is not true. He knows that it is his party that’s tearing people apart. How does he sleep at night?

BTW...
Anyone posting who thinks Wil wrote this, didn't read the article (linked to "Check this out:") Wil's just reporting what Dean said. The entire post is from Dean's speech. So enough already about this "Wil Wheaton for president" stuff. The only way he could become president is if he 'reversed the polarity' of the political climate in America. :-)

Still luv ya, Wil. Keep them monkeys typing!

If anyone's interested, Steve Perry also has a blog as well, although his friends seem to post to it more than he does nowadays. :)

Interesting. British conservative leader Micheal Howard has just published a list of his core beliefs: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,9061,1115024,00.html. Sounds similar to me. Does this make Howard a Deaniac? (you don't have to answer that one). Dean's comments are fairly unremarkable aspirational stuff that candidates make to give themselves an intellectual appeal. I wouldn't expect him to make it the main plank of his policy manifesto come the summer.

Will: Post whatever you like. The desire to bring peoples attention to something doesn't have to imply that you agree with it.

Everyone: Politics is not the path to saving what is wrong with this world. An American "Regime Change" is not the cure. Spewing your opinion and attacking the opinions of others is ignorance. Think of the things that you do in your life, the choices you make, your relationship to the world and yourself. Fix that and the world will be a better place. That is your vote of true democracy.

"The rich are allowed to get richer while taking any chance of financial freedom away from the poor."

Um, no. The rich get richer because they make good financial decisions. The poor stay poor because they make bad financial decisions. End of story.

Are you poor because some rich guy stole from you? What did you own that was taken? That whole "rich get richer while the poor get poorer" saw is tired, and about as relevant as the racist spew Ginty posted above.

I think it's interesting how many people immediately got riled up about this post and didn't bother to check if Wil wrote it or not. I thought it was obvious he pasted it from another article and was just bringing our attention to it. This doesn't state how Wil feels about it or where he stands with any of the candidates. I think many of you should take a step back, calm down and relax. Politics is a flame waiting to spread and burn everyone in it's path when you have so many different people with different views and feelings involved. Don't attack Wil unless you are sure of what he is saying, and even then, no need to attack, isn't everyone entitled to their thoughts and beliefs as long as it doesn't harm another? Just a thought by someone who doesn't usually involve herself in political discussions for exactly the result of what happened above.

Oh, and Happy New Year Wil.

It's True!!!

This kind of partisan scare tactics really make me angry. I am an active member of the Republican Party. We are not a bunch of rich white people who stand around smoking brandy and cigars and try to figure out how to keep everyone down. We are people who believe that the less government there is in people's lives and the more they have the opporunity to make something of themselves, the better off EVERYBODY is.
I am a young woman who owns her own consulting business. I used to be so poor that shopping at Kmart was a treat. I went two winters in Ohio with no heat in my house but a space heater.
But I went to college, got a degree and now I am doing just fine thank-you. My single mom taught me by example that all you need to do is work hard and have faith and you'll make it.
My own Congressman came from a blue collar family and he went to college, became a businessman, became the youngest Mayor of Dayton, Ohio and is now a Congressman. Both of us have been lifelong Republicans.
In my local party, there are plenty of women of all colors and more and more black men are joining our ranks. We have people of all economic levels and backgrounds in our group, from college students just starting out to some of the region's most promient families. All of this proves something I have often said: that you don't need to belong to a country club to be a Republican any more than you need a union card to be a Democrat.
As for Bush being a terrible President, I have to disagree. Not because I am a Republican but because of the fact that Saddam Hussein is no longer terrorizing his people or funding other terrorists. I have two cousins serve in Iraq and they have both said that most of the Iraqi people are glad that we overthrew a government that they were powerless to stop. I know Iraqis who live here and they are thrilled that Saddam is gone. They compare the horrors that Saddam and his ilk did to people to those done by Hitler. Would you have Hitler still in power if you lived in that time? Both men could only be stopped by being overthrown and their own people couldn't do it.We stepped in to help people being oppressed.Isn't that our responsiblity, to help others?
Furthermore, those of you who say "No blood for oil" we have not exported not one barrel of oil for ourselves from Iraq. Iraq has the same deals they had before the war.
As for Bush on the economy, three things happened during the Bush's term in office. Number one, a natural downturn in our economy and number two, September 11, number three investment scandals. Bush has done little which would negatively effect our economy (such as raise taxes) and has in fact cut taxes for EVERYONE. My cousin, for example, makes $14,500.00 a year and doesn't have to pay federal taxes. He had to pay under Clinton. Lower taxes = more money for people to decide what to do with, whether to spend or invest or save and that equals a better economy.
Investment scandals scared people off from investing their money and without capital businesses profits decrease and people are laid off. There are new laws on the books and in the works to make people's investments safer.
Also, never underestimate the effects that September 11th itself and the aftermath of living in this new age have cost businesses and all levels of government.
Finally, Democrats cater to their own special groups by telling senior citizens that the Republicans want to take away their Social Security checks (we don't), black people that all Republicans are racist (we aren't) and poor people that Republicans don't care because all Republicans are rich and don't understand what it's like to be poor (we do care and we do know because many of us were poor and many of us are middle class.)
In closing, neither party is perfect but neither party is evil incarnate either.

With out a question the clearest take on what the Nixon (now Bush) divide and conquer; then sale out strategy; means in 2004, comes from the December 11, 2003 issue of the Black Commentator:
http://www.blackcommentator.com/68/68_cover_dean.html

Just a couple years earlier, however, Kennedy only won because of very dubious voting in Illinois by Unions. He only won the state by very tiny margin and there are account of literally thousands of union voters trucked across from other states to vote. If the staste would have gone against Kennedy the GOP would have won. Just a note to remind people not to throw stones in glass houses..

As regards Wil posting someone else's political commentary: I'm glad Wil has the freedom to post whatever he likes on HIS site. This liberty allows him to post many humorous and enjoyable tidbits that may or may not be entirely accurate. However, political posts like this one do not tend to be amusing or entertaining. If it were MY site, I would not post commentary that contained the Straw Man fallacy, the Begging the Question fallacy, the Hasty Generalization fallacy, and the Argument Against the Person fallacy all in one brief post! Besides just getting people excited, which might be bad for someone's blood pressure, fallacy-riddled comments don't prove anything. Disclaimer: I am not a Republican or Democrat, I simply believe in accuracy when it comes to these types of comments.
On the other hand: It might be a fun article if it contained fallacies that attacked BOTH right and left wing opinion, and the article was careful to use every fallacy known to man! That would be both fun to write, and to read (with the caveat that the reader had the brains to understand they were reading a joke).

As much as I like coming to this site, I have a hard time wanting to return when I hear uneducated political speech. It seems that you (Wil) enjoy quoting extremes from others yet you do not have a true opinion of your own except hate. That can be a big turn off to some readers. One thing you need to understand Wil, a large amount of your readers live and breath what you write. When you write hate, they feel hate and return that towards their peers. Before you start listing Republican crimes in the white house, take a look as some of your favorite dems such as Clinton and Kennedy.

Remember Wil, a lot of people read your word and take it as gold. You have a powerful tool, use it wisely

Wil - very nice post. I couldn't agree with the words of the post more.

As for the Republicans - you folks say you want Government out of your lives. Bush has created the largest Government in the history of this country. Furthermore, the Bush administration tramples on the right to free speech, jury trials and due process. The Patriot act was passed to use against terrorists and is instead being used against American citizens. What part of any of that is small Government?

Not all Republicans are racists. No one with any sense would say that. But do you folks honestly think that the Republican party doesn't tacitly stand for racism and homophobia? Think about it. Every single person on this board knows someone (and probably a lot of people) who are racist or homophobic and likely both. Are those people Democrats or Republicans? Are they shunned or tolerated? Ever heard of Strom Thurmond? How about Bill O'Reilly calling Mexicans "wetbacks"? Anyone want to kick his commentary over to the Democrats?

As for selling America piece-by-piece, some of Bush's best buddies and biggest campaign contributors are in Enron. How many people from Enron are in jail? One? None? Bush is guilty of enormous tax cuts to the rich, enormous no-bid contracts in Iraq and the constant relaxation of business and environmental regulations. The Clean Air act is a giveaway to power companies, the Healthy Forest Initiative allows an increase in logging to big logging companies, the Medicare act is a giant giveaway to insurance companies. FCC media consolidation makes big media even bigger. At every turn, this administration panders to and lines the pockets of its biggest and richest campaign contributors.

There are good Republicans, and there are good Conservative ideals (personal responsibility, small government, fiscal responsibility). But I really think the Republicans need to wake up and realize that George W. Bush does not embody your ideals. He's a "neoconservative", which to my ear says that he throws out all the good things about being a real conservative.

We need someone who will spend responsibly, who will recover the 2.3 million jobs lost in the last three years, who will fix our broken international alliances, who will be truthful to the American people, who will work for the bottom 90% income bracket and who will pursue the REAL War on Terror instead of a convenient substitute.

Wil - it's your site. Don't let the uninformed or the willfully ignorant or anyone else, including me, tell you what to post.

Isn't it rather ironic that the blog subject Wil gave us is "united we stand" and yet the comments we have made show how truly divided we are? I worry for us if this is our version of "united"....

It used to be that liberals and conservatives merely disagreed on the issues. Today, with the radical polarization between the two, they don't merely disagree, they actually live in two entirely separate realities.

I feel quite confident in saying that conservatism is largely analogous to evil. I fear that Bush will be near impossible to beat by anyone other than Clark. Yet, in the end, due to Bush's replete evil, he will come to a far nastier end than merely losing an election. Karma has a way of dealing with folks like Bush.

Take heart. One day, the capture of deposed President Bush from a hiding hole will be international news.

It's true that not all conservatives are racist--but all racists are conservative. Wonder what it is about conservatism that attracts them?

I think we need an ancroynm for Will's conservaitve voters. AWWDNRWVR - Another Will Wheaton Dot Net Reader Who Votes Republican. ;-)

Wow, if this is from Dean, then I'm very disappointed. This kind of partisan ranting really doesn't become him. Guess that leaves the Libertarians for me this year.

JoAnn

I'm REALLY tired of people thinking/saying that anyone in "show business" has not right to make political statements, and "stick to what they know!" What a total CROCK!! You may not agree with the stance Wil is taking, but it shows your total disreguard for ALL AMERICANS--you *are* still an American, right Wil?--having the right of Free Speach. When was that right revoked for people in show business???

I'll vote for whoever any party not-Rupugnitant chooses to run...and hope that somebody "Trumps" Baby-liar Bush. The facts are, maybe Bill "lied" about his affair; most men would. But Bush lied about "world affecting" things, to start a WAR! And, they still haven't gotten the right man, Osma! Has everybody forgotten that it was he and his "religious fanatics" that brought down the Towers? As bad as Sadam was, I myself will NOT FEEL SAFER until they get ben Laden.

--Joe Fekete

Steve Tanner posted: One thing you need to understand Wil, a large amount of your readers live and breath what you write. When you write hate, they feel hate and return that towards their peers...

Boy, what a generalization.

While I AM a long-time-and-still fan of Mr. Wheaton, his is NOT my guru, and even if he "hates" Bill Shatner, that doesn't make *me* hate WS, any more than him posting an article by "somebody else" make me want to hate Bush. [I've made *those* decisions on my own!]

Those who don't want to visit Wil's site don't have to, just don't, and don't make your "leaving" sound like any skin off any of our backs. We won't miss you!

--Joe Fekete

For those of you that don't understand my or others' disagreement with Wil on this issue should know that we do enjoy coming to this site. I have not met Wil in person, but do know several people who know Wil and I believe he is truly a nice guy. I also am a fan of his work and I seek out people with different opinions than mine because it only makes me stronger as a person and firms up my personal beliefs. I think a general flaw with those on the left of the political spectrum is that they don't do that...that is that they only socialize with those of like beliefs and general only read and listen to those media outlets that they agree with.

I do realize that Wil did QUOTE in this post, but by posting the way he did makes it seem that he agrees wholeheartedly. There are other obvious clues to the fact within the HTML of this page (i.e., URL links to leftist webpages).

It is fine for "celebrities" to give their political views, but I don't think it is very smart for individuals to put their full trust and base a decision based on a celebrity endorsement. Individuals need to do research on their own and look at what a candidate truly believes, not just what is written on their website, but what the individual candidates have been quoted to say.

I personally do not agree with everything that George W. Bush, The President, has done or said. I do, however, have to vote for who I think will and is doing the best job possible. Life is full of difficult choices and sometime we have to do something we don't like. If we had a skiing crisis or medical outbreak where we needed someone from Vermont in control, I would vote for Dean. The bottom line is that Bush is the best man for the job now.

And the Democratic Party never campaigns dirty. What about Bush's DUI info being released a couple of days before the election 4 years ago. Oh no, the Democrats are all perfect.

Republicans,Democrats, Whigs, the Green Party-who cares? And yes, I did say Whigs! Every 4 years it's the same ol'cockamamie(!) bullshit where everyone gets riled up over an election of a President. Wil,thanks for stirring shit up. By doing so you've given all of us the power to exercise our right to comment to your post by filling it up with nothing but our own useless views on what we beleive politics to be.
Also, that Al Sharpton one crazy mofo!

What a load of horse well Donkey Crap in this case. The problem is that you LIBERALS don't want to face THE TRUTH, yes THE THRUTH something that burns you up inside. There are different kinds of people there are WELFARE QUEENS, there are BLOOD SUCKING IMMIGRANTS. AND THERE ARE GOOD HONEST IMMIGRANTS AND GOOD PEOPLE ON WELFARE. The reason why there are blood suckers and welfare queens you ask? well it is your treatment of handing out so many hand outs to people. Everywhere I look liberals are handing out whatever people need to people, well folks it doesn't work that way, no it doesn't. The way it works is this, you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not happyness given to you, no you have to go out and earn it, liberals want a week and kind gentle America wich gets our buildings bombed and crash to the ground. GWB wants a strong, self defending country that says "enough of this crap, lets do things right and work hard for our country, lets make this the best country in the world, if you want to get off your lazy butts and work". Now your probably saying something about "BIG OIL", THATS IS CRAP, I want examples of "BIG OIL HELPING GWB GET INTO THE WHITE HOUSE" see there are none, so if he owns an oil well no big deal, he is HUMAN, MORE IMPORTANT HE IS AMERICAN he has the right. So lay off the man and take that liberal smurck off of your face. After all didn't Bill Clinton have Oral $ex on his desk as 18 service men died? and you say that means nothing, how in the world did that make America look, no wonder all these terrorist want to "BOMB THE INFADELS", our former Impeached President Bill Clinton was dropping his drawers on the desk, we have a city called "SIN" City, and look at our latest movies there is sex in almost everyone of them, I find it hard to even go watch a movie for fear of sex scenes anymore. So just lay off GWB's back, he makes you mad because he is so decent as a person and a human being, Bill Clinton your liberal idol wasn't. Come on, I know what your thinking, gees, I don't want to agree you even though I know your right, and I don't want Wil and my friends to think I'm EVIL so I will just say there both bad, I dont' think so, this is a time to look deep into yourself and say, "Self, do I really want to be a backstabbing, spineless, week, slimeball, WELFARE QUEEN Making LIBERAL? just say no. After all Liberals only feed on one thing, what is it you ask? MAKING PEOPLE DEPEND ON THEM, YES MAKING PEOPLE DEPEND ON THEM. ITS ABOUT THE POWER, WHY ELSE WOULD THEY GIVE OUT SO MANY WELFARE CHECKS, when with conservatives we tell you go out and get off your lazy butts and work for your food, yes work people get off your lazy butts and work. DON'T EVEN START ON "BAD ECONOMY" THERE IS NO "BAD ECONOMY" JUST LAZY PEOPLE SITTING WAITING FOR THERE CHECKS LIKE A BUNCH OF SLIMY LIBERAL COMMUNISTS. And one more thing, your probably thinking of 2000 election, hello he won the electoral college, if you don't understand how that works then you shouldn't be complaining about anything to do with the Government. Gore won the popular vote becacause of places like California that are Populated with the most people, the electoral college prevents 1 or 2 highly populated states from running the whole country. Now your thinking about re-counts, Bush's people didn't even touch them and he still came out ahead in everyone of them done, not only that Gore was making it last longer than it needed, he is a retard, yes he is a flamming liberal retard I said it. Wil Wheaton should go out and get a Bill O'Reilly book and read it, after all I have read some of Michael Moores "crap" Yes Mike it is "crap" he has no proof to back up his statements at all. So Wil if you read this and are pounding your desk and getting ready to hit your computer monitor, or your laptops display just please read Bill O'Reilly's work and see how your eyes will be open, unless your just to affraid to mention that I am right.

Thank You
William Osborne

Go ahead. Call me crazy. But I notice you never once tried to de-bunk my "conspiracy theory" about what happened at the Pentagon. YOU KINNA CHANGE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!

A Boeing 757-200 weighs 100 tons and travels a minimum of 250 MPH. That plane, going 600 MPH plus like the government claims WOULD HAVE UTTERLY DESTROYED THE WHOLE PENTAGON!

Yet all the damage is concentrated in one relatively small area. Why is that, do you suppose?

Don't give me the hogwash, "oh, well that building was SO WELL BUILT!" or "The plane hit so hard it DISINTEGRATED!"

ANYONE who knows their basic physics like I'm sure Wil does would know that 100 tons of anything that hits any building at 600 MPH is going to completely pulverize said building. And there are photos of the Pentagon taken just minutes after the attack that show the building scorched but OTHERWISE STILL INTACT! Try calling me crazy about that one!

Never said I was not coming back to the site. I just warned him to beware of the readers who cannot form an educated opinion by themselves and rely on his every word. Those are the people who we should fear. The people who watch a Michael Moore film and take it for the truth. I read this thread and hear a lot of "Amen Wil!". Something makes me think that if Wil woke up tomorrow supporting Bush, a lot of the same people would follow him. That is the tool he needs to be careful with.

Mr. Wheaton:
Judging from some of the comments, I believe that a few individuals are under the mistaken impression that you penned this post. While you might agree with the posting, it would be considerate to more clearly indicate the origin for some of the less savvy readers.
Sincerely,
K. Landrom

You know, there's nothing funnier than listening to a bunch of Repubs jawing about how "unbeatable" George Dubya is when the Democratic candidates are positively smashing fundarising records left and right, and not just Dean. The other guys are coming into some nice cash too, lots of it.

Dean's poll numbers are climbing constantly. The election is a year off, and Bush's numbers are roughly where his daddy's were when Clinton, the last Democrat who "couldn't win," was in Dean's shoes.

Reagan, like Dean, was also lambasted for losing the election by appealing too strongly to his party's far wing instead of being a centrist. I seem to recall he won.

Besides, $30 million dollars in the past six months before a single vote has been cast says that Dean's got something going on. Let's see how much that'll turn into when the elections actually get underway, shall we?

I agree that the vast majority of Republicans pay too much attention to special interests and their bankbooks. However, the Democrats are JUST AS DIRTY. I get sick of this "us and them" attitude between the two parties. On the one hand, Bush worries me when it comes to personal privacy issues and the environment, but I do think he is at least decisive. Clinton seriously lacked a decisive attitude and worried a little too much about popularity polls. I hope whoever comes next at least gets the job done. Unfortunately, I don't think someone with these qualities resides in either party.

I hate all politicians, even Dean. They are all double-talking sell-outs. I have no faith in our government or our electoral system. I'm waiting for the revolution. The sad thing is...all the gun-toting idiots live in the bible belt. So I guess what I'm saying is, I'm waiting for hell to freeze over. Yay!

First, I shall state that Shatner is jewish.

Second, White people (and "White" should be capitalized as should "Black" and "Yellow", being proper nouns) who are not racist, don't care about White people. That means they are people who don't care about the welfare of their own people! Why is that respectable? Because the television, radio, movies, newspapers, magazines, and other media facets of Big Brother and the school system (a jewish power industry exclusively) says that's respectable.

I only support people who care about me! Why support someone who hates you or only wants to do business deals?

I also support Wil, and I visit this site because it pleases me to read of his successes, which I think are richly deserved. And I'm glad he has a platform to express his opinions, regardless of my opinion of his opinions! So I'm not complaining myself.
Here is my political expression: http://www.dowz.net
It may not be popular but neither was Mendel.

In the sunny, plant-filled apartment where Abbie Hoffman ended his life with a massive overdose of phenobarbital, the artifacts on the wall bespoke decades of rebellion: a poster of the Grateful Dead, another of a raised fist with the word STRIKE!, a bumper sticker reading VOTE REPUBLICAN. IT'S EASIER THAN THINKING

TO Rocknar, the conspiracy guy

I am a practising Civil Engineer with a Engineering degree and a Physics degree.
I am in Ireland, and relatively impartial to the debates including your conspiracy theories.

I can however offer these facts to those impressionable folk who may be persuaded by your theories.

If the plane was completely solid (like a rock) then it would have pierced the pentagon and travelled for some distance beyond. It was not solid so it did not.

As it is a flimsy plane travelling just above the ground at high speed, it exploded when it hit the ground floor of the building.
Like a fly hitting your car windscreen, its ass keeps going until it enters the mess where its head was.
You should not expect to see a plane sitting there with a crumpled nose. (This was not a fender bender, it was an explosive impact)

The strength of the building is not the reason the pentagon mostly survived. The fact is the plane is quite small relative to what is still the worlds largest building (floor area). Even the pictures on your link show that the plane is tiny relative to the building.

A question on that site "Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?"

The answer is in the question.... 3.8 yards high. Roughly the ceiling height of the ground floor. Need i say more.

I will.

You (Rocknar)said "ANYONE who knows their basic physics like I'm sure Wil does would know that 100 tons of anything that hits any building at 600 MPH is going to completely pulverize said building."

It's not. Ignore the weight for a moment. The fact that it was 100tons would not make it destroy anything. It was too flimsy, and hollow. As force will always travel in the path of least resistance, the weak airframe will give way to the sturdy concrete building.

Planes have crashed into peoples homes (little homes) over the years and caused only some damage.
Dont overestimate what a 100 ton plane can do.

I doubt even a 100 ton rock would pulverize that building either.

Wil, I strongly suggest you clarify whether or not something you post is from you or being quoted/excerpted. (sp?) As for my personal beliefs, I think the following fine statements speak for most of what I believe.

Posted by Adele at January 1, 2004 08:51 PM

I am a white male republican and I want women to succeed, have good friends of many ethnicities, and want harmony over strife. The reason that I usually vote republican is that I believe that free markets, low taxes, and policies that are friendly to business result in the greatest prosperity for all people regardless of whatever
"group" they may be a part of.

Posted by dante at January 1, 2004 09:37 PM

The sad thing are people who make politics black and white like this. There are good reasons to be a Republican and there are good reasons to be a democrat. Neither party is pure goodness and neither party is pure evil. Both parties have their share of idoits, bigots, *phobes, but both parties have their share of thoughtful, caring, wonderful people. Both parties have politicians who are scoundrals, people who twist and break the rules, people who play the race card, etc.

Instead of painting the other side as evil, it worthwhile to take time to understand them, to approach them with an open mind. A quick test -- if you can't understand why someone is a republican or democrat without painting them as a baby-killer or a woman hater, anti-rich or anti-poor, invoking the terms evil, greedy, hateful, unsuccessful, angry, etc. then you real don't understand them. Do you understand why someone could be against affirmative action and not be a racist? Why someone could support abortion and not want to see babies killed?

Our nation will become stronger only if the populance proceeds with an open minds (on both sides), discusses the real issues (instead of lining up as party lines tell us too), and throw away the brand-names of "Democrat" and "Republican".

Yours,

Norcalwriter

I came here to post my opinions on Wil's link. Yes, I know that he did not write it, but I gather that he agreed w/ it since he did link to it. But I see that most people have already expressed my opinion, alot more eloquently than I can.

Wil, I respect your right to post this, but I have to tell you that you insulted me with this old, outdated image of the Republican Party. I am 26, female, married, pregnant, w/ a college degree. Please don't perpertuate an old stereotype to falsely strengthen your own argument. It is too ignorant for you.

Katie

Funny, I am now "Rocknar the conspiracy guy".

It's a wonder no one else has really questioned the events at the Pentagon. IF there was a plane crash, why was there so many suspicious actions taken afterward, namely questions that the Fire Chief for Arlington county couldn't answer, like "where was the wreckage of the plane? - why did Donald Rumsfeld have the entire lawn outside paved over? Why did the Associated Press send out the report that a truck bomb detonated minutes after that attack?

But you know what, you're right. No one really cares what happened. That was in the past, after all. People would rather go on with their lives instead of asking important questions. Just like JFK's assassination, no one is concerned with why it happpened, they would just as soon forget all about it.

So I am now "Rocknar the conspiracy guy".

I wear that title like a badge of honor.

Wil Wheaton For President - because 250,000,000 monkeys at 250,000,000 typewriters can't be wrong!!!

Dennis Kucinich is the candidate with a just vision for America.

End to the death penalty
Free healthcare to everyone payed by the government
And a push for 20% renewable energy by 2010

And that is just the start of it. He will challenge this nation to become something better than it is today, that is what politicians should do.

Find out more at www.kucinich.us

If Bush and the neo-cons had been around in the time of Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams, etc., they would have been hanged as despots.

Of course Bush is beatable. He was beaten in 2000. We just have to avoid the cheating theft part that comes after the election better.

Way cool Dean quote!
Howard in 04.

The tea is in the harbor. Read the blog to find out more.
www.blogforamerica.com

Many people from all political persuasions are against Mr. Bush's actions and policies over the last three years. From the Goldwater conservatives to Buchanan libertarians to Wellstone democrats there is outrage that the actual effects of Mr. Bush's policies both domestically and internationally will leave America and Americans weaker in the coming years. From the ridiculous "No Child Left Behind" Act which forces schools to meet unrealistic standardized test scores to the illegal and unconstitutional Bush doctrine of "pre-emptive" aggression against other nation-states, Mr. Bush has shown himself to be as he described himself- A dictator that has no regard for the well being of the United States or it's peoples. If people visiting this site need proof then ask your friends and aquaintances on whether they are better off now or four years ago. If they feel more secure now or four years ago. Ask if they feel that this nation still represents hope for the world or is now pedalling fear to the world under Bush aegis of the "war on terror". Are we as a people under the great experiment of living in a democratic republic ready to bear arms by participating in the democratic politic process or as, Gore Vidal has spoken of, that we, this generation, will let go of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights for the chimera of "security" from the "evil ones"?

Wil,
Please check out www.kucinich.us

He's running for President! Truly an individual determined to see the public good upheld!

Wil,

On this one we disagree - not a little - but by a mile.

The republicans are not about division - they are about individuals having the opportunity to live up to the pontential they have.

The Dem's are about dividing people between the haves, have nots, and wannabe's. The Dem's are about punishing people if they succeed and rewarding people for lack of ambition. The Dem's consistently bring race into the mix - the Republicans don't care about race.

Republicans are about giving people the opportunity to live their life and they can choose to work hard and be successful or to choose not to be.

Republicans are for indivudual choice while Democrats are about lach of choice.

Though, I can agree to disagree and whomever is elected next year will be the President.

To all of you willing to vote for Wil...

Constitutionally he cannot run for President against dubya. Remember, you have to be 35 to be President.

In the same vein I laugh at the people that extend ahnold's governorship to the white house. Sorry, can't happen.

BEWARE! Wil's a TERRORIST! He has a link to the 2004 ALMANAC on the front of his webpage!

(the stupidest announcement from the office of "Homeland In-Security", next thing you know, they'll be saying beware of people with ENCYCLOPEDIAS!)

Okay Wil, you know the routiene. Get on the scales. And you better not weigh more than a duck!

I live in a depressed mill town in a Northeast State. 80 years ago, this area was booming, and families worked hard and built a community. Today, we are famous for our great social programs and welfare benefits...People now flock here from all over with there hands out, and while freeloaders have apartments with cable TV and free food and transportation and medical care, I work hard and pay my way. I'm don't resent them, nor am I complaining. I do pose this question however...Wouldn't it be better to force those people to be productive, rather than encourage their sloth and feeling of entitlement? My premise is that social welfare is often a way of life, a career of sorts, rather than a parachute or safety net for those who run into tough times. Seems to me that we as a country need to stop taking money from hard working folk and giving it to those who often times make no attempt to contribute, then complain if they arent driving a Mercedes. I don't think you can blame conservatives for this problem. Our local economy lost a lot of manufacturing jobs,(No ones fault, unless you want to blame automation and the cost of unions and comp claims) and we need to find a new "buggy whip" to make it here. I don't think professional welfare is a viable base for economic growth. As long as citizens are willing to take for free, and put the burden on those of us who work, there will always be working poor. I don't blame the rich, I don't blame a political party, I blame our American society for making Welfare a viable "career" for so many. Rather than deny it or flame me, come to my town. The largest developement project on our Main street in 20 years is a huge Social Services block, not a retail business. More people working for the government giving more people stuff for free. Sad. If only it weren't so easy to get a handout. Don't tell me they need it because they don't have a choice, tell them when they get back from Orlando...a vacation that working people like you and I paid for. Is that the way you want to redistibute weath. Hope not.

Happy New Year Wil.