My friend ER asked this profound question over at Mark's place.
"OK. Somebody splain to me what hardcore Repubs have against McCain."
I can tell you what I have against Senator McCain. At a time when cohesiveness and solidarity has never been more important to Republicans, he was a ring leader in a group of moderates who refused to support the Republican leadership, and the wishes of the people who voted to put Republicans into the offices that he and the others hold, and cut an under-the-table deal with the opposition to derail the use of the "Constitutional Option" to stop the filibustering of the President's judicial nominees.
Ever since Senator McCain lost the Republican Primary for the 2000 election, he has had it in for the President. He has obstructed, and undermined, and placed terms on whatever minimal support he HAS given to his party. He has spent the majority of his time pandering to the other side, and soaking up the media adoration that he gets for doing it.
And I will NEVER forgive him for co-authoring and sponsoring the McCain-Finegold act, an open handed slap against the First Ammendment, which was put into the Constitution in the first place SPECIFICALLY to protect the very kind of speech which McCain-Finegold restricts.
This may be my Inner Right Wing Kook slipping through, but in my opinion, McCain blames Rush Limbaugh specifically, and Right wing Talk radio in general for his defeat in the 2000 primaries. I believe that McCain-Finegold was written in such a way that it can and will be used to attempt to silence Talk Radio Commentators in the future in the weeks leading up to national elections.
What this means is that McCain has no problem writing legislation which is contrary to the intent of the U.S. Constitution in order to further a personal goal, however petty that goal may be.
As I said before, the people who elected Senator McCain voted for what they thought was a Republican. What they got was an unpredictable, deal-cutting, appeasing, media chasing, self serving Moderate.
He can't be trusted, and I will not vote for him, for many of the same reasons that I would not vote for Hillary. I believe that they both have personal agendas, and that they both will pursue these agendas to the detriment of our Country and it's system of government.
Add to that the fact that Senators usually do not win Presidential elections, and rarely make good Presidents when they do.
We are at at turning point for America. Over the past few decades, America has drifted farther to the left than most people realize, and we are beginning to swing back to the right somewhat. It is very important that this turn be allowed to continue. The economic policies of the left will ruin the U.S. economy, and the left's foreign policies would undermine America's standing in the world as a superpower, and would surrender far too much of America's sovereignty to the United Nations.
With this in mind, I believe that a McCain Presidency would be disasterous at this time.
But I don't believe that he will get the Republican nomination. My only hope is that if he doesn't, he will not try to run as an independant, siphoning off votes from whoever does get the nomination, and insuring a Democrat victory.
I am keeping my fingers crossed...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
81 comments:
I never thought that I would see the day when 'moderate' became a dirty word.
Moderate is not a dirty word, bachelor. Not in every case.
It only becomes a dirty word when politicians hide behind that term in order to disguise their true ideology and win elections which they would not win as Democrats.
As I said before, The voters elected what they thought were Republicans to those Senate seats.
I would assume that these voters wanted Republican policy enacted.
Answer me one question Bachelor... Name for me a few "Moderate" Democrats.
(And I mean "Moderate" in the same way that McCain and the rest of the Republicans in the Gang of Fourteen are "Moderate".)
The Blue Dog Coalition is made up of moderate to conservative House members, mostly from the South. Dan Boren, son of former U.S. Sen. David Boren, is one; he represents my home district (where mama ER lives and ER grew up) in eastern Oklahoma. Them boys ain't lefty-libs.
In the Senate, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas both come to mind. Lieberman. Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.
personally, I can understand why most republicans aren't big fans of McCain, and I often wonder when he's just going to go ahead and join up with the democrats. you see, he's uber moderate.
concerning his relationship with the current administration, maybe he is secretly a little steamed about Rove's push polling during the 2000 election.
anyways, I'm all for the republicans bashing this guy. make it loud and make it public. most democrats would be more than happy to have him switch over.
one thing to consider though, McCain's position of an uber moderate puts him in a wonderful position pull the two parties more together on more issues. he could be a "uniter."
if not,
Clinton/McCain in 2008
Whoo-hoo!
ER, when was the last time that they broke ranks with the other Democrats and voted with the Republicans on anything as controversial as the filibuster issue?
screwball,
Re, "maybe he is secretly a little steamed about Rove's push polling during the 2000 election."
Bingo.
Tug, I think most of the Blue Dogs votes for the stupid bankruptcy bill. And I don't think the energy bill would've passed without moderate Dems in the Senate.
Here's the deal with the SCOTUS: Nothing is more polarizing. Besides, why do you not consider the Dems among the Gang of 14 as having broken ranks? The left screamed bloody murder just like the right did.
Because the end result of their action was that the filibuster issue was left alive to bite us in the butt another day.
The Democrats still accomplished their objectives. the Republicans did not.
Mayhap. But the leftiest of the left wanted to just shut the Senate the heck down. Crazy bastages.
BTW, I respect your bitterness. Reminds me of the resentment I still hold for Bubba's embrasure of SHAFTA.
--ER
I'm sorry, I can't help it.
I am just sick of my party refusing to act like winners when they win.
When the Democrats win, they set the agenda.
When Republicans win, the Democrats STILL set the agenda.
LEAD already!! Okay?!?
an important point to be made concerning the filibuster issue: whichever party in charge tries to kill the filibuster, and whichever party out of charge tries to save it because it's their only hope.
from a moderate point of view you've gotta have the filibuster to keep the balance of power (cuz, frankly, both parties are nuts and too irresponsible for total control).
I'm with you, Screw. The Dems used to complain bitterly about there being a filibuster at all, when it was the only thing the Pubs had.
The Dems got nothing worthwhile out of that compromise either; the filibuster still exists contingent on the "promise" that it won't be used except under "extraordinary circumstances", and it is still yet to be determined what those are.
I guess Press answered my question for me, and I'll add that most Dems seem to have initially voted for the war. And it also seems to me that the better part of them have been too scared to vote all that left for quite some time now.
I still don't think it's a bad thing when the parties are able to meet in the middle, but I agree that it means that no one quite ever votes their conscience, either.
and to "the press," I have to agree with you on the NAFTA thing. as much as I support Clinton (I'm mean who care's about a little head, that's not the first time that the office saw a little action--and of course he's gonna deny it), NAFTA was one of the most incredible screw overs that has happened to the american worker (another would be that "right to work" date-rape that has occurred in many states--including our Oklahoma).
Or fully represents their constituency, Bachelor.
I agree that we need a balance of power, but until this latest Senate, no political party EVER used a filibuster to derail judicial nominees.
The only time it has ever been used against a Supreme Court Nominee was in 1968 when Judge Abe Fortas was filibustered, and that filibuster had largely bi-partisan support.
The current crpo of democrats in the Senate are the first to use a threat of a filibuster (they haven't actually filibustered anyone yet, to my knowledge) to force a super majority on Supreme Court Nominees.
If Republicans were running around willy nilly, filibustering everyone all along, then how the heck did Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg ever get confirmed?
And if Justice Roberts is so awfully bad, then why in the heck is SHE okay?
Oh, and by the way, I could care less if the President gets a little somthin' somethin' in the oval office. I hope he is getting plenty, whoever he is.
But when he swears an oath in a court of law, and looks right into the television camera at ME, and tells a bold faced lie about it, knowing that he will be found out, then I begin to have a problem. It shows that he had a belief that the laws of our Country do not apply to someone as powerful as the President, as well as an extreme lack of character.
It never was about sex.
Not for me, anyway.
the situation right now is very far out right and there is the concern that GW is more than a Neo-Con. the left is concerned he is a Theo-Con. This means that his religious ideology is more important to him than the U. S. Constitution.
You see, the idea that there are currently "Activist Judges" is a myth. there isn't really enough room for judges to flex any activist muscle--unless they are in the Supreme Court. but what if the Theo-Cons put enough radical judges on the bench (namely 2) of the Supreme Court. no more balance, the Supreme Court has more power than Congress. the Supreme Court can throw out laws.
Consider this, Tug, pure right wing government is just a scary as pure left wing government. there is no balance, and it can border on totalitarianism--especially when they control the courts!!!
the courts have to--have to be moderate. they cannot be pro-left or pro-right because then nothing is fair. and, as long as people are concerned that the judges anyone appoints to the Supreme Court are activist or radical there will be a fight.
this would be the same thing if Kerry was President today. Come on, look at how polarized everything is right now. the pubs would filibuster for sure.
when it comes to human nature, no one is better, dems or pubs. everyone reacts the same.
about the blow:
yeah, Tug, that was bad. but I can understand why he lied. any of us would. to assume that the president wouldn't is trying to make him more than human. all presidents are human.
and, lying about a bj is far more innocent than lying to start a war. no matter what.
Except that the President did not lie to start a war.
That is Liberal propaganda, and you have bought into it, hook, line and sinker.
The Whole World believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD, and they did not get their information from President Bush.
Saddam Hussein himself said that he had them, and that was one of a whole littany of reasons that were stated for going to war with Iraq.
Even Bubba said that the U.S. should adopt a policy of regime change in Iraq. (Maybe President Bush lied to him too...)
The Iraq war was the right thing to do, and should have been done sooner than it was. I guess that Clinton was just busy with other things and never got around to it, even though he said it needed to be done...
none of this is personal. don't get upset. also, excuse the typos. I'm only typing as fast as I can think:
I am a news junkie. I watch everything. I am always checking in out online. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera. I look up Chinese new, Australian news. my interest is really news (unless you have actually check out Al-Jazeera you have no idea how much they are like any other news station).
I also watch Presidential speechs. Up until after the Iraq war was officially said to be over, I listened to everything he said. The war was based entirely on WMDs. There was already enough evidence to make me leery of the US finding any. it's funny, before the war started I asked everyone for the war how they would react if the wmds were not found. all of them told me they would be outraged. now, we know there are no wmds, yet everyone for the war still backs the prez.
I guess it is tradition to back the prez during a war no matter what.
Well, think about this for a bit.
the President does not decree thet we go to war. The Congress and Senate have to vote for it, and they did. They get the same breifings as the President, so you cannot lay this war completely at the feet of President Bush.
If you have a problem with the U.S. being involved in this war, stop bashing the President, and write your congressman and senator.
And I was unaware tyhat the Iraq war was declared to be over.
That's news to me...
sometimes I want to send them all a picture of my ass, but that won't change everything.
yes, you are right about the Congress. I'm not in love with them either, but at least right now some of them are going on the record against the war. and, aren't some of current Congressmen new? yeah, I think so. new blood, I can't blame them all.
let put this all to side and go back to McCain (wasn't that what we were supposed to be talking about anyway). everything is way to polarized right now--so much so that the government can hardly function. everyone needs to push back to the middle. McCain represents that right now.
(funny, I'm about as far left as you can get, and here I am promoting moderatism.)
Tug, what was the whole "mission accomplished" thing about? that's what I was refering to.
Oh, and just so you know, I believe that there were WMD. I just believe that the Dems and the U.N. delayed long enough for Saddam to hide them or move them to some other country (Syria? Iran?) before we invaded.
By the way, I have always said that if President Bush was as evil as you guys say, there is NO WAY that we would not have found WMD in Iraq. He would have sent container loads of them over with the first wave of troops for the press to observe and admire.
There is no way he would have handed this stick to the left to beat him with, if he was as dishonest as you say.
The "Mission Accomlpished" thing, as you call it, refered to the mission of one crew of one aircraft carrier.
The U.S. media blew that all out of perportion as well.
I'm sure that President Bush stayed up all night working on that banner, huh?
This is common sense, Screwball. I know you can get it if you try...
really?!
wow, I didn't know that. then that whole thing should be all cleared up by now.
--but, hey, how did that crew of that one aircraft carrier get off so easy?
They didn't. Most of them were re- deployed, and are still over there.
I'm sure they would appreciate your support.
You have to admit, it was kinda cool how the President flew that jet that day...
You wouldn't have thought that he had time to learn how to do that, as much time as he spent AWOL, and all...
Don't you guys wish that you could come up with a Presidential candidate who could do something as cool as flying a fighter jet?
actually, I heard he didn't really fly it. he was a passenger. it was just him and the pilot in that jet. still, it was quite a show, that's why we all thought it was supposed to be over.
let it be known that I wholly support everyone american soldier over there right now. I also don't want any more to die. it may be hard for you to understand, but one can support the troops and be totally against the war at the same time. I don't want anyone to have to die.
I will believe that when I can believe that someone can support the war, but not the troops.
Either you believe in the War effort and the troop's ability to accomplish our goals, or you do not.
We have an all-volunteer military.
They believe in their mission.
You should too.
are you a vet, Tug?
The next time you see a Soldier fresh back from Iraq, with his uniform on, walk up to him and tell him "I support you, but you were over there for no reason, and it is all a lie. You were wasting your time. But I support you!" And see what reaction you get from him.
Don't you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Nope. Not a Vet.
Are you?
I did that after the first Iraq war. the soldier told me that he did his job, but he didn't agree with the politics. true story.
most understand when I tell them that I just want them safe and sound and back home.
I'm not a vet, Tug. I've had this discussion with vets, though. and polls show that many soldiers are ready to come home, and the ones that come home do not want to go back.
I don't mean to offend you, Tug, but since you are not a vet, don't try to speak for them.
I have nothing against soldiers. I'm not calling them "baby killers." I just want them home. None of them should have to die for lie. none of them should have to die at all.
"I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."
When I was a lad, "sex" was one thing: Going all the way. Intercourse. We did lots of other, ahem, stuff, to keep from doing IT.
Which is why, while it was incredibly stupid for Bubba to say it, I understood WHY he said it.
And I want the soldiers home when the job is done. I do not know when it will be done. I might be a fool, but, gulp, I do, swallowing hard, gritting teeth, do trust the administration to know when that is.
And if I get snowed, screwed over or misled one more time, I will go socialist forever.
ER, I want the soldiers home as well. When the job is done.
It ain't done yet.
Whether anyone agrees with the reasons we are there or not, we are there.
The only option at this point is to kick booty.
And complaining that we are there because of a lie, whether that is the case or not, Ain't gettin' it done.
Support the Troops. Support the war. Support the President.
Support America.
And Screwball, Don't worry about offending me.
This is a Video game to me.
I know I'm right. I know you're wrong. If I fail to convince you, then it is because you are listening to much louder voices than mine. I am just a recreational blogger.
You have the right to your own opinion, however misguided you may be.
ER gets it. He is one of my favorite people in the world. He is not afraid to express his opinion, but at the same time, he uses logic, and is not afraid to use common sense. He will admit when he parts ways with the solid party line. I will too, just not on the "Bush Lied to start a war" thing.
He didn't.
You need to realize that fact.
Now, don't let me offend you, but you need to realize that the War on Terror included Iraq, Afghanistan, and any number of other Countries who sponsor Terror, the names of which we do not even know yet. It will not be over any time soon.
And it had to be done. No matter who the President happened to be.
We have to stop this plague upon humanity. Nobody else is strong enough to do it, or has the guts to take it on.
Nobody in the world, other than us.
And I am not too sure about half of us.
Oh, and ER, Socialism is not the answer.
Go Libertarian, like I plan to do when McCain wins the Republican primary in a couple of years.
Sigh. I say we bring back the Dixiecrat Party. Just make it way kinder and gentler racewise.
I'm okay with that, Er. Sounds good to me. I might even sign up...
it is always a folly to declare who is correct and who is wrong. I'm not 100% wrong and you are not 100% correct.
if a true "correct" exists it must be somewhere in the middle. you are I are far too extreme (and brother, are you extreme) to be "correct."
hell, man, its all relative.
Decent analysis:
Democrats waver in unifying stand against war in Iraq
Peter Baker and Shailagh Murray, Washington Post
August 28, 2005 DEMS0828
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Democrats say a long-standing rift in the party over the Iraq war has grown increasingly raw in recent days, as stay-the-course elected leaders who voted for the war three years ago confront rising impatience from activists and strategists who want to challenge President Bush aggressively to withdraw troops.
Amid rising casualties and falling public support for the war, Democrats of all stripes have grown more vocal this summer in criticizing Bush's handling of the war. A growing chorus of Democrats, however, have said this criticism should be harnessed to a consistent message and alternative policy -- something most Democratic lawmakers have refused to offer.
The wariness, congressional aides and outside strategists said in interviews, reflects a belief among some in the opposition that proposals to force troop drawdowns or otherwise limit Bush's options would be perceived by many voters as defeatist. Some operatives fear such moves would exacerbate the party's traditional vulnerability on national security issues.
The internal schism has become all the more evident in recent weeks even as Americans have soured on Bush and the war in poll after poll. Senate Democrats, according to aides, convened a private meeting in late June to develop a cohesive stance on the war and debated every option -- only to break up with no consensus.
The rejuvenation of the antiwar movement in recent days after the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq set up camp near Bush's Texas ranch has exposed the rift even further.
Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., broke with his party leadership this month to become the first senator to call for all troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by a specific deadline. Feingold proposed Dec. 31, 2006. In delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address last weekend, former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, a war hero who lost three limbs in Vietnam, declared that "it's time for a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy to get out."
While critical of Bush, the party's establishment figures -- including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) -- all reject the Feingold approach, reasoning that success in Iraq at this point is too important for the country.
Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, who rose to public prominence on an antiwar presidential campaign, said on television this month that it was the responsibility of the president, not the opposition, to come up with a plan for Iraq.
Identity crisis
The internal disarray, according to many Democrats, reflects more than a near-term tactical debate. Some say it reveals a fundamental identity crisis in the post-Sept. 11 world for a party that struggled to move beyond the antiwar legacy of the 1960s and 1970s to reinvent itself as tougher on national security in the 1990s.
But historic fault lines in the party run deep. Along with high gasoline prices, the Iraq war has fed public discontent that is expressing itself as members of Congress tour home districts during the August recess. Democratic officeholders have watched carefully as peace demonstrators -- inspired by grieving mother-turned-activist Cindy Sheehan outside Bush's ranch near Crawford, Texas -- staged more than 1,000 candlelight vigils around the country this month.
They also took note of the strong showing of Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq veteran turned war critic who nearly snatched away a Republican House seat in a special election in Ohio this month. House Democratic leaders are recruiting other Iraq veterans to run in next year's midterm elections.
"It is time to stand up and begin questioning the president's leadership," said Steve Jarding, a Democratic consultant who ran the 2001 state campaign of Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, now a potential presidential candidate. "I think the Democrats need to do that ... The American public is ready to say, 'Enough is enough.'"
"We have to go on the offensive to show the American people that we're not afraid to disagree," Feingold said.
He said he believes that an immediate withdrawal does not make military sense but that the public needs reassurance that the Iraq operation is moving purposefully toward completion. "We need to talk in Congress about this more openly and freely," Feingold said. "There's a rudderless quality that is making [people] nervous."
Turning Iraq into a sharply partisan issue, however, carries deep risks for Democrats and the country, some warn. "Credit the Democrats for not trying to pour more gasoline on the fire, even if they're not particularly unified in their message," said Michael McCurry, a former Clinton White House press secretary. "Democrats could jump all over them and try to pin Bush down on it, but I'm not sure it would do anything but make things worse. The smartest thing for Democrats to do is be supportive."
And some argue that Democrats do not need to craft an alternative policy, deeming it better simply to let Bush struggle. "The need for a coherent alternative mattered more when the benefit of the doubt went to the commander in chief," said Jeremy Rosner of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a Democratic polling firm. "Now he's getting to a dicey range of public opinion."
Still, the Democratic discord has provided solace for Bush advisers at a difficult time. Although Bush's approval ratings have sunk, the Democrats have gained no ground at his expense. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll in June, just 42 percent of Americans approved of congressional Democrats, a figure even lower than Bush's.
Okay, Screwball, I'll give you that.
I am a Right Wing Kook, and I am the first to admit it.
But I believe what I believe, and I am not afraid to state it, just as I am not afraid to admit my bias.
I see no good in undermining our Country. Why you do is beyond me.
I meant to ask you before...
What did i ever say that lead you to believe that I was reasonable?
ER, that is an excellent article, However it seems to meander all over the place without really saying anything except "Some people are FOR the War, Some are again' it."
Big surprise there...
Tug, you are the one trying to keep things from getting outta hand. that's reasonable.
you are not being hostile to me, that's reasonable.
man, when I was asked to leave some comments on your blog I expected a "right wing kook", but I also expected a loose cannon (hence my behaviour).
you are "right wing kook," but you play it fair and I respect that. (your anti-democrat post was not fair and that was why I second guessed myself, but we have that all straight now).
I think that Rush quoted that article on Thursday, or Friday, I can't remember which day...
Well, Screwball, I try.
Like I said, we are just talking.
I appreciate your input.
Thanks for taking my ramblings in the spirit that they are offered...
I am under no illusion that I am going to change the world with my little blog.
I just enjoy the debate...
blogs are like farts. they relieve a little pressure, but beyond that they just stink.
I had to get my arm twisted just to take a look at yours. no offense, I just hate blogs.
Who in the world twisted your arm to look at my blog?
Do I have an advertiser out there somewhere?
your blog was recommended. how else to people find out about blogs?
I dunno. I just started writing mine, and then followed the links from my comments page to the ones that I watch regularly.
Unfortunately I can't do that with you...
Be sure and thank whoever reccomended me to you for me.
I appreciate the exposure.
The story wandered because it was about the Dems' attitude on the war in Iraq, which wanders.
you know, I'm sorry to say, he's has a point with the military spending. the pubs have been cutting military spending since the reagan years.
it's true that Clinton cut some as well, but not near the amount of Reagan and the Bushes.
so, saying that the dems cut military spending is way off base (get it off base, oh well).
Jesus still oves you, Bruiser!
Yes he does, but Tug is still ignoring you.
Go away.
I didn't censor you, bruiser, I DELETED you.
Go write your OWN blog.
This one is MINE.
I twisted screwball's arm, and tweaked his nose a bit, to get him to join your blog. Having conversed with screwball for a number of years now, I knew that he would bring great passion on part of the left wing to these discussions. I tend to agree with Screw on most things political but don't lean quite as far left. Although sometimes I spin so far left on certain things that I end up on the right. My stand on complete legalization of recreational drugs, for instance, is a totally Libertarian view. Screw would probably find that idea abhorrent.
As to Sen. McCain - As a liberal Libertarian/independant/sometimes Democrat, I kinda like the guy. I mean that in the sense that it would be cool to get stinkin' drunk with him and listen to his war stories. I'm not sure that he would be a good president. He seems to be a conservative Democrat in moderate Republican's clothing. If he were to truly unite the two disparate halves of our populous, that would be a tremendous feat. I think it more likely that he would become an even more polarizing figure than Bush. The extreme left and right would hate him for different reasons and the great big crowd of silent people in the middle would stick their fingers up their noses and say "Duhhh" as per usual.
I'd like to find a 4' 11' old black woman named Martha to run for president. A feisty old gal who could tell all the Clinton's, Mccain's, Bush's and the rest to go straight back to the political hell that birthed them, and then she could set this country on the right course.
Don't be too quick to "misunderestimate" the large crowd of people in the middle, Cats. They are the people who sway elections. They ignore everything that goes on around them until a couple of weeks before elections, and then they go down to the polls and vote for the last guy they saw on T.V., or the one who was better looking than the other guy.
(This is why McCain-Finegold was such a heinous attack against our electoral system.)
So YOU are the one who sent Screwball over here for me to mess with...
Thank you.
I enjoy the participation of both of you guys...
I will say again that I don't ever expect to change your minds, and you will probably never change mine, but I enjoy the debate. It forces me to examine why I believe what I believe, and to find evidence to support my opinions.
You guys on the other side work very hard to keep me honest, and I appreciate that very much.
correction, Cats, I am for the total legalization of all recreational drugs because I think the money that we are spending on the War on Drugs could be better spent on education and on endorphine research to cure physical addiction.
all drugs except meth, which is such a white trash redneck drug that it is disgusting.
Well, thank you for your kind words, Tug.
Now I feel strongly that I must address that mass of great unwashed in the middle of our political spectrum. I don't believe this is a left/right issue, it is an American issue. Over the last 20 years or so the nation has developed a schism. We have a few million registered voters on the far left and a few more million on the far right. We also have that group you mentioned that floats around somewhere in the middle until something shiny catches their attention. "Ooh, look - that young Democrat sure is handsome." or "That nice Republican sure hates abortion, just like me an' Pastor." And yes, those skyballs can unfortunatly turn the tide in a close election.
Here is the math that disturbs me to no good end - Less than half of the eligible voters in the US are even registered to vote. Out of the people who bother to register only about half of them bother to ACTUALLY vote. So only 1/4 of the "voting" public ends of making important political decisions for the rest of the country, and in essence for the rest of the world. If the far left and far right are equally divided, then that means just a million or so mid-spectrum idiots make up our future every few years.
I believe that voting should not be a right or a priveledge, it should be mandatory. I also believe that rather than a voting age (talked to any 18 year olds lately?) we should have a voter's IQ test. Fall below a certain level and we pull your voter's card.
yes, too many people are not interested in politics.
I agree with Hunter S. Thompson (god rest his soul). I am interested in politics because through politics I control my environment
(or should I say that I try to wrestle it free from the right wing theo-cons who are attempting to restrict my freedoms in our free society of our free country)
We also need to administer tests on geography and global politics and economics. The other day I was sitting in the little coffee shop I started up recently and heard the following conversation.
"Yes, Pastor told me that the Ten Commandments have been posted at public buildings for so long now that we shouldn't have any problem defeating those God-hating radicals"
"Pastor is so good. What was he counseling you about?"
"My husband just started his new job. I'm a little worried because he will be spending several months in Kabul. When I visit, I will have to cover up my skin."
"BLANK STARE INTO SPACE" - "Now why did Pastor tell you to cover up your skin?"
See, an uninformed, one-issue voter. This lady voted for Bush because he doesn't like abortion. I doubt she could point out the USA on a globe, much less anything in the middle-east. And when did we start using the title of Pastor as if it were a given name?
more importantly, what kind of coffee shop are you running?
Good point Screw. A coffee shop full of super theo-cons is not what I had envisioned. Dean Moriarity...where are you?!?
Boy Howdy, you guys have a low opinion of Christian Conservatives...
The first ammendment applies to them as well, you know...
By the way, I would pass all the tests that you guys mentioned.
Do you REALLY want someone like ME to have the right to vote?
what's more important is how vulgarly you people have shortened my name. "screw"
not a very comfortable moniker.
could we go back to "screwball" or do I need to go back to "tallywacker jesuseyes"?
Yes Tug, when you pass the IQ and other assorted tests, I will certainly want you to join me in line at the polling place. I'll happily sit beside you while we both take the exams.
And I don't have a problem with conservative Christians exercising their rights under the constitution. It is when they try to take away the rights of others that I become incensed. My point with the story about the lady in my coffee shop is that she raised that one issue (abortion) to such a level that she based her vote on it and nothing else.
Tug, you made a comment in an earlier post (probably the one where you were trying to goad Screwball) that Democrats don't give a shit about moral issues as long as the economy is chugging along. I can't speak for all dems but that is not true for me. I hope that people like the lady in the shop will start giving a crap about the economy and look past their own narrow view. Isn't it one's Christian duty to make for a sound economy so that the poor can live decent lives?
My back story is that I was raised Catholic, switched around to various Christian denominations as a teenager and am currently leaning heavily towards Buddhism.
Oh, and sorry screw, er ball, ah I mean tallywacker - oh hell, Mr. Screwball.
dems are for moral issues 100%. moral issues are not the same as religious issues.
dems are also for the separation between church and state as it is implied by the first amendment.
Screwball, I believe that I have used your whole name whenever I have adressed you. If I have not, then I apologize.
And Cats, my view is not so narrow that I cannot consider the possibility that a baby human being, who through no fault of it's own, has not yet been allowed to develop to the point of being born may be entitled to the right to it's own life.
And the people who have a view so narrow that they can only see the right of the mother to not ruin her figure, or inconvenience herself by taking care of another human being that SHE created, call ME narrow minded.
Tug, you are narrow-minded.
Once again you slap a quick coat of varnish over the complex side of the issues. There are many arguments one way or the other as to whether a fetus is a person, has a soul, feels pain and the rest. You have simply stamped your initials on its head and said "lets move along". And then on the other side of the coin, you automatically assumed that a woman would want an abortion for some petty and vain reason such as losing her figure. How about abortion in these cases? 1) A 12 year old girl gets gang raped in front of her helpless mother. 2) A lovely 16 year old cheerleader (who believes in Jesus & Elvis and everything)gets molested by her drunken father. 3) A 55 year old woman finds out she has ovarian cancer and that having the baby will kill her. 4) Through modern medical technology, the parents learn that the fetus will be born deaf, blind and in severe lifelong pain.
It makes your "losing her figure' remarks sound kind of trite.
well played, cats.
Oh, by the way, are you assuming that I am in the "pro-choice" camp? You might be surprised to hear my real views on abortion. As long as you promise not to feel icky.
My point in using the conversation from the woman in the coffee shop was that she was using abortion as her one and only criterion for voting in the most powerful leader in the world. The economy is also just one issue. I would hope to sweet Jesus that the voters could learn to have an all around package of issues to decide upon, not just rely on Pastor or Daddy or whomever.
Yep, Cats, well played.
You have cited examples that are such a miniscule part of the Abortion debate as to be inconsequential.
(Typical Liberal strategy.)
My point is that whatever the circumstances, we cannot make the decision as to the value of the contribution any human person will make to society with a clear concience, because we can never know what that contribution may be, if we do not let that human being mature to adulthood.
We do not know, nor will we ever know, if the scientist who would have cured lung cancer or heart disease or AIDS, or the
President who would have found the solution to the Isreali/Palestinian conflict has already been aborted.
WE WILL NEVER KNOW!
I firmly believe that we should be allowed to kill all the children that we want to, I just think that we should wait until they are about twelve years old.
That way, we could determine if they are ever going to be productive citizens, or be a burden to society all of their lives.
Natural selection, Darwinism, Survival of the Fittest...
All that kind of stuff.
Ya know?
Maybe that is the EEE-VILL heartless conservative in me showing through...
See, now that is the problem I have with EEE-vill conservative thinking. While it may be true that the examples I cited are small in number, they are great in importance. Most anti-abortion people refuse to allow abortion even in cases like the ones I cited. All of which are real-life actual examples culled from my local newspaper. Our community has 35,000 in total population. Those few examples I gave are a pretty high number when figured incapita. I bet the woman going through all that chemo-therapy doesn't think of that part of the abortion debate to be "inconsequential".
Conservatives typically dismiss anyone else's problems as long as it doesn't interrupt their steak dinner. When it is his or her's child that gets gang raped or molested, then they are all hot to jump on the nearest bandwagon.
Tug, if you are going to use the child's potential as the sole measurement of abortional propriety, you need to look at the other side of the coin as well. Maybe one of those abortions killed off the next Hitler, Stalin, or (gasp!) Jane Fonda.
Yes, kill children at 12 years old. I think I disagree with you on this. I think we should wait until they are old enough to be used for medical experiments, organ donations, and white slavery. We get the best of all possible worlds that way
Since no one has asked, I will offer up my stand on the abortion debate anyway.
I think that:
There are no absolute answers.
We cannot, thus far, determine at which point a fetus becomes a human being.
I keep asking myself questions about all this, and usually each answer is - NO
Should abortion be completely illegal? NO
Should abortion be readily available for promiscuous teens to use as cheap, easy, birth control? NO
Should the government have the authority to tell a woman what to do with her body? NO
Should the church (any church) have the power to force a woman to do its bidding? NO
Should society encourage, either directly or indirectly, women to seek abortion? NO
But then some answers are: YES
Should honest, forthright sex education be taught in our public schools, including classes in birth control? YES
Should condoms be made available to everyone who might be thinking of having sex? YES
Should we give women, especially young women, truthful counseling once she has become pregnant and is considering abortion? YES
You see, I am not firmly ensconced in either camp. I believe that each case of possible abortion should be taken as just that, an individual case. I also dislike the monikers the two groups have given themselves. Pro-life and pro-choice my ass. I like to call them the Evil Baby-Killers and the Abortion Clinic Bombing Terrorists.
Post a Comment