posted
I forgot to mention, I'd also like to see a cross party ticket. Something along the lines of McCain/Obama or McCain/Feingold.
It'd blow the US two party system wide open. They'd have to either create a new party or run as independents, which means the dems and the republicans will still run their own candidates, which most likely means pandering directly to their base. They have to know that McCain/mystery moderate Democrat would run the table with the moderates of the nation. But alas, dreams like that just don't come true. There's still too much party loyalty, and McCain has been talking to the GOP base too much lately to hope for anything like that to happen.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to see a Mark Warner/Evan Bayh ticket. But then, I'm from Indiana, so I'm biased.
But Warner did a great job as governer of Virginia and is hugely popular there, so I think he'd be a good president. He would also get the all important South. Meanwhile, Bayh would pull Indiana, certainly, and probably a lot of other swing states in the Midwest.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evan Bayh spoke at my university's graduation ceremony last May. It was very clear that he knew he was a potential runner in the presidential election. He seemed too much "slick politician" to me.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bayh has become more of a "politician" over the last few years. But he's still got more integrity in his little finger than the amassed House of Representatives.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been asked by many posters to elaborate my views on Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. My problem with each of them can be expressed in one word: populism. Mrs. Clinton with her bizarre voting record (banning flag burning) and Mr. Obama with his equally strange desire to woo conservatives seem out of touch with liberalism.
A politician is not what we need, although we shall surely be stuck with one, better one who is not so clearly self-promoting as Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama.
Yes, Mr. Gore is self-promoting, but he promotes something besides himself as well. I cannot, for the life of me, see that the other two do.
Liberal Democracy is the only cause in a Liberal Democracy that makes sense, the others shall doom us to become something else. I am not against change, far from it, I believe that real change is needed, but I believe that this change happen within the context of Liberal Democracy. Locke, Voltaire and Jefferson wrote centuries ago, and there is much in their works that needs to be changed (Locke and Jefferson made their fortunes from slavery), but their basic vision of society is the one with which we must operate, we are both morally and legally obliged to do so.
And Populsim, that beloved doctrine of self-preservation beloved by dictators and juntas since Ancient Athens, is the natural foe of Liberal Democracy.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I have been asked by many posters to elaborate my views on Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. My problem with each of them can be expressed in one word: populism. Mrs. Clinton with her bizarre voting record (banning flag burning) and Mr. Obama with his equally strange desire to woo conservatives seem out of touch with liberalism.
A politician is not what we need, although we shall surely be stuck with one, better one who is not so clearly self-promoting as Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama.
Yes, Mr. Gore is self-promoting, but he promotes something besides himself as well. I cannot, for the life of me, see that the other two do.
Liberal Democracy is the only cause in a Liberal Democracy that makes sense, the others shall doom us to become something else. I am not against change, far from it, I believe that real change is needed, but I believe that this change happen within the context of Liberal Democracy. Locke, Voltaire and Jefferson wrote centuries ago, and there is much in their works that needs to be changed (Locke and Jefferson made their fortunes from slavery), but their basic vision of society is the one with which we must operate, we are both morally and legally obliged to do so.
And Populsim, that beloved doctrine of self-preservation beloved by dictators and juntas since Ancient Athens, is the natural foe of Liberal Democracy.
You see weakness in Obama's wooing of conservatives. I don't. I see him strongly stating that he is religious, and just as strongly as he defends gay and lesbian rights. I see what he stands for and I think its a brand of strong moderation. He is very talented at getting people to work together, and that includes conservatives AND liberals. I think it makes for a very healthy brand of progressiveness. Obama has the HIGHEST approval rating in the entire senate according to one poll, and yet he is still 97th I think in seniority.
As for following a model laid out by Jefferson and Locke. What specific ideas of theirs were you thinking of when you said that? Jefferson's "Rebellion is healthy every 50 years or so?" or "We need to live in an agricultural based society as industrialism promotes laziness?" I am sure you don't mean those ideas, I am just goading you
I just think you are misunderstanding what you see when it comes to Obama. I wont comment on Hillary because I do not know enough about her to say anything REALLY inteligent.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a minute, "morally and legally obliged" to follow Locke, Voltaire and Jefferson ? Can't I follow say.. Mill instead? With a touch of Nietzsche?
I would like to be free to choose the philosophers I follow!
Posts: 122 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And Populsim, that beloved doctrine of self-preservation beloved by dictators and juntas since Ancient Athens, is the natural foe of Liberal Democracy.
Dude, you freakin' quote Enjolras in your Wikipedia profile.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Wait a minute, "morally and legally obliged" to follow Locke, Voltaire and Jefferson ?"
You could follow other morally, but the laws of this country are based on the three I cite (Mill has been an influence, but a late one.)
"Dude, you freakin' quote Enjolras in your Wikipedia profile."
Enjolras was a liberal, not a populist. (actualy, he didn't exist, but he represents the liberalism of the Spring of Nations.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
" He is very talented at getting people to work together, and that includes conservatives AND liberals."
If I may be allowed to lapse into populist rhetoric, Pas de replātrage, la structure est pourrie.
In seriousness, compromise can only work when there is ground to work on. The German Christian Democrats are social conservatives with whom we can work, American fundementalists are not. These people diasagree with us on the most important political issue, what it means to be human and who we admit into that fraternity. Liberalism is the a philosophy based on the Rights of Man, rights held unalienable. How, then, can we work with those that would alienate these rights?
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've mentioned flag burning twice as proof of Clinton's populism. One vote doesn't make a pattern, I'd like to know more.
And I'd like to see anything on Obama's voting record. As for his "wooing conservatives," so what? Dear god, he's actually reaching across the aisle to the opposing party and not being a partisan hack? The jerk! He's open about being religious, GOOD, it's about time a Liberal came along who wasn't ashamed of his religion or his politics, or at least didn't feel the need to sacrifice one for the other.
If you want a Liberal who only works with other Liberals, or who panders to his base, then you're part of what is wrong with the party, not what's right. Wooing conservatives isn't populist, and if it IS, then I guess there's something to be said for populism.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
There is a difference between being popular and being populist. Freedom of speech is, in theory, popular. And yet, populists try to abridge it in the name of such things as national pride.
"One vote doesn't make a pattern, I'd like to know more."
And yet no pattern is needed. Leaders must be human beings, and yet we forbid them to be. This is proper, must not even Cęsar's wife be above suspiscion? In Mrs. Clinton's case, she also voted for the Iraq war, despite it being waged against Liberal ideals. Luther did not lost WWI, whatever Benedict said, and Voltaire shall not loose this one, no matter how much Benedict and Mrs. Clinton say it is so.
"He's open about being religious, GOOD, it's about time a Liberal came along who wasn't ashamed of his religion or his politics, or at least didn't feel the need to sacrifice one for the other. "
Absolutly, I admire the late Pierre Trudeau, a good Roman Catholic and a great Liberal, very much.
" then you're part of what is wrong with the party, not what's right."
I am not even in the party, and yet I am bringing it down. I have stated that there are those with whom we disagree but with whom we can work, and those with whom we cannot work. There is a difference between Adenauer and Hr. Dr. jur. Stoiber, and it is not just that the former is long dead.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
"One vote doesn't make a pattern, I'd like to know more."
And yet no pattern is needed. Leaders must be human beings, and yet we forbid them to be. This is proper, must not even Cęsar's wife be above suspiscion? In Mrs. Clinton's case, she also voted for the Iraq war, despite it being waged against Liberal ideals. Luther did not lost WWI, whatever Benedict said, and Voltaire shall not loose this one, no matter how much Benedict and Mrs. Clinton say it is so.
Alright then, I declare you an idiot. I don't really NEED a pattern of evidence to prove that you are an idiot, just need a gut feeling and out of context references to past historical figures to make it so.
She voted, as many Democrats did, for a resolution that gave the President power to use force if necessary. Whether or not she honestly believed that the President would wait before launching headlong into the war is something none of us will probably ever know, so assigning motive on your part is purely speculative. It's you guessing at her motives to prove a conclusion you already came up with. Not very logical.
And I just checked by the way, she DID NOT vote for the flag burning amendment. She attempted to introduce legislation in the senate that would have made it a law, but not a constitutional amendment. When that legislation was shot down, she voted against the amendment. So even there you're wrong.
posted
" She attempted to introduce legislation in the senate that would have made it a law, but not a constitutional amendment."
Oh, I feel so much better knowing that your candidate did not realize, or hoped that her voters would not realize, that flag burning can only be banned by an amendment.
"She voted, as many Democrats did, "
Argumentum ad populum is a well understood fallacy, and yet I am the illogical one? I do not claim to be perfectly logical, but I have no monopoly on illogic.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't read the text of the law, just reporting the facts, which is something you seem to have a problem grasping or at least responding to. The point is, she voted against the amendment, and you are wrong. I guess that's two points, still, there you go.
And that wasn't my argument, which you so neatly shunted aside. Deal with the actual argument, not just the precursor part that you have an easier time arguing against. You don't know what she was thinking when she voted for an authorization for the use of force and you know it.
You're wrong about the flag burning amendment, and you can't prove she voted for the war knowing full well that we'd be there not even a month after she voted for it. So I repeat to you: Got anything else?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My question is, have you got anything. Why do you believe that Mrs. Clinton is the single best person in the running to be the de-facto ruler of the free world?
I don't think she is the worst, but she is far from the best. I like Mr. Obama much more, but still much less than Messrs. Gore and Richardson. Is this a crime against logic and morality?
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said she was the best. I just don't understand where all the anger and hatred towards her is coming from, and I'm trying to find out.
I think she is smart, capable, and has a lot to offer. I too think there are better candidates out there, but I think that of the most well known names in the field, she's maybe the best.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen any fire from Richardson or Bayh, and for all of the talk I've heard about Warner, I've yet to hear him say anything.
For me, the issues come down to political courage and wisdom. Gore, Richardson, Bayh, and Warner all seem to be lacking in one or both of those aspects. Give me Bill Bradley. Give me Howard Dean, but since I can't have either of those, I can proudly take Barack Obama.
While I don't agree with him in every way, the man seems leagues ahead, with respect to wisdom and courage, of any of the other contenders.
Regarding Hilary Clinton. I'd be more eager to vote for her a decade ago, now she just seems like too much of an insider.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I never said she was the best. I just don't understand where all the anger and hatred towards her is coming from, and I'm trying to find out.
I think she is smart, capable, and has a lot to offer. I too think there are better candidates out there, but I think that of the most well known names in the field, she's maybe the best.
I also don't understand why people get so worked up about her. Currently she fails my ports deal litmus test, but most of both the House and the Senate do that. Other than that, I can understand disagreeing with her politics, but I don't get where the personal ire comes from.
Of course, because of that personal ire she'll never be able to win a national election; so I rather hope she doesn't run.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"While I don't agree with him in every way, the man seems leagues ahead, with respect to wisdom and courage, of any of the other contenders."
I cannot surport him becouse I find he has little courage, and Mrs. Clinton has far, far, less.
"Other than that, I can understand disagreeing with her politics, but I don't get where the personal ire comes from."
From being known as the spineless wonder? Hillary Clinton is just an easy example of what politics has so often become: all spin and show with no substance. Her husband was also guilty of this.
Bobby Kennedy was the last politician both worthy and capable of election, we killed him, as we killed Socrates, Jesus, Ghandi and M.L.K. before him. Plato, writing after the death of only the first of these, was right: we always try to kill those who show us the light.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I cannot surport him becouse I find he has little courage"
I dont quiet get what you expect out of Sen. Obama in reguards to courage. He's able to work and get liberal agendas through the republican controlled senate. I believe he is the new blood that liberal Demacrates are looking for. As a presidental or vp canidate it is too early for Obama; Only in his second year as a U.S Senator he could make a monster of a canidate in a 2012 or 2016 race.
With the Crisis in the Middle East it has most liberial politicians trying to establish foriegn policies and oppose president Bush at every turn. When they should be concentrating on Liberial core issues: Social Services, Education, Deficit, and Health Care (which 45 million americans dont have).
For those reasons I see a Clinton/Richardson as Demecrates best hope for a 2008 victory and ill give my reasons. Sen. Clinton may have some argueable voting on the lesser issues but on the big topics she's right on key. She has good plans on immigration and health care. With a running mate of Gov. Richardson who is well respected internationally(former U.S ambassador to U.N and several nominations for noble peace prize) and has the record of a true liberal. Richardson also gives the advantage of the Hispanic vote in key states like Florida, Nevada, Arizona(on a no Mccain ballet), and even a longshot Texas. There is also the relief of not having to deal with massive anti gay-marriage conservative turnouts.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not entirely sure one way or the other than Richardson/Clinton wouldn't be a better ticket. Clinton is too polarizing. Putting her in the VP does a ton of great things. It pulls pressure away from people who don't want her in the Oval Office, it lets the experience of Richardson shine through, it allays fears that Bill Clinton comes along with the deal, I mean let's face it, who really cares about the husband or wife of the VP?
Furthermore, assuming they won reelection in 2012, it sets her up for a presidential run in 2016, perhaps with a more seasoned Barrack Obama as her VP. That can go every which way, but I think having Hillary take the backseat to Richardson is better in many respects, not the least of which is the fact that the ticket looks a lot more palatable to people across the political spectrum than it does with Hillary's name on top.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
McCain/Feingold... hm. Any of us might like to see such a ticket, but it would be a crime for us to air that opinion in mass media, if McCain gets his way and McCain-Feingold is expanded. (It already is, unless you form a "527.") Not that we'd go to jail: the government is now using prior restraint to censor political speech. No one would hear us.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
The up and coming generation gets all their news from the internet, not billboards and TV ads. McCain-Feingold does nothing to censor the internet, nothing does.
We live in a world where YouTube can attract more viewers than an ad placed on Lifetime.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The up and coming generation gets all their news from the internet, not billboards and TV ads."
The up and coming generation still can't vote mostly, and even in my generation, newspapers play a big role, particularly news magazines and editorials in places like "The New Yorker." And "National Geographic" is the most influential of all.
"I don't quiet get what you expect out of Sen. Obama in reguards to courage."
The ability to be unpopular would be a first step, nobody with courage is universaly loved.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What generation are you part of Pelegius, that reads NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC more than they browse the internet? I thought you were a teen, not part of AARP.
I'm 22, most of my generation reads their news on the internet. I watch some CNN and CSPAN when I can, and read TIME once in awhile, but mostly I search out news on the net. Most everyone I know does the same. Anyone under 30 I think is in the same boat, I don't know about over 30 year olds.
18-30 isn't something to shake a stick at, it's a powerful voting bloc. A SMART politician would get them involved in the process by speaking to their issues. Lord knows we don't have many of those around.
As for your words on Obama and courage. That doesn't make sense. First of all, this is America, NO ONE is universally loved. Not our heroes, not our celebrities, and certainly not our politicians. Everyone has heard the phrase "The right choice isn't always popular." You seem to have missed the fact that the popular choice isn't always wrong.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama isn't universally loved; indeed, I suggest you name one person who has ever lived (or thought to have lived by many) who is universally loved.
edit: to drive this point home, look at your own opinion of Obama, then look at the phrase "universally loved".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may be true that kewl people prefer Internet to TV (certainly that would be flattering), but many only get their news from TV.
FEC is also considering defining blogs as mass media and calling a post friendly to a candidate a "contribution," so they can regulate it. Maybe it will never happen. I never thought it would be illegal to criticize candidates in advertising, either.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What generation are you part of Pelegius, that reads NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC more than they browse the internet?"
Maybe they just trust the former much more. We are not as naļve as sometimes thought, and can tell, just as easily as our elders, when we are being spun or lied to.
"You seem to have missed the fact that the popular choice isn't always wrong."
Indeed, but a choice must be made. The Democrats try to avoid anything as polarizing as a posistion. Currently, they stand for not being Republicans. Not particularly inspiring, but perhaps enough to win elections (I would vote against the Republicans even if I disliked the Democrats, shame election stats wouldn't make the distinction.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Given the circulation numbers of National Geographic and the registered population of MySpace, I think it's safe to say that this "generation" does not exist.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Given the circulation numbers of National Geographic"
Almost universal, I know of few people who don't read it and have seen it in Buddhist Monasteries and Royal Yachts, as well as in every public or educational library. Reading National Geographic is a great unifying feature of the English-speaking world. At 7,608,913 readers, it is more widly read than Newsweek and Playboy combined.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Oh, man. This almost brought tears of mirth to my eyes.
Pel, try removing the library and schoolroom circulation numbers from your "readership" statistic. And then, while you're at it, put them BACK in and compare to MySpace, which has over 21 million unique registered users (and over 70 million accounts). Even if the majority of those users are almost completely inactive, we're still looking at a number which dwarfs the most favorable statistic available to gauge the popularity of National Geographic.
Look, don't get me wrong, National Geographic is a fun read. But it's certainly not ubiquitous, especially among kids of your "generation."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. That National Geographic claim is so out of left field that I dont even know how to respond.
National Geographic? Really?
Hell, my friends are highly educated, highly intelligent fellows and none of them read National Geographic on a regular basis
Posts: 122 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Gore wins it'll be funny to see the jaws drop on the enviro crowd when he completelly ignores them.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on which part of the environment crowd. If you're talking about the "save the bears" people, I'm sure he will.
If you're talking about average tree huggers and supporters of clean air, not a chance he'll ignore them. But then, given your user name, I don't expect you to listen to reason.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"c. And then, while you're at it, put them BACK in and compare to MySpace, which has over 21 million unique registered users (and over 70 million accounts)."
MySpace is free and thus much more likely to have inactive members. It is also not a news source (N.G. isn't a typical news source either, but has commentary on many issues.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the youth of "your generation" would much rather spend their money on a National Geographic than...anything else...
If you were going to pick a magazine to defend print media, you should've picked TIME or Newsweek. At least there you have some numbers to back you up, but I still don't think more young people read TIME or Newsweek than get their news off the net (or, I have to admit, television).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Given the circulation numbers of National Geographic"
Almost universal, I know of few people who don't read it and have seen it in Buddhist Monasteries and Royal Yachts, as well as in every public or educational library. Reading National Geographic is a great unifying feature of the English-speaking world. At 7,608,913 readers, it is more widly read than Newsweek and Playboy combined.
This reminds me of the woman in 1972 who couldn't understand how Nixon won the presidential election, when everyone *she* knew voted for McGovern.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Reading National Geographic is a great unifying feature of the English-speaking world. At 7,608,913 readers, it is more widly read than Newsweek and Playboy combined.
So your ivory tower must have its own pressurized atmosphere, right? Or is it all the way up in space?
Out of a hundred people I know and interact with daily, I would have a very difficult time naming five who might read NG occassionally.`
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's back off the National Geographic assertion. Pel isn't very good at admitting he is wrong, and nobody here believes him, but the thread topic was interesting.
posted
", you should've picked TIME or Newsweek. At least there you have some numbers to back you up,"
Both Time and Newsweek have significantly lower rates of circulation than National Geographic. I admit that readership is not universal, but it is as close as any serious magazine gets, and probably higher among voters than the population in general, as non-voters tend to be less well educated than voters.
Take, for example, The Economist, a paper which has the power to bring down governments, yet has only a fairly small circulation. Its circulation just happens to include many, if not most, politicians, C.E.O.s and even editors of other papers. Nelson Madela and Henry Kissenger have both publicly endorsed it, as has Larry Olsen.
So, I perhaps should have said that National Geographic is almost universaly read by people who care about the world, and are thus likely to vote.
Seven Million readers in a huge amount, when you compare it to Newsweek's fewer than four million.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
