but where does their popular support from?
Why is vast swaths of the Islamic world in the bed of islamofacists, you don't see a parallel in western countries? There will always be lone nutters from every walk of life, look at that cult leader in Japan as an example; but only in certain conditions will they garner this kind of popular support.

We've got entire nations that are impoverished and feel impotent. Their extreme faith gives them something to cling to and be proud of, no different to neonazi kids in Russia or Scotland or those that rally around the extremist calls of others throughout history. Extremist leaders prey on anger to fuel their campaigns, they take that anger and give it a target and this galvanizes people in a way nothing else can. There are angry people across the Middle East. They're persecuted the west bank and the gaza strip, they're impoverished everywhere and they're politically impotent. Did you know there is a strong collation between political power and general happiness?

You're underestimating the power of repression too. Egypt, home to many of the middle-upper class backers of these guys suffers from an extreme kind of political stagnation and apathy, the political process has failed them as have their leaders, so they look to other methods.

Where does their popular support come from:

http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

Collective failure of large numbers of the Arabic world, leading to religious resentment, fueled by the governments of the area in an attempt to deflect blame, followed by cult-like adherence to the notion of victimhood.

Not showing up at the polls is apathy, not protest. You will probably have half a dozen candidates to choose from, not just the top two. Surely someone is close enough to your personal philosophy to support. You can even walk in, not select anyone, and pull the handle, casting a true non-vote.

You can write in 'none of the above' as a candidate. I think that idea was floated in some Libertarian science fiction novel.

A true non-vote is a statement. Enough of them would appear in statistics. Not showing up just lets the press and everyone else lump you in with the lazy jerks who won't get off their asses a travel a few miles to fulfill their civic duty.

BTW, I do not count people who are too sick to make it and did not have time to get an absentee ballot, which is harder to do than it should be. I'm just talking about people who can get in the car and stand in line for beer and cigarettes but who think voting is too much trouble.:rar:

I'm also voting for Bush. No surprise there. But the fact remains, anyone who has the character to be a good president is too smart to even consider putting themselves into the current system. Both Republicans and Democrats are sellouts to their respective special interests, while single-issue parties like the Greens are about as useful as tits on a boar hog. A true Libertarian would be refreshing, but they tend to be wackos.

I want my dad to run. He's a good dad, which is IME a good 40% of the job. He never raised his hand against us kids unless it was to swat our butts, and that was mostly form over function - never left a mark. The only exception was when my brother tried to pick a fight with him, and was launched about 10 feet into the air on the toe of dad's boot. Also, he won't watch a movie that has the F-word in it, because it's 'crude'. He listens to old country music from his childhood. He refuses to ask for medical disability from the government even though being a Navy radioman screwed up his hearing. He likes guns, but thinks the NRA is full of shit. He builds things with his hands, and was a college professor for 30 years. He hates liberalism though. And gay marriage makes him turn 4 shades of mottled purple. So does Britney Spears, whom he has deemed "a heifer". So don't be expecting a moderate. At least he's honest though, which puts him above the rest of the politicians.

Vote my dad.

You know, I think you're the first person on this board to make that statement.

Fortunately, both my sons just got registered, so we're still one up.

There is nothing at all wrong with the ads, and nothing wrong either with the Ds overnight response, which so far has included bringing out 9/11 widows to morning television the day after this broke. The shots in the ads are understated and brief compared to the massive media overresponse, which has only served to put everyone on notice that the day will in fact be politicized by both sides and we all know it.

I agree that this will focus the debate, which will be helpful. Personally, I think someone in the Bush campaign misjudged the reaction of the public and they are opting for brazening it out.

I actually do think that bringing bodies into commercials, even for an instant, is in bad taste, simply because noone can get the consent of the deceased. The White House probably felt that they could do so since they 'owned' the rights to 9/11. I'm looking forward to a lot of that kind of hubris from the Republicans. It's affected (or infected) their domestic and foreign policy and I'm looking forward to them bringing it to their campaign policy with, I'm hoping, equally disasterous results.

I just can't believe that anyone was actually offended until told they were supposed to be.

Both sides will (if they haven't already) start the ad campaign season off with horrified, offended gasps that the "other side" could run such vile, filthy attack ads. That way, any vile, filthy attack ad they themselves run can be justified as a defensive maneuver. I'm shutting off my TV until next year.

If they're are real lucky the debate over these ads will continue all the way to November. Never mind the economy, unemployment, debt,......what about those damn ads? Huh? Huh?

I knew it was impossible to get 9/11 family members on TV the next morning without severe pre-planning on someone's behalf. If you want to know how you're getting rolled, read this.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/20231.htm

The only question now is whether the Reuters reporter knew the connection when writing the story. We'll never know. But we do know how much the rest of the media jumped on it... with both feet, and eyes closed.

We actually have a choice...well maybe
 

I'd have to agree. I felt the way rusetto felt when I was 18. I said that I wasn't going to register to vote, and ha, that'll learn them.
Basically, that was at a time when none of the candidates were pleasing to me. But then came 1992, and then...*grins*

However, I wanted to ask more about the absentee ballots. Why is it so hard to get, and can I get one now? (just in case I have a day like I'm having now...extreme low blood pressure, and just enough energy to go to my doctor's appt. in an hour).

Thanks in advance. :)

While I don't 100% agree with the outrage, I can see where the families of the victims would be offended at the first sight of the ads (in other words, without someone "telling them").

However, I *think* that the "offensive" material have been removed from the ads now.

I saw the ad last night. There is still an image of the WTC "cathedral wall" but the body being moved out of the site is gone.