This news surprised me. A large group of pro-life leaders had a recent meeting to discuss their response if no anti-abortion/pro-life candidate is chosen.
For all practical purposes, this means if Rudy Giuliani gets the Republican nomination. edit:today I've seen rumors that Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney are deemed insufficiently pro-life by many of the aforementioned pro-life leaders, despite their more fervent pandering on this issue. So I edited the title.
If Rudy (and possibly Fred or Mitt) gets the nod, they decided to back a pro-life 3rd party candidate and split the conservative vote.
quote: Dobson wrote:
After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.
[ October 06, 2007, 05:27 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
One of the crummy things about the current political situation in Canada is that our "religious conservative" party called the Alliance party merged with our "secular" conservative party making it incredibly hard to vote for a fiscally conservative platform without also voting for a socially conservative platform.
Thus, almost by default, I'm forced to vote against a conservative party.
It would be interesting (although very unlikely, since the US system is even more hostile to third parties than the Canadian system) if the reverse happened and a secular conservative party emerged.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Wow, I'm suddenly hoping Rudy gets the nomination. I would absolutely love to see a legitimate chance for a third party to emerge. I think our 2-party system is stagnant and in desperate need of some upheaval.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: One of the crummy things about the current political situation in Canada is that our "religious conservative" party called the Alliance party merged with our "secular" conservative party making it incredibly hard to vote for a fiscally conservative platform without also voting for a socially conservative platform.
What's even crummier is that it got them into office. Since the Liberals are in the middle and the NDP and Greens are further left, the left-wing vote is split while the right-wing voters only have one realistic choice.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm in favor of anything that would split the Republican vote. The Dems need someone to offset Ralph Nader.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I absolutely do not want Guiliani to win. He's a bully and a poor manager, and he takes credit for things he had nothing to do with. He alienates those who help him most. He'd be a terrible, terrible president.
Please oh please, I don't want the front-runners to win. I'm starting to fantasize of a Romney vs. Richardson election.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I'm in favor of anything that would split the Republican vote. The Dems need someone to offset Ralph Nader.
Ditto.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
We need a Libertarian. We need Clint Eastwood.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm having problems taking them seriously. I think this is a strategy to try to influence the primary so that Rudy Guiliani doesn't win or, failing that, to get him to change his campaign stance on abortion. If their bluff gets called and the election between Rudy Guiliani and the Democratic candidate is close, I think you'll see mass defections from that position.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
This morning on NPR they were talking about how current polls show the frontrunners as being Rudy Guiliani and Hillary Clinton, and it both cases it seemed to be less because they represent what their respective party wants and more because they're the ones the strategists think are "most electable."
My prediction was that if 2008 turns into Guiliani vs Clinton we'd see very low voter turnouts and/or more independant party votes than usual.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My prediction is if 2008 turns into Guiliani vs Clinton we'll end up with the most polarized campaign ever, with extreme left and right talking points as the starting points. I'm pretty sure Bush and Rove both mention Hillary in interviews to give the impression that they fear her more so Dems will line up behind her ("No! Don't throw me into the briar patch!") because she's such an easy target.
The only, only advantage I can see for a Hillary/Rudy matchup is that for 8 months The Daily Show and Colbert Report are going to be hilarious.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't necessarily think that that is true. One of the main reasons Republicans hated Bill Clinton is that, if they didn't hate him, there'd be no reason for them to hate him. He was very much a centrist and has been pushing for the Democratic party to move away from polarization. He's also a very canny political operator. If he has a significant influence in Hillary Clinton's run, I would not be suprised if they stay largely away from extremist statements. I think that would especially be true against an opponent as seriously flawed as Rudy Guiliani.
The Republicans will get nasty (when do they not?), but, if handled correctly, it can be used to make them look weak.
---
Of course, left on her own with the regular democratic strategists, I think they'll royally screw things up, because that's what Democrats do best.
[ October 04, 2007, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Giuliani is like Schwartzenagger: the worst of all possible Republican worlds.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Chris, you're on a roll today. My thoughts exactly.
I'm really hoping Obama overtakes Clinton (because let's be honest, one of the two will be the Democratic nominee) for two reasons. The first is the inevitable polarizing that you mentioned. The second is that I fear a Clinton nomination will encourage a surge of conservatives to come out and vote that would not have otherwise. I'm not really sure how justified that fear is, but there it is.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
This is stupid. When are we going to get a system like instant run-off voting or similar?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Is anyone else longing for the primaries to come? I'm so bored with the meaningless pre-season games. I'm ready for some actual scoring. Let's the games begin!
*cracks open a root beer and leans back in her hammock*
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
As soon as enough people get interested enough in politics and motivated enough to do something about it. In other words, never.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: What's even crummier is that it got them into office. Since the Liberals are in the middle and the NDP and Greens are further left, the left-wing vote is split while the right-wing voters only have one realistic choice.
There is also the Bloc in Quebec which would also be left-wing.
Even then, I would say that after four Liberal governments (three of them majorities), it was not so much that the Conservatives won the last election as much as the Liberals lost it, if only due to the sponsorship scandal and people just getting tired of the Liberals.
The next election should be more interesting.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Even then, I would say that after four Liberal governments (three of them majorities), it was not so much that the Conservatives won the last election as much as the Liberals lost it, if only due to the sponsorship scandal and people just getting tired of the Liberals.
Am I the only one who finds it interesting that the Conservatives used the sponsorship scandal as their main sticking point for two elections straight?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Seems like it worked though, yes?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
FToaS: I thought it was a pretty predictable tactic. If the majority of the population that you are trying to attract (the GTA, Quebec) does not in fact like your policies (and you cannot change those policies without alienating your base support) then it is reasonable to advertise what you *aren't* rather than what you *are*.
Especially when considering that a major factor in past defeats was when more unruly MPs from the West actually said what they wanted to implement.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Morbo,
As a pro-life conservative I have been watching the news (as you linked to) very carefully, and the whole thing is disturbing.
If the conservative base pulls away from the Republican party if the party chooses Rudy, then it assures a Democratic win, basically. There is no way a third-party candidate can win the electoral vote.
So if Rudy gets the Republican nomination, do I vote for him, even though he is pro-choice, to prevent Hillary from getting in? Or do I vote the issues and for the candidate I want, knowing that throwing that vote away assures a Democratic win.
It is a dilemma to be sure, I my gut is pretty upset about the choices.
FG
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: My prediction was that if 2008 turns into Guiliani vs Clinton we'd see very low voter turnouts and/or more independant party votes than usual.
--Enigmatic
I predict that, in that case, we'd also see a dramatic increase in applications for Canadian Visas.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You guys are kidding about Nader right? Nader, if he's on the ballot again, is a known quantity. Democrats can expect a certain loss of votes to Nader.
I've been saying for weeks that Giuliani will be a DEATH KNELL to Republicans. People are waxing poetic about him right now, and his popularity is huge...but I think there's a huge, huge blind spot when it comes to him.
But you think Nader is our problem? It's not. It's Bloomberg. Michael Bloomberg is poised to be a major third party candidate. He has deep pockets, he can personally fund his own campaign. He's dropped out of the Republican party, which is fine since he was never REALLY a Republican anyway, hell, he dropped out of the Democratic party in the 90's to get elected as a Republican mayor who was just as liberal as Giuliani, maybe even more so since he is a staunch supporter of gay rights. Bloomberg won't split the Democratic vote, but if there's no competing fourth party candidate to split the Republican vote, I think he'll suck 10% of the vote away, and that's enough to kill any Democrat, unless that Democrat can command the independent vote. There's even a rumor that retiring Senator Chuck Hagel could be his running mate, which might give him serious cross party appeal.
If Bloomberg runs as a third party candidate, Dems are in trouble. But, if there's a fourth party pro-life candidate and Giuliani wins, whew, this will be an historic race, and frankly I think Dems win. Pro-life will drain away a lot more votes, especially if the Bible Belt looks at Giuliani as a slightly more palatable version of Hillary. Hillary by the way isn't a huge fan of abortion, but I know why she gets painted that way.
Pro-lifers who vote as a single issue voter are all facing the same choice Farmgirl is, and a lot of them will choose to either stay home and not vote or they will vote for a third party candidate who offers something better.
I bet if there is a pro-life second option, it's Mike Huckabee. He's not going to win the Republican nom, but he'd be very well poised to take up the mantle if Giuliani wins.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Bloomberg might split the Democratic vote if Hillary gets the nomination. I say that because if it came to voting for Hillary, Bloomberg, or any Republican currently in the running, I'd vote for Bloomberg.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hell I'd even consider voting for Bloomberg under those circumstances, but I think you should also consider Obama's place in there. I say this hesitantly, because it's a guess at what I might do in the future, but if Bloomberg ran with Obama as his VP, they'd have my vote, probably. Bloomberg/Obama would be every Democrats choice who has ill feelings towards Hillary in the same way that Huckabee would be every Republican's choice who can't stand the idea of voting for a pro-choice candidate with poor family values.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I would guess that the prospect of a Giuliani candidacy is a lose-lose proposition to many of the Christian conservatives.
*If he gets the nomination and wins, their power within the Republican party is diminished.
*If he gets the nomination and loses - partly due to Christian conservatives sitting this contest out (as Richard Land said he would do) - they get a pro-choice Dem in the White House.
*If they run a third-party candidate, they guarantee a victory for the Democrats.
Hmmm...
Make that a lose-lose-lose proposition.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Pro-lifers who vote as a single issue voter are all facing the same choice Farmgirl is, and a lot of them will choose to either stay home and not vote or they will vote for a third party candidate who offers something better.
Personally, I think if it really came down the scenario I posted above, I would probably vote for the Republican candidate (even if he is pro-choice) to fight against a Hillary victory (which I would see as being the worse of the two scenarios).
I probably wouldn't TELL any of my family/friends I did that. But I don't want the ONE issue (abortion) defeating the Republican party, especially when I see that issue as being more of a Supreme Court issue, than a Presidential influence issue. We have had pro-life Presidents before, and no changes in abortion laws were made.
FG
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:We have had pro-life Presidents before, and no changes in abortion laws were made.
We went through several years with a pro-life president, house, and senate and nothing of substance was even *attempted*. I can understand voting for a single issue if there's a chance in h*ll that the people that are mouthing off about it will actually address it, but geez.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I really get sick of the idea that voting for a third party candidate is a waste of a vote and "takes votes away" from one of the major parties. When I voted third party last time, I did not take my vote away from the democrats ore republicans. They never had it. And the reason that no third party has a chance at winning an electoral vote is that people *think* that they have no chance. We Americans have the right and power to make changes if we want, but we're too cowed by the media and "the way it is" to make them.
Of course, the third party candidates usually suck, but still... Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
George Bush was a nominal pro-life President. He's part of a large wing of the Republican party who regard conservative Christians as there mainly to be whipped up to support them during elections (link) One of the worst things that could happen to the leaders of the Republican party would be for abortion to be made illegal. When you've got a large base of single-issue voters, you need to seem to be working for that single issue without ever making it go away.
There are Republicans, however, who really are trying to end legal abortions.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:When I voted third party last time, I did not take my vote away from the democrats ore republicans. They never had it.
If you find the two main parties to be equally offensive, then a third-party vote is not a throw-away vote, but if you considered one of those two to be even slightly better than the other, by voting for a third party which had no reasonable chance of being elected, your vote may have effectively helped the "greater evil" to win the election.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
The social conservatives had their candidate with Bush and about destroyed the party. So.... and the horse they rode in on.
Social conservatives, fiscal liberals, like Bush have just about driven me to sit at home on election day.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
Edit: Nevermind. Gingrich already announced he's not running. I'm a bit behind on the news here.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
George Bush was never the social conservative candidate. He talks about it, but that is not what he or most of his people were concerned about. He was the candidate who was willing to manipulate the social conservatives for political power. The major thing they did for this, the anti-gay marriage ammendments, they came right out and said was a political strategy to get conservative Christians out to vote.
If it helps any, mostly they couldn't give a crap about fiscal conservatives either, though they are big on appearing to.
---
In case anyone is interested, I posted a thread a little while back about the morality of voting for the lesser of two evils. Probably not, but it does give a somewhat different viewpoint than is usually seen.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
In Canada, we call it "strategic voting," and it's one of the reasons I'll be voting in favour of changing our provincial legislature here in Ontario from first-past-the-post to mixed-member proportional in about a week.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:When I voted third party last time, I did not take my vote away from the democrats ore republicans. They never had it.
If you find the two main parties to be equally offensive, then a third-party vote is not a throw-away vote, but if you considered one of those two to be even slightly better than the other, by voting for a third party which had no reasonable chance of being elected, your vote may have effectively helped the "greater evil" to win the election.
I'm sick of choosing between evils. I don't even care which of the two main parties are "less evil" anymore. What a ridiculous way to choose a leader! I refuse to buy into it anymore on principle. And I did not throw away my vote. I voted my mind, which is the only way to properly exercise my rights. As far as I'm concerned, people who base their votes on who is the least evil are the ones who are keeping evil alive in government. The lesser evil is still evil. Why not go for broke and vote for Cthulhu like the highly amusing bumper stickers suggested last election? (You know: Why vote for the lesser evil? Cthulhu for President!...that cracked me up every time I saw it. )
Edited: Squicky, you and I definitely see eye to eye on this one, but alas, most do not.
[ October 04, 2007, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Christine ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Well, the lesser evil is, by definition, the greater good. I can be generally unhappy with two choices, yet still be more happy with one than the other. If I want to positively influence the result of the election, my only opportunity to do so may be voting for my second (for fifth) choice overall, but my first choice amongst those who have a chance of winning.
Imagine if you were faced with a gangrenous limb and your choice was to amputate or die. Amputation sure sucks, but it sucks *less* than dieing and is a prudent choice in that circumstance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As far as I'm concerned, people who base their votes on who is the least evil are the ones who are keeping evil alive in government.
Um....Why?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
You know why, Tom.
It's simply a matter of moral priorities. You make the decision that helps you sleep at night.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
My ideal match up would be Clinton vs Paul. Paul is the only person I can see who could beat Clinton. He would erode her Anti-War vote, he already has much of the third-party/independent voters, He is anti-abortion and manages to be pro-family without being anti-gay. He would pick up the fiscal conservatives and he has a lot to offer the people who are motivated to vote for civil liberties (traditionally a democratic position).
In short, he could flank Clinton and beat her. Any other Republican is dead in the water--if he can just win the primaries!
I am writing the pro-life leaders to support him now. If they don't, maybe they will if he would run as an independent, something he is currently denying he will do.
If it is Giuliani vs Clinton, then he would be a viable third party candidate who could win--especially if the religious right backs him up.
quote:Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul raised 5 million dollars in the third quarter doubling his numbers from the second quarter and propelling him into the top tier of the Republican presidential primary contest.
He currently has 2 million more cash on hand then McCain. Hurray for the upcoming debates.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You know why, Tom.
Well, no, seriously, I don't. If everyone votes for the least evil candidate, the least evil candidate wins. How does that increase the amount of evil in the government?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Well, the lesser evil is, by definition, the greater good. I can be generally unhappy with two choices, yet still be more happy with one than the other. If I want to positively influence the result of the election, my only opportunity to do so may be voting for my second (for fifth) choice overall, but my first choice amongst those who have a chance of winning.
Imagine if you were faced with a gangrenous limb and your choice was to amputate or die. Amputation sure sucks, but it sucks *less* than dieing and is a prudent choice in that circumstance.
Yes, but I don't only have 2 choices in an election, and as long as people keep insisting that we do, then we are only going to have those 2 choices. That's what I can't fathom. It's this attitude that no one else can win that makes no one else able to win.
The press did recently decide that an independent had a chance of winning and let the American people know it was all right to vote for him. That candidate -- a cook who totally ruined his chances with some really stupid mistakes -- was Ross Perot. The media gave people permission, told us he was a viable option, and he got almost 20% of the popular vote even with his cookiness and mistakes. So I refuse to accept that there are only 2 choices. And I won't wait for permission from large media corporations before I cast my vote for them.
So I guess what I'm saying is I'll take the bionic arm. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You know why, Tom.
Well, no, seriously, I don't. If everyone votes for the least evil candidate, the least evil candidate wins. How does that increase the amount of evil in the government?
I'm assuming that the least evil candidate is still evil. Therefore, evil remains in government as long as we vote for evil candidates. ( I don't recall saying it increases.)
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I'm assuming that the least evil candidate is still evil.
That's a fairly cynical assumption, and certainly not always true. Anyway, a 3rd party 1-issue candidate really is unelectable nationally.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I'm assuming that the least evil candidate is still evil.
That's a fairly cynical assumption, and certainly not always true. Anyway, a 3rd party 1-issue candidate really is unelectable nationally.
Of course it's not always true. There's even a good chance I'll vote for Obama if he wins the dem. primary. But if we're talking Clinton vs. Rudy, I'll be looking for another choice. It's not cynical, it's realistic and it's how I feel. If you feel that there is a major party candidate that is actually a *good* candidate then by all means, vote for them. I, too, would vote for a *good* major party candidate over a third party candidate. I just haven't seen a major party candidate that I feel is good in a while.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:So I guess what I'm saying is I'll take the bionic arm.
Exactly. And if you keep insisting on the bionic arm, someone else will make a decision for you amongst the realistic alternatives available and hopefully it will be the one you prefer.
EDIT: As for me, I'm a Utah resident, which mean my vote really doesn't count except as a symbolic gesture. Given that, I'll vote for my preferred candidate without having to really think much about the whole "lesser of two evils" business.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Regrettably, you're right Christine. Presidential elections too often are between "kinda evil" and "definitely evil." I was speaking of elections in general there, although I started this thread and I shouldn't derail it already into fuzzier issues.
edit: On second thought, many US Presidential elections are between "useless idiot" and "evil", from my POV: Kerry vs Bush, Mondale vs Reagan, Dukakis vs Bush I.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
My feeling is that there is no such thing as a wasted vote for a candidate that is assumed to have no chance of winning. For example, if Rudy wins and you are a republican who disagrees with where he would take the party, then voting for a third candidate sends a long term message to the party that it needs to self correct.
The vote may be "wasted" in the sense that it doesn't help win an immediate election, but it is your voice on where you want the party to be.
Because so many people voted AGAINST Kerry last election, Bush interpreted his votes as a mandate from the people. If more republicans would have been honest with their votes, then the republican party today may not be in the mess it is in and we might of had more viable candidates for 08.
EDIT:
quote: Anyway, a 3rd party 1-issue candidate really is unelectable nationally.
What makes you think a third party candidate would be 1-issue?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
lem, I'm thinking of this particular case, where a 3rd party candidate is recruited and run specifically as a pro-choice/anti-abortion candidate.
Nothing forces a 3rd party candidate to be single issue.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
They did hint they would create a candidate. Do you think that such a 1-issue candidate could really pull enough votes to splinter the republican votes?
Regardless, I see a Democrat Sweep. The only passionate voters I see support Ron Paul, and I admit their support is...too many times counter productive (aggressive, rude, conspiratorial).
I am having a ball watching the republican party right now. As a republican (a fiscal conservative and a social liberal), I am enjoying watching the process of my party coming to terms with itself.
I am speaking to the influence of talk radio, Fox news, the military industrial complex, and Bush's expansion of the Federal Government in creating a new department and significantly expanding other departments.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
Personally I'd like to see them do away with the electoral college completely and let the peoples vote decide. If we encouraged everyone to vote for the person that really did best represent their personal beliefs on the role of govt we may actually see a swing away from a 2 party system. But with the electoral college in place I don't see how we'll ever navigate away from the status quo.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
This is mainly speaking to Christine (I was away from the computer for awhile, and couldn't keep up on the conversation.)
You mention the contest that include Perot. That race is EXACTLY why I know that voting for a third party would be throwing away my vote.
You mention Perot won 20% of the popular vote. And just how much of the ELECTORAL vote did he get???
Wikipedia correctly says:
quote: In the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote - approximately 19,741,065 votes - (but no electoral college votes),
In my home state Perot WON the popular vote, but didn't get a single Electoral College vote.
That was the year I lost faith in the system for good.
And that is why I said voting 3rd party is a throw-away vote.
FG
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Out of interest, what did you people who liked Perot like about him?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Wikipedia correctly says:
quote: In the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote - approximately 19,741,065 votes - (but no electoral college votes),
In my home state Perot WON the popular vote, but didn't get a single Electoral College vote.
Huh? I thought whoever carried the state generally got all of the electoral college votes?
I tried to look it up, but I don't see any states there where Perot won the popular vote. Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Perot only came in second in 2 states:
Maine: Clinton > Perot > Bush Utah: Bush > Perot > Clinton
He was 3rd everywhere else, including Kansas.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but Ron Paul isn't going to make it past the primaries, and even if he did, I think he'd be buried in the general. He has a great stump speech, but he wants to dump what, 75% of the Federal government? Now that sounds awesome to a lot of Republicans until you actually stop and think about what is in that 75% and what that really means for Americans. I don't think anyone in this country is ready for a government that consists of the DHS and the White House.
Besides, that's really moot anyway, considering there's no way in hell that Congress would actually let him have ANY of that. He'd be one of the more ineffective presidents in history. And other than wanting to end the war and wanting to cut government to the size of a peanut, I don't even know what he wants to do that would have a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting through Congress.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I don't even know what he wants to do that would have a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting through Congress.
Paul also wants to bring back the gold standard in currency. Surely we can all unite around that idea. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I don't even know what he wants to do that would have a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting through Congress.
Paul also wants to bring back the gold standard in currency. Surely we can all unite around that idea.
quote: He was 3rd everywhere else, including Kansas.
Okay, I stand corrected (that's not the way I remember it from that year, but obviously I remember wrongly) Perhaps he won in my home precinct. (I remember an awful lot of talk about it locally at the time)
(I wasn't much into politics at that point in my life -- I had just become the single parent of 3 pre-schoolers and didn't really care much what was going on in the world)
Even then, he won, what -- 27% (?)of the vote here, which is a very strong showing.
Does ALL the electoral votes of each state go to the popular winner in each state? Or are they divided to reflect the percentages of the popular vote?
Tom asked:
quote: Out of interest, what did you people who liked Perot like about him?
I think people just liked the "new, different, radical" choice. They loved what they viewed as his fiscal sense -- hey, if he could run multi-million dollar company (they figured) surely he could whip our federal budget back into shape.
They liked his pretty charts and graphs and no-nonsense way of talking (even though he looked dorky).
At least those were the opinions expressed to me at the time. It had more to do with fiscal policy than any other issue.
FG
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Second question:
All the polls and news write-ups are talking like Hillary is the for-sure shoe-in for the Democratic nomination.
Do you Democrats feel the same way? Do you think she has the nomination wrapped up?
Because who is running on that side of the ticket will greatly influence how people vote on this side.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I know Democrats who think Hillary is their best hope. I kind of felt bad for them and wondered how drunk they were at the time. But that was back in June, and there's been 3 fairly solid months of Hillary boosting in the press.
The Pro-life plank is pretty important to me. I would probably burn my vote on a third party. I suppose Giuliani could appoint someone very conservative for his VP, but I can't think of anyone off the top of my head who would suit. Unless they are setting this up to create such a being, and then have Giuliani unite with him. Assuming it's a him. Are there any viable female candidates who are identifiable with the Pro-life movement? There has to be a female Governor out there somewhere. Maybe. So then they'd have a woman on the ticket too.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Does ALL the electoral votes of each state go to the popular winner in each state? Or are they divided to reflect the percentages of the popular vote?
If they were divided according to the popular vote then your system would be a form of proportional representation, but it isn't -- it's possible under the electoral college to lose the popular vote and win the election.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I mean, how often is the VP nominee anyone from the race? Elder Bush was. Had Gore really run in the 1992 race? Cheney, Kemp, Quayle, Bentzen... who else? I'd say a VP nominee who ran in the primary is a relative minority since the age of television.
Voodoo economics. Good times.
P.S. I don't know how I wound up on this mailing list, but here's a piece from GOP USA on it. I almost feel guilty. But you know what? Pro-Life is the only issue that tips me onto the Republican side. I'm sorry the Republicans made the Congress filibuster proof. But they did, and now they will likely have to live with it. And all that Patriot Act power? It's going to be in someone else's hands now. Think next time, guys.
[ October 05, 2007, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas might be a thought. She looks very "nice," she's both Southern and Western. Giuliani being from New York doesn't make him very endearing to much of the base, with the pro-choice stance being emblematic of that. I was looking for more of a large purple state, but there aren't any women in the senate for those that I can spot right off.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Second question:
All the polls and news write-ups are talking like Hillary is the for-sure shoe-in for the Democratic nomination.
Do you Democrats feel the same way? Do you think she has the nomination wrapped up?
Because who is running on that side of the ticket will greatly influence how people vote on this side.
Let me preface by saying that I'd consider myself a liberal/progressive independant much more than I'd consider myself a Democrat, but that does mean I vote Democratic most of the time. Anyway, I don't really like Hillary that much and hope she doesn't get the nomination, but if it was her against just about any of the Republicans in the running, I'd vote for her. Of the front-runners right now I prefer Obama.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
My only point about Perot was that when the media put him forward as a contender, even someone who quit the race, reentered, and made lots of politically suicidal mistakes managed to get a good voter turnout. That tells me that people are interested in other choices. He did not get an electoral vote because he did not carry the popular vote in ANY state. Only a couple of states divide their electoral votes (it is up to the state to decide how to apportion their electoral votes).
I don't necessarily agree that the electoral college is what is keeping third parties out, although they are surely not helping. We have, in our history, been a three-party country. If it has happened before, it can happen again. I think we're waiting for two things to happen:
1. A truly inspirational third party candidate. (I have to admit, I have not seen one since I really started looking, so it's not like there has been one out there that the media has shut down.)
2. A serious and wide-sweeping problem, possibly economic, that takes the average voter out of their comfort zone enough to really want change.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Only a couple of states divide their electoral votes (it is up to the state to decide how to apportion their electoral votes).
Who's that?
I don't know the two party system by itself is evil, or that any third party that came along wouldn't also be corrupted. Power corrupts? Kind of sad, but true. That was the point of the GOPUSA article- that Republicans have forgotten their roots.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The Pro-life plank is pretty important to me. I would probably burn my vote on a third party. I suppose Giuliani could appoint someone very conservative for his VP, but I can't think of anyone off the top of my head who would suit.
Is it really all that important in a president? Other than a possible supreme court pick, I really don't see the next president having all that big of an impact on the state of abortion in the US. I mean, Bush is pro-life, and is pretty cozy with the religious crowd, but abortion is still very much legal in the US coming near the end of his second term. I know that this is an important issue ideologically for you, but I really don't see that it should matter all that much for a president.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic:
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Second question:
All the polls and news write-ups are talking like Hillary is the for-sure shoe-in for the Democratic nomination.
Do you Democrats feel the same way? Do you think she has the nomination wrapped up?
Because who is running on that side of the ticket will greatly influence how people vote on this side.
Let me preface by saying that I'd consider myself a liberal/progressive independant much more than I'd consider myself a Democrat, but that does mean I vote Democratic most of the time. Anyway, I don't really like Hillary that much and hope she doesn't get the nomination, but if it was her against just about any of the Republicans in the running, I'd vote for her. Of the front-runners right now I prefer Obama.
--Enigmatic
That about sums it up for me as well (both in terms of political alignment and in terms of candidate choice). I don't dislike Clinton, but I don't especially like her either, and I think that her gaining the nomination is pretty much the only chance the Republicans have of winning the presidency in the next election. Her being the Democratic candidate wouldn't assure a Republican victory, but I think that it would galvanize the Republicans like no other candidate currently in the running on either side of the political fence would.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:Only a couple of states divide their electoral votes (it is up to the state to decide how to apportion their electoral votes).
Who's that?
Maine and Nebraska. Scroll down this Wikipedia article for the details:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Seems like it worked though, yes?
Oh, absolutely. I just found it interesting.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but Ron Paul isn't going to make it past the primaries, and even if he did, I think he'd be buried in the general. He has a great stump speech, but he wants to dump what, 75% of the Federal government? Now that sounds awesome to a lot of Republicans until you actually stop and think about what is in that 75% and what that really means for Americans. I don't think anyone in this country is ready for a government that consists of the DHS and the White House.
Besides, that's really moot anyway, considering there's no way in hell that Congress would actually let him have ANY of that. He'd be one of the more ineffective presidents in history. And other than wanting to end the war and wanting to cut government to the size of a peanut, I don't even know what he wants to do that would have a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting through Congress.
My bubble is not burst because, altho I concede that it is very unlikely he will get the nomination, I do not see his campaign as a lost cause. Every vote for Ron Paul is a message to the Republican Party. Despite his chances, I am not ready to say a Ron Paul victory is not possible.
If he does not win the primaries and is persuaded to run as a third party, I think our current environment is the best environment for a third party candidate to win.
I also vehemently disagree with that is is a moot point if he wins because he would be ineffective.
Suffice it to say he understands that it takes the will of the people to have effective change in government. Representative Paul would need to persuade Congress and the people to adopt his vision. In that regard Dr. Paul would open up a lot of debate on where we are as a country and where we want to go.
The only policy he can really start implementing without congressional approval is troop movement. He could bring the troops home, get rid of our mercantilistic policies, and start a firestorm of debates. That alone is effective enough for me.
I believe our current system is unsustainable, and if he can shift our direction even a little, he will be a good president. Every other republican candidate seems to want more war (which will cause more debt, a larger government, and make us less secure) and increased infringements on our bill of rights.
quote: Paul also wants to bring back the gold standard in currency. Surely we can all unite around that idea. :Roll Eyes:
That is...not quite right but basically true. It is not the Gold Standard that he wants. He wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve and have our currency backed by a commodity. It could be gold, or silver, something else or even a combination. As long as it is backed by something, the government will be restricted on what it can do because it can't just print money anymore.
You can roll your eyes, but our current financial system is a mess. We print billions of dollars to reward industry that is failing (like the current mortgage crises) and give it to millionaires. The money is more valuable when it is first printed, but once it it enters our money supply we get inflation and the poor and middle class get hurt. He calls it the "infaltion tax."
When we are not printing money to bail out businesses that should fail, we are borrowing the rest to fund wars and government policies--billions of dollars a month. It is unsustainable, and without a massive overhaul of our system, it can and probably will collapse.
Paul's approach might be wrong...might...but someone who can confront the problem unflinchingly will get the public, congress, and the senate debating and clarifying our world position.
What has propped up the dollar so far, absent a commodity like gold, is the fact that oil was traded in the dollar. More and more countries are starting to trade in the Euro, and more and more countries like Qatar and Vietnam are dumping the dollar. It is not alarmist. it is happening. I don't see any other candidate that sees a problem.
Continuation of spending more, creating more, borrowing more, and living off of credit more deserves a much bigger then any plan that addresses where we are economically as a country.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Colorado I believe narrowly defeated a proposal last year that would have divided the electoral votes there by percentage of the vote. And, I've heard rumors that California is considering such a move, which would be a huge blow to Democrats.
We need to get rid of the whole electoral college system. I can't believe we still have it after all these years. It's a stupid system in this day and age, designed for a time when people had less access to information.
Hillary used to be the candidate I really wanted to win, and even now I don't really have any problem with her and I wouldn't mind voting for her. I still fail to understand where all this negativity towards her comes from. To me it looks like groupthink. This big wave of negativity rolls out and everyone just gloms on to it, though I'm sure many people have legitimate reasons, few I've ever talked to can come up with more than "I just don't like her." But that might be all it takes.
I'll be voting for Obama in the primary this year. As far as I'm concernd, Hillary has experience, even if it is only seven years worth, whereas Obama has energy, drive and charisma, which I consider to be incredibly more important for the country at this point. Hillary is polling ahead nationally by like 15 points, but what matters are the polls in New Hampshire and Iowa. If he can make a strong showing there, or better yet, win one of those states, then all bets are off, her national polling numbers don't mean anything.
Frankly I don't believe them anyway. I think Obama has a lot more grass roots support than the numbers show, but what really matters is whether or not people come out to vote in the primary. A lot of voters skip primaries, I know both my parents do, but they both always vote in the general. All the candidates have to push voter turnout, and that is where a large grass roots campaign like Obama's is better than Hillary's more superdonor oriented fundraising comes in as an advantage.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I remember in high school (so, a long time ago) being told that in theory, your representative for the electoral college doesn't actually have to vote for the candidate that won. They might get in tons of trouble for voting against who they should, but they could do so and that vote would be binding. Since then, a part of me has been hoping that in a close election, a few people will decide to vote opposite, which might finally be enough to outrage America and end the electorial system.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I remember being taught about the electoral college and having it explained to me why the Founders came up with the system. It all seemed so logical, it made sense and it was intricate, so I bought it.
Fast forward seven years, I'm in High School, becoming alarmingly interested in politics, and I realize: "Wait. It did make sense. It doesn't now. Why on earth do we still have this system? This is horribly, horribly wrong." Ah the power adults have when teaching impressionable children. I think too few of us ever really break free and learn to think critically for ourselves.
In any case, Obama is my first choice, but if Hillary were to win the nomination, I could see myself voting against her depending on who the Republican candidate is. I'd most likely take Ron Paul or Huckabee over her. I know this election is not going to be that simple though *sigh*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not enthusiastic about Clinton because of her stance on Iraq (which seemed only to change when it was safe), and the fact that, for me, she represents "politics as usual." Being elected because rich people owe you (or your husband) favours or because you make deals. I think that compromise of your ideals to get what you want has been too ingrained in her for too long.
I know that a politician needs some of that but it would sure be nice to see a little more idealism. And it would be nice to see someone elected that owes his success to a whole bunch of "little" people rather than a few "big" ones. It would give me hope that democracy can actually work.
So Obama for me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Saephon - If I might ask, why? Obama and Hillary have extremely similar platforms and plans for almost every issue. Yet if she were the candidate you'd switch your vote to a different party? That seems extremely odd to me. Just curious as to what she has done to make your dislike for her so strong.
On the electoral college -
People often get the history and purpose of the electoral college mixed up. Most people will say that it was a compromise to not let the small states be trampled on, and in the 18th century, there was some truth to this, but it's best to understand the context. The Founder were afraid that the population would be too underinformed about the candidates from other states, and would instead simply vote for their home state hero, which would be default mean that larger states voting for their own would mean only larger state candidates would win. You can find evidence for this in the original rules for the electoral college, which stated that electors had to cast TWO votes for president, and the second vote HAD to be for an out of state candidate.
This changed after 1800, when political parties (long shunned and feared as detrimental to democracy) took precedence and power in political circles. They changed it to one vote for president and one vote for VP, giving the House of Reps the power to break deadlocks. This change was in a response to state loyalties taking a backseat to party loyalties. At the time of this revision, no major consideration was given to making the electoral college a direct popular vote because A. The situation hadn't changed much, we were still very spread out and communication wasn't easy, and B. They'd just witnessed what a small segment of the population can do when they don't like the government in France, so they weren't a fan of the people at that moment. Also keep in mind that at this time campaigning was still considered extremely uncouth. They said, 'the office should seek the man, not the man the office.'
The idea of having electors would be that the most well informed of the population would be the electors, and those well informed electors would have information about all the candidates. Keep in mind people didn't get around much back them. A population of more than four million people was spread up and down a thousand mile Atlantic coastline, and communication wasn't lightning fast. Having a small number of people choose the president, but still having that small number elected by a popular vote, was considered a compromise that would keep democracy in tact and at the same time lead to smart, fair choices.
So look at the situation we have today. We have the internet, we have multi hundred million dollar campaigns that cross cross the country. We have air and car travel that blows anything from the 1800's away. We have television and radio, and most home grown candidates can't even get a foot in the door. There's no reason to keep the system as it is when you have a well informed population, and if anything, our current system discourages minority party voting since when in a state with a huge majority of one party, your vote doesn't much matter of all if you're in the minority.
It also severely rules out the importance of smaller states, as candidates throw money at the states with all the electoral votes, and ignores all those little three vote states. So for everyone that says today it gives benefit to the smaller states, I'd say it actually does a hell of a lot more harm than good these days.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Obama and Hillary have extremely similar platforms and plans for almost every issue. Yet if she were the candidate you'd switch your vote to a different party?
I'm in the same boat. It's because I believe Obama to have some quantity of integrity that Hillary lacks. This may be because he hasn't been in office long enough to prove me wrong, though.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Given a choice even between that and four more years of Republican rule, White House stymied legislation necessary for the country, and for that matter bad ideas that they want to turn into legislation, I could swallow a little lack of integrity.
The issues are just too important, to me, this time around to risk letting a Republican in to ruin everything even further. The decisions made in the next four years could have dire world consequences, and even inaction could prove disastrous in the future, even worse, I think most Republicans would not only do nothing on these issues, I think they'd do the absolute wrong thing. I'm not willing to take that risk for another smooth talking Republican.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Kmbboots and Tom probably put it better than I could have, but basically I've followed both of their strategies for reaching out to people, how they choose their words, their political background etc. I may be biased because I live in IL and have gotten the chance to know Obama better, but in any case I trust him more than any candidate right now. I believe he has the charisma and dedication and honesty I feel the White House has desperately needed for some time.
It may seem silly to some that I'd vote for another party because of Clinton, and I understand that completely. I'm sure my opinion comes off as goofy, maybe spiteful. I'm just trying to go with my heart on this one.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I'm surprised that someone whose first choice is Obama would even consider voting for Ron Paul or Huckabee.
And why is it that almost everyone calls Clinton by her first name but all the other candidates by their last names?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: I'm surprised that someone whose first choice is Obama would even consider voting for Ron Paul or Huckabee.
And why is it that almost everyone calls Clinton by her first name but all the other candidates by their last names?
I think it is to avoid confusion with her husband. If you say Clinton's policies, you could mean either Bill or Hilary.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
This election is going to be a big one.
I hope the candidates all get caught farting on camera, loudly.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I don't think Rudy has a chance of winning a general election. Even if a feasible third party conservative doesn't come out, Rudy will not be able to motivate the conservative base to come out and vote for him.
I know many conservatives who would rather a dem get elected than see Rudy in office. The worry is what Rudy could do to harm the republican party. Also, if a dem got into office, the republican party could try again in 4 years...if Rudy were to win the party would be stuck with him for 8 years.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Incumbent presidents still have to win the primary. Historically it isn't that uncommon for a sitting president to be challenged in a reelection bid, and they've even been defeated before, though that is more uncommon.
Though I can see why you'd think that since we've only had two presidents in 16 years, and it's been a long, long time since an incumbent has faced a serious threat from inside their own party.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I don't necessarily agree that the electoral college is what is keeping third parties out, although they are surely not helping. We have, in our history, been a three-party country. If it has happened before, it can happen again. I think we're waiting for two things to happen:
1. A truly inspirational third party candidate. (I have to admit, I have not seen one since I really started looking, so it's not like there has been one out there that the media has shut down.)
2. A serious and wide-sweeping problem, possibly economic, that takes the average voter out of their comfort zone enough to really want change.
"A truly inspirational third party candidate..." Hmmm. I know! Billy Jack will save us!
I agree that the Electoral College, though outdated, is a small factor in locking out a national 3rd party. I think the two current parties have been entrenched in power for so long they have rewritten all the state rules in their favor to make organizing a national 3rd party almost impossible.
One major factor is that there's no national ballot. Candidates and parties have to qualify for the ballot separately in each of the 50 states. The 2 existing parties have ready organizational, legal, and financial means to easily do this every 4 years. An upstart 3rd party, even one with a reasonable amount of popular support, has this as it's first major stumbling block, before serious campaigning can even begin.
I don't remember exactly what thread or link you are referring to, lem. About the gold standard, I think it's funny that Paul champions it when it's been abandoned for over 30 years. Not only do very few economists lobby for it's return, very few schools of economic thought champion it. Inflation is a problem, but the gold standard is not the solution. Besides, it's not something you could do unilaterally, most of the G8 and other top economic powers would have to get on board. There's no evidence they would.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The last serious contender to be a third party candidate that comes to mind was Theodore Roosevelt when he formed the Progressive "Bull-Moose" Party. Perot made a dent, but nothing serious. TR I believe actually took states in the electoral college, though not good enough to actually win the office.
What did it take? First of all, TR had already been president so he had immense name recognition and high popularity. Second, he knew the ins and outs of the system, since he'd already used it to get elected. He had no trouble getting adequate funding. His insurgency candidacy had a real chance of winning.
But we haven't had anyone like that in a long, long time. It would take a striking figure from one of the two national parties to break out. A third-party candidate like the Greens or whoever couldn't do it, not in America. If Giuliani ran as a Republican in the General, it would take a Conservative powerhouse, nationally recognized, to beat both him and the Democrat, and win.
Ironically, under those circumstances Giuliani would have the best chance, especially if Romney were to win and Hillary as well. Social liberals who hated Hillary would see third party Rudy as a viable alternative to keep their politics safe, hard core Democrats would probably still go Hillary, and it'd be the same on the other side, with moderates for Rudy as well as people who couldn't vote for a Mormon, and everyone else for Romney. I think that race would really be contentious. But I don't in a million years see anything like that happening.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: One major factor is that there's no national ballot. Candidates and parties have to qualify for the ballot separately in each of the 50 states. The 2 existing parties have ready organizational, legal, and financial means to easily do this every 4 years. An upstart 3rd party, even one with a reasonable amount of popular support, has this as it's first major stumbling block, before serious campaigning can even begin.
This is very true.
One of the reasons I'm not quite convinced that it's time to get rid of the electoral college is that I'm not sure we're ready to give up our individual state identities. In fact, I would like to see more power revert to the states and localities. Gradually, over the past couple of centuries, the federal government has taken more and more power for itself and taken it away from the people. We have little say in National politics. We have much more say in local politics, but fewer and fewer issues that we can decide there.
One of the primary issues I want back in MY control is education. I am fed up with the national government having anything at all to do with it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Campaign finance reform. If candidates didn't have to raise zillions of dollars to buy TV time it would not only lessen the obstacles for third parties, it would help politicians climb out of the pockets of the wealthy.
[ October 06, 2007, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I didn't think of this, though it seems obvious now. NARAL, a major pro-choice organization, might consider endorsing Giuliani. That seems like a long shot at this point. But potentially NARAL could refuse to endorse the Democratic nominee if Giuliani is the Republican nominee. Or help Giuliani in some other low-key way that is short of endorsement. I wonder if Giuliani might gain more pro-choice votes than he would lose pro-life votes in the general election? Some comments from NARAL's political director Elizabeth Shipp: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/10/naral-prochoice-republi_n_67968.html Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm surprised that someone whose first choice is Obama would even consider voting for Ron Paul or Huckabee.
I get it totally. It's the 'integrity first' crowd.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: "There will be further exploration of what is to be done," said Howard Phillips, the president of the Conservative Caucus, who participated in the Salt Lake meeting. "And there will be some discussion of who would be a viable independent candidate."
Conservative circles have been buzzing for weeks about the possibility of a third-party bid, which remains a heavily disputed idea even among religious conservatives. On Wednesday, longtime conservative leader Paul Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation, published a column laying out three requirements for a successful third-party bid: major defections of elected officials from the Republican Party, the financial backing of an independently wealthy individual, and the support of a major news organization, like the Fox News Channel or the Wall Street Journal. [...] Giuliani was the last major Republican candidate to accept the invitation to the Values Voter Summit. As a result, he is now scheduled to address the crowd just a few hours before religious and conservative leaders meet in private to discuss strategies for derailing his bid for the White House.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
What else does Giuliani stand for, besides pro-choice and pro-war on terror? Is he pro-environment? I had a chart once. Or maybe it was here on Hatrack.
The thing is, I'm anti-gun, anti-capital punishment, pro-environment.
Also, I had a slumber party with some democrats and they said I believe Nader's lie, that both parties are equally bad.
P.S. All other things being equal, if I am going to vote for a pro-choice candidate, it would be Obama. But I would wish I had a pro-life candidate option. Also, Obama as a running mate would not lure me to voting for Clinton.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Has anyone noticed how much media coverage there is of the primary races? It seems like there's a lot more now than there ever has been, and people seem generally more interested.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It seems to me they are starting insanely early, but that may just be me. But in races with primaries for both parties, this level of coverage does not seem atypical.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Pat Robertson has endorsed Giuliani. :sigh:
There haven't even been any primaries yet Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Yes, and Brownback endorsed McCain. (not that Brownback has anywhere near the influence that Robertson has).
It just shows how divided the party is.... Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think that might actually be a pretty smart move on Robertson's part.
I don't get the feeling that Giuliani isn't all that connected to the main Republican party and not tied all that strongly to the relevant principles, so he's likely to not care much about screwing them over by fulfilling the things that the Christian right want, like appointing Supreme Court judges to make abortion illegal. Robertson most likely got Guiliani to agree to something like that as a condition for his support.
The only other viable choice to achieve this would probably be Mitt Romney, but I think that would be less reliable and also he's a Mormon.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I just don't understand why there's this drive to open and shut the choices before the process even starts.
P.S. Does anyone honestly think Giuliani can deliver New York to the Republicans? He might as well be from Wyoming.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
First reaction: Pat Robertson dislikes Mormons more than he's attached to his own principles.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
There's other choices than Romney. I am well aware that Giuliani must have appealed to ... something. I guess I could see Giuliani bringing New York if Hillary is completely out of the picture. But that doesn't seem to be a large possibility. Folks talk about a Clinton/Obama ticket, but not the other way around.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Not to discount the potential bigotry, but Mitt Romney doesn't exactly have a strong political record of standing for Pat Robertson's principles.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I really don't see Giuliani bringing New York, even if Hillary isn't the nominee.
I think Giuliania promised Pat something, he would have had to of given some sort of guarantees to Pat in order to get this, considering socially Rudy might as well be Bill Clinton. Robertson is hoping that if he helps Rudy now, when Rudy wins, Robertson can call in some favors, it's pretty clear there. If he actually cared about suporting someone who really stood for his views, he'd support Mike Huckabee.
But this has a potential backlash built in. Just because Pat Robertson says so, doesn't mean everyone will fall in line. This might further the split.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Pat Robertson is a former presidential candidate himself. Maybe he's thinking VP. But that seems a bit transparent.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I am still trying to decide which of these possibilities with respect to Romney is true:
1) He had a genuine change of heart on the abortion issue. 2) He misrepresented his views as pro-choice to gain election in Mass. 3) He is misrepresenting his views as pro-life now to win the nomination.
If I become convinced of 1, I will likely vote for him in the primary. I have a serious problem voting for him if I become convinced that 2 or 3 is the true story.
Am I leaving out a possibility here?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:considering socially Rudy might as well be Bill Clinton.
BTW, this isn't quite true. On the abortion issue, at least, Rudy is far more likely to appoint a pro-life judge than Clinton was.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
On pro-life, Romney has said his responsibility as a local leader was different from what it would be as a national leader. Mormons are a bit gray on abortion (I personally am not, but I'm rather in the minority.) I'm not really counting on Romney at this point. Of course, I don't even know Maryland's primary date, but I'm likely to vote for whoever is challenging Giuliani at that point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm well-acquainted with his statements on the subject, including his account of how the embryonic stem cell issue caused him to rethink the matter.
I just don't know if I believe him.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I am still trying to decide which of these possibilities with respect to Romney is true:
1) He had a genuine change of heart on the abortion issue. 2) He misrepresented his views as pro-choice to gain election in Mass. 3) He is misrepresenting his views as pro-life now to win the nomination.
If I become convinced of 1, I will likely vote for him in the primary. I have a serious problem voting for him if I become convinced that 2 or 3 is the true story.
Am I leaving out a possibility here?
Personally (as a Romney-supporter and MA resident) I think the closest is (2) with a bit of (1). Romney ran for governor (IIRC) on a fiscal responsibility, social minimalist type ticket. Most of his statements about social issues were that he wouldn't change the status quo. MA voters took that as tacit endorsement of the states' social liberality. They received a rather rude awakening when Romney took office. While I don't know of any examples of Romney contradicting his campaign promises, his views (and actions) on gay marriage, RU-486, and other social issues were certainly not what much of the voting populace had apparently expected.
That said, I imagine Romney has become more conservative (at least on social issues) in the intervening years, particularly in comparison to his 1994 Senate run (the strongest "pro-choice" statements used against Romney have come from this earlier campaign). I imagine becoming a grandfather has also had some impact on his views on social issues as well.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Am I leaving out a possibility here?
The cynic in me wants to point out that although you did not explicitly preclude the possibility, it could also be both 2 AND 3. He might personally actually have a very moderate opinion or no opinion at all, and he simply grabbed onto whatever opinion he thought might benefit him the most at the time Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Mucus, I thought the same thing. And it's not just the abortion issue for Romney--the same analysis can apply for other issues. For example, gun control, sex education, gay rights...well, it's a long list. The only constant is Romney has stated the position most likely to get him elected in the current race with the current electorate.
There's nothing wrong with an ambition to be president--unless that ambition trumps all principle.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:considering socially Rudy might as well be Bill Clinton.
BTW, this isn't quite true. On the abortion issue, at least, Rudy is far more likely to appoint a pro-life judge than Clinton was.
On the political scale, he's a lot closer socially to Bill than he is to any of the other Republican candidates. Pro gay rights, he's the only Republican candidate who even comes close. More allowing of abortion, which the Republican side considers taboo. He's had two divorces, one of them extremely messy, which in a family values centric (and after all the scandals lately, a very wary) Republican party.
On that scale, I think he's closer to Bill than to the others.
Not like it really matters though, Giuliani is only running on 9/11 anyway.
Interestingly though, recent polls show that the economy is more important than the war on terror to people. And when you compare Rudy to Hillary based just on the economy, to people who find the economy to be extremely important, she wins by more than 20%.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Certainly he's closer to Bill, but that doesn't mean "might as well be." Nothing significant can happen on the abortion front until SCOTUS changes.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Mormons are a bit gray on abortion (I personally am not, but I'm rather in the minority.)
I don't know (m)any Mormons who are "gray" on abortion; can you explain what you mean?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Mormons are a bit gray on abortion (I personally am not, but I'm rather in the minority.)
I don't know (m)any Mormons who are "gray" on abortion; can you explain what you mean?
Not to speak for pooka, but it's my understanding that the church's stance on when abortion may be morally justifiable allows for significant exceptions (rape, incest, health of the mother) that aren't endorsed by the strict "pro-life" platform.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why would you call those "significant exceptions?" Do you mean significant in terms of departure from the strict pro-life platform, or in terms of numbers?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Why would you call those "significant exceptions?" Do you mean significant in terms of departure from the strict pro-life platform, or in terms of numbers?
The former.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Why don't we just have a giant televised death match between all the candidates? Weapons are randomly assigned, ranging from daggers to machetes to maces.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Mormons are a bit gray on abortion (I personally am not, but I'm rather in the minority.)
I don't know (m)any Mormons who are "gray" on abortion; can you explain what you mean?
I mean Brigham Young opined that the soul enters the body at the time of "quickening" or when the mother can feel the baby move, about 15 to 17 weeks. Abortion is considered a "heinous" sin but not murder, justified in cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother, and to be prayerfully considered in cases of severe fetal deformity or danger to the health of the mother.
I mean, yeah, 80% of Americans would probably go with that.
I decided a couple of years ago that until we know when life does start, I'll assume it starts at conception. At the time I was pushing for a 7 week line, but someone (and I really don't remember who) called me an idiot so I decided to go with -2 weeks.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Anyway, I am pretty lukewarm on Romney. As I was driving home, I realize I'm probably for McCain. He doesn't have the greatest personality, but I think he might have a chance of beating Hillary. Assuming he's honestly pro-life, I'm very impressed that he has a bona fide military record.
P.S. I scanned McCain on Wikipedia. Boy those entries are off-sides.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The more I read about Romney the more I like him, I do think he has a solid chance of winning the Republican nomination, it's unfortunate that his religion is an issue. It's even more unfortunate that on the campaign trail he has basically disowned any knowledge of his own health care plan that he passed in Mass. I don't know why he does not push that more to the front so that people see him as a Republican who can still work with a Democratic legislature. Obama does it, and it has only helped him.
Perhaps he feels he would lose fiscal conservative support for lauding his successes with big government legislation.
edit: I think Romney genuinely changed his mind on Abortion, I don't think he is picking a position that will garner him more votes.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I just dropped $30 on McCain.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think he is picking a position that will garner him more votes.
It's incontestable that the change will garner him more votes in the primary, though.
What's giving me pause about him is the timing of the various changes of hearts he's had. There's a pattern there, one I need to investigate more.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I don't think he is picking a position that will garner him more votes.
It's incontestable that the change will garner him more votes in the primary, though.
What's giving me pause about him is the timing of the various changes of hearts he's had. There's a pattern there, one I need to investigate more.
IIRC, he also was very fast to make fun of liberal Massachusetts during one of the early debates. Which is fine, but when you live there, work there and raise your family there, it seems to me he's either trying to redesign himself for the base, or he was deceptive about who he was in the first place.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I don't have a candidate that I like as much as I have candidates I don't like. I think Guiliani is a mess - a power-hungry, crappy leader who alienates his subordinates and lies through his teeth about his record while having the personal life of a drunken sailor. He'd be a terrible leader. Talk about 9/11 making the terrorists win - if that pushes Guiliani to the presidency then the American public gets what we deserve. Gah!
Also, my general impression of Clinton is that she is capable but not very honest. That's also not cool.
Unfortunately, if the front runners stay the front runners, the two candidates I dislike the most will be the only choices. Grrr...
For whom I like, I really like Bill Richardson - great resume, good personal life, and he seems funny and capable. Obama and Romney would be not bad.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It's also kind of tacky to poke fun (but not in a self-depreciating way) at the state you're the govenor of.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I don't think he is picking a position that will garner him more votes.
It's incontestable that the change will garner him more votes in the primary, though.
This is certainly true, no argument there.
quote: What's giving me pause about him is the timing of the various changes of hearts he's had. There's a pattern there, one I need to investigate more.
To be frank I am not sure how one could possibly come to a good conclusion on this matter, barring talking to Mit himself and even then knowing if he was telling the truth or not. All it seems we can do is speculate. The only reason I have for believing him is that after reading what I have on him he does not seem like the kind of guy who simply flip flops when it's convenient.
I read an anecdote I liked where his investment firm was deciding whether to approve an investment in a movie company that produced among other things, R rated movies. Romney himself does not watch R rated movies and it could be argued that by approving the investment he would be supporting something he does not agree with. He ultimately decided that he would approve the investment, but would not follow his standard practice of investing some of his own money in the venture. I think those sorts of decisions are precisely what a man of faith has to make as president. I think it was the right choice to make.
I know the timing on his opinions regarding abortion seems pretty convenient, but at the same time when it comes time to campaigning, people often have to sit down and evaluate what their positions are on everything. The higher the post the more opinions you must have, and the better you have to articulate those positions.
As an aside what resources do YOU have Dag that would assist you in your research?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I could see it being the stem cell issue, but I've never seen a primary source on that. The church made an amorphous statement on it about 5 years ago. It seemed amorphous to me, though it made a lot of scientists mad.
P.S. Mormons also have that "honor and uphold the law" ethic, and Roe v. Wade is what passes for law in this country right now. What are the pro-choice statements you judge him by, Dag?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I know the timing on his opinions regarding abortion seems pretty convenient
As I understand it, this change of heart came during a time when he had mulitple other changes of heart away from MA voters' preferences and towards Republican base voters' preferences and took to bashing MA.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As an aside what resources do YOU have Dag that would assist you in your research?
None, really. I haven't committed much time to it at this point. I've read a few op-eds, some pro-Romney, some against.
Our primary isn't for more than four months, and this might be decided by then, so I haven't gotten serious about my candidate research yet.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I know the timing on his opinions regarding abortion seems pretty convenient
As I understand it, this change of heart came during a time when he had mulitple other changes of heart away from MA voters' preferences and towards Republican base voters' preferences and took to bashing MA.
I've heard that accusation, and I just have not seen it. It seems to be little more than an exagerated unfair summation of his administration.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:P.S. Mormons also have that "honor and uphold the law" ethic, and Roe v. Wade is what passes for law in this country right now. What are the pro-choice statements you judge him by, Dag?
quote:"I am humbled to be standing among the many who have toiled for the pro-life movement for so long, when I arrived at this place of principle only a few years ago.
"I appreciate the decades of dedication and the effective advocacy of people like Jim Bopp, the Special Adviser to my campaign on life issues.
"I know that it is not time but conviction that unites us.
"I proudly follow a long line of converts – George Herbert Walker Bush, Henry Hyde, and Ronald Reagan to name a few
"I am evidence that your work, that your relentless campaign to promote the sanctity of human life, bears fruit.
...
"When I first ran for office, while I was always personally opposed to abortion, I considered whether this should be a private decision or whether it should be a societal and government decision. I concluded that I would support the law as it was in place – effectively, the pro-choice position.
"And I was wrong.
Knowing many people who have done this, I don't find it as unbelievable as some pundits seem to. Further, there are elements of his story that sound similar to other conversion stories.
Edit: As I said, though, the timing makes me want to investigate further.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not sure a conversion story that is similar to other conversion stories necessarily tells us anything.
Despite being a Mormon (sorry, couldn't resist), I'm sure he's a relatively smart guy. It would not take a lot of effort to craft or exaggerate a conversion story based on various elements that one could find via research.
In fact, I would not be surprised that it would actually takes more effort to come up with a truly unique and different story. So I'm not sure we can come to a conclusion either way.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm confused, Mucus, are you pro-life?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Sorry, which part did I lose you? Actually, I haven't actually said anything in this thread which is dependent on my stance on the issue.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Despite being a Mormon (sorry, couldn't resist), I'm sure he's a relatively smart guy.
You know, replace "Mormon" there with "black" or "jew" or "female" and see how casually funny it is.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So you're totally neutral on the subject of Romney being a Mormon?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not sure a conversion story that is similar to other conversion stories necessarily tells us anything.
It means there's reason not to dismiss it out of hand as patently unbelievable.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
pooka: Now I'm the one thats confused. You asked me whether I was pro-life. My reply was that my contributions to this thread, particularly on Romney, have no dependence on my stance on abortion. I'm not sure where you linked that reply to his being a Mormon.
Dagonee: True. Then I'm not sure "a conversion story that is similar to other conversion stories necessarily tells us" much
JH: A) I don't buy the equivalence between attributes such as skin colour, race, or gender (which are determined at birth and have no real link with intelligence) and attributes such as religion which are not only chosen, but may very well have links with intelligence e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
On a similar note, I find the attempted equivalence between race and religion, such as that implied in the word "Islamophobia" rather obnoxious and potentially dangerous.
B) The more important thing is if you're offended, sorry. It was meant as a joke. If it makes you feel better, look up the non-politically-correct joke thread. IIRC, I posted a few jokes about Chinese people Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I thought you were implying you were neutral on issues. Romney being Mormon shouldn't be an issue, but to some folks it apparently is.
So why are you boasting about making fun of Chinese people? Is it because you know I'm of Chinese heritage, or was that a lucky stab in the dark?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The relevant link from the rather vague wiki page:
Seriously, I think it's a test of economic strength and educational opportunity, which sometimes but not always goes with "religiosity."
Wow, the IQ data is from a book called "IQ and the wealth of Nations." I'm fairly shocked that someone would look at a list of religiosity, see it's resemblance to a list of poverty, and then strip away the poverty to try and make an argument about religiosity as original research.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Considering you're lumping all religious people together without regard to individual denominations, I know your ignorant sideswipe doesn't matter.
To make it clear: it isn't cool. I don't believe it was entirely a joke. That you make slurs about other people doesn't make it better.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee: True. Then I'm not sure "a conversion story that is similar to other conversion stories necessarily tells us" much
It tells me I need to investigate more. That's a lot. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
"other people"
I AM Chinese.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So it's okay to make fun of yourself, is it? Are you Mormon as well?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ok, I think there is a lot of confusion and jumping to conclusions here so I'll try to clear some of it up. There are two separate issues here:
A) My comments on the conversion story:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I'm confused, Mucus, are you pro-life?
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I thought you were implying you were neutral on issues. Romney being Mormon shouldn't be an issue, but to some folks it apparently is.
As I said, my comments to Dagonee are not predicated on my stance on abortion, whether or not I have one. It just *amused me* to point out that there might be a fourth possibility to his three and that the conversion story may or may not say a heck of a lot about what Romney was thinking. These comments have nothing to do with my stance and I think Dagonee got that.
That said, I am not neutral on the issues. I have opinions on abortion. However, they are particularly steeped in the current Canadian situation and not entirely relevant to a thread about US political parties, particularly one focused on Romney. Additionally, I didn't want to confuse anyone as to why I was commenting on Dag's possibilities. Evidentially that failed
B) My joke about Mormons and that Romney is probably atypical:
quote:So why are you boasting about making fun of Chinese people? Is it because you know I'm of Chinese heritage, or was that a lucky stab in the dark?
quote:Seriously, I think it's a test of economic strength and educational opportunity, which sometimes but not always goes with "religiosity."
quote:So it's okay to make fun of yourself, is it? Are you Mormon as well?
First, I was attempting to demonstrate that for me nothing is sacred as far as what I can joke about. If I can joke about Chinese people, something that I actually am and had no choice in the matter, then certainly I can joke about attributes that people had a choice about. I'm an equal opportunity offender.
That said, I don't actually care to demonstrate in this thread whether there is any link between religiosity and intelligence, you can start a new thread if we want to do that.
To sum up: For that four word joke, it is simply dependent on the stereotype* that Mormonism is somewhat of a flaky religion and a bit of a scam that takes in gullible people. It is a stereotype, Romney obviously does not fit this stereotype.
As JH pointed out, it is not entirely a joke. Many jokes about stereotypes have a kernel of truth in them, simply because many stereotypes have a kernel of historical truth or reality about them.
To make it clear, for me: Treating people differently due to factors out of their control such as race or gender: Bad Treating people differently due to factors in their control such as religion, political party, or favourite beer: Grey-area Making offensive jokes about factors out of people's control such as race or gender: Definitely! Making offensive jokes about factors in people's control: Bring it on!
We're far into my comfort zone as far as jokes are concerned.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Romney is one of my favorite candidates. This is because he has been able to be conservative for the most liberal state in America (I lived in Massachusetts for six years. I know what it's like) and is not stubborn. He seems sincere about his conversion on the issue of abortion, which proves that reason and logic gets through to him. One thing that's hard for me to admire about him though is that he insists that everyone should leave his religion out of this. While I partially agree with him, he says it the wrong way. People shouldn't judge what he'll do by what church he goes to, but if he's a sincere believer, his morals and values will be at least partly influenced by his faith, so it's good to know what Mormonism is about if Romney is to become President.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, Mucus, I'm sorry for everything I said prior to what you just posted. And since what you just posted was provoked by me, I'll have to take part of that on my head. And I'll take your slams against Mormonism as an odd sort of compliment, since I think there are groups you wouldn't tease.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I'm not sure a conversion story that is similar to other conversion stories necessarily tells us anything.
It means there's reason not to dismiss it out of hand as patently unbelievable.
The reasons to be sceptical of Romney's conversion story are not evident in the story itself but rather in the context. Romney's "conversion" to opposing legal abortion happened at a point when he transitioned from being a politician in a liberal pro-choice state to courting the conservative religious right for the republican presidential nomination. It is that context and not the details of his conversion that make the story suspect.
This is just one of many things in Romney's political career that make him look like a political opportunist rather than an individual with genuine political convictions.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hmm...
I'd rather the folks I vote for hold MORAL convictions rather than political convictions.
But I'm not convinced of Romney's sincerity. And I'm definitely not convinced that he's good for the US.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'd rather the folks I vote for hold MORAL convictions rather than political convictions.
And what do you think distinguishes the two?
I could point to plenty of people who have moral convictions about how they treat their families, say their prayers and so forth but whose political convictions I find highly immoral.
I would far rather have a athiest womanizer who supports care for the poor, universal medical care, diplomacy, environmental responsibility and social justice for President than a Christian family man warhawk who is determined to loosen environmental regulations, cut medicaid, medicare and social security, favor the rich and destroy the social safety. In my experience, the kind of moral values a person demonstrate in their private life have very little correlation with the kind of ethics and morality they value in politics. A president has far more impact on the moral questions involving things like human rights, how we care for the poor, the sick and the elderly, war and peace, than a president has on question like whether people choose a gay lifestyle or an abortion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, Mucus, I'm sorry for everything I said prior to what you just posted. And since what you just posted was provoked by me, I'll have to take part of that on my head. And I'll take your slams against Mormonism as an odd sort of compliment, since I think there are groups you wouldn't tease.
Oh, thats ok. There is no need to apologise. I figured there was an honest miscommunication and it did not seem like you were trying to take offence or anything. Thats why I wanted to clear it up.
As for the second part ... maybe. Although I wouldn't go that far myself.
As a quick analysis, the only groups that I can think of that I would not tease are groups that would be inclined to take hurtful offence for what I consider a justified reason.
e.g. making fun of Jews for the holocaust, Chinese people for the Nanjing Massacre would be supremely jerky. For something more close to the topic, I would be personally disgusted by someone that made fun of mothers that had abortions. For something more grey on this forum, I am a little uncomfortable with making fun of Lynn Johnson for her failed marriage
That said in those cases, it is not so much that they are different in a fundamental way from groups that I would tease, but that any reasonable person in their positions would be hurt.
I dunno, how did you originally read that as a backhanded compliment? Simply because I figured Mormons would be tough enough to take the abuse? Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Rabbit:
Don't confuse a strong sense of morality with religious expressions of that morality.
:shrug:
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The reasons to be sceptical of Romney's conversion story are not evident in the story itself but rather in the context. Romney's "conversion" to opposing legal abortion happened at a point when he transitioned from being a politician in a liberal pro-choice state to courting the conservative religious right for the republican presidential nomination. It is that context and not the details of his conversion that make the story suspect.
I agree - and pretty much stated so above when I mentioned convenient timing. If the story itself wasn't believable to me, I wouldn't bother trying to resolve my suspicion one way or the other. Since it is, I need to move to the next step of the analysis.
To be honest, I doubt I'll actually have to resolve this particular issue. Because of the screwed up primary schedule, the nomination is almost certain to be locked by the time I get to vote.
If Romney is the candidate, I'll have 8 months or so to figure this out.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Why do you like Romney better than McCain, out of curiosity?
quote:I dunno, how did you originally read that as a backhanded compliment? Simply because I figured Mormons would be tough enough to take the abuse?
That seems a decent assessment of how I meant it. I think the relevant term would be "fair game".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why do you like Romney better than McCain, out of curiosity?
I don't, yet.
With McCain, I think he has too cavalier an attitude about free speech.
Moreover, his grandstanding during the baseball steroids scandal annoyed me. Not enough for me not to vote for him (I haven't decided that yet) but enough, coupled with several other instances, to think that he might be as much of a political opportunist as Romney is accused of being.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So, you mean he is too quick to stem free speech?
The word that folks kept using for him during the 2000 run was "temperment". He didn't have the "temperment". But he's no Kerry or Dole, either.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, you mean he is too quick to stem free speech?
Yep. I've posted at length about it aspects of McCain-Feingold before.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'll check around. 2006 Okay, that does sound familiar. How ironic that it was probably not their intended effect.
I'm a little alarmed at the claiming of a constitutional right to free speech by a group, as opposed to a citizen. What do you think, should I bump that thread to discuss it?
I believe your case at UVA had to do with equality of access by groups, and certainly what's fair is fair. It just suddenly jumped out at me as written in the Post article that my link rests on.
P.S. My thinking on language, intent, and groups is all influenced by my field (linguistics) so I'm prone to radical statements.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Since the Liberals are in the middle and the NDP and Greens are further left, the left-wing vote is split while the right-wing voters only have one realistic choice.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)