Signs ranged from WHAT DO WE WANT? MODERATION! WHEN DO WE WANT IT? WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME FRAME, to LES RÉASONABLES or I'M WITH SANE. The signs both celebrated the day and took a poke at the angry demonstrations and town-hall meetings of the last two summers.
There were signs about signs, such as BIG SIGN, or WITTY SIGN, and yet another informing the world that I HAVE A SIGN. THIS SIGN IS SPELLED CORRECTLY hinted that the other side needed work on its spelling. I CAN SEE SANITY FROM MY HOUSE perhaps needed no explanation. Another theme was the Hitler reference, the rhetorical atom bomb lobbed at everyone from George Bush to Barack Obama. Uncle Sam pointed at the reader: I WANT YOU TO STOP DRAWING HITLER MUSTACHES ON EVERYONE. Another sign, carried by a man dressed like the Führer, read: NO, I'M HITLER.
that last one made me laugh.
i do thing the larger theme - that of "enough is enough, enough with the hate, the lies, and the general mean-spiritedness in this nation towards those on the other end of the political spectrum" - is true.
beyond our perceived economic woes, our perceived fear of terrorism, and so on, those things could all be fixed, but if people continue to hate based on belief, color, religion, orientation, or what have you, our country is NEVER going to get better - rather, it will just splinter apart completely.
1
Great One
ID: 20955287 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 10:42
If I didn't need to be nearby my house all weekend (on the market) I would definitely have gone.
2
Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 11:43
and this is why we all need to get out and vote, and lot let the Conservative lie and hate machine win this election.
Two way road, Tree. I'll readily admit plenty of conservative leaders base their campaigns on lies and hate and fear. But its not just the conservatives. Its basically all of Washington and politics at any level of government.
The whole culture of politics is screwed up and needs changed.
4
Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 12:10
Two way road, Tree. I'll readily admit plenty of conservative leaders base their campaigns on lies and hate and fear. But its not just the conservatives. Its basically all of Washington and politics at any level of government.
i challenge you then. show me something that shows the level of dishonesty and bile from the party in power is as far ranging of the conservatives and matches that of the conservatives.
i believe we're still waiting for someone to show us any Democratic leader saying something that matches the level of audacity of what Mitch McConnell said last week (paraphrase "our number one goal is to make sure Obama is a one-term president")...
5
Khahan
ID: 373143013 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 12:42
Wow, tree, are you really denying that there are liars and dishonest people and people with hatred that are liberals? Sorry Tree, but there aren't really shades of grey here. I never said one thing about worse or better. My claim is that the hatred spewing, lying idiots exist on both sides. And both sides needs cleaned up.
Both sides are more interested in playing politics and posturing for the next election and less interested in the serving the constituents who voted them in office. Get them all out. Clean house and start over.
This whole comparison thing from the constituency is as much a part of the problem as the politicking itself. Until the voters can put aside the need to defend to the death their own version of the idiots in Washington we'll never get anywhere.
6
Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 12:47
Khahan - i challenge you then. show me something that shows the level of dishonesty and bile from the party in power is as far ranging of the conservatives and matches that of the conservatives.
I think this is a fair challenge from Tree. You've got the whole internet at your disposal, the election is tomorrow, just about every blog is talking about it, surely you could find an example. Would go a lot further than saying, "wow, you don't believe me?"
7
Khahan
ID: 373143013 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 12:58
Hmm, seems the proof I need is right here on the boards. Again, my position is that people and politicians can't see past their own party to realize there is a problem. And the response I get is, to paraphrase, "that other party is worse."
The restoration of sanity needs to occur on both sides of the politcal spectrum.
8
Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 13:21
Are you really THAT lazy? No, nothing on "these boards" support your argument - that ALL of Washington and politics at every level is based on lies and fear. Really? How about an example like Tree asked?
9
Frick
ID: 42825248 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 13:24
Is the right worse? Possibly, that doesn't mean the left isn't guilty as well.
I fiscally conservative, but more moderate (probably liberal by today's Republican standards) on social issues. Sitting in the middle I tend to agree with Khahan, both sides could use a cultural shift.
Could I probably find the "evidence" that Tree wants, sure. But, I have no desire to delve through the muck from either side.
10
biliruben
ID: 358252515 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 13:25
I am taking the last post as a concession of the point.
While there will always be crazy extremists in the population of both left and right, we usually try pretty hard not to elect them to political office.
Right now the right is doing just that: they are putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum. The left is not doing that. They may have in baldwin's youth done so, but they are doing it now.
11
biliruben
ID: 358252515 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 13:26
I was referring to post 7.
12
Great One
ID: 20955287 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 13:30
This was the perfect rally from your point of view Khahan. Cause its a rally against the extremists on both sides. And I agree with you there are some on both sides. Though I tend to agree with Tree that there are more of them on the right. And the stuff they are spewing is much more hateful. The Hitler stuff is just out of line.
13
weykool
ID: 138481617 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 13:31
i do thing the larger theme - that of "enough is enough, enough with the hate, the lies, and the general mean-spiritedness in this nation towards those on the other end of the political spectrum" - is true.
and this is why we all need to get out and vote, and lot let the Conservative lie and hate machine win this election.
Seriously Tree are you just posting these as a joke? If you are seroius I will give you props for making it 24 hours before taking a cheap shot at the other side.
Matthew 5:7 Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye.
14
biliruben
ID: 358252515 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 13:36
Is there any thread that can be considered a bible-free zone?
15
DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 13:42
Nope, and if you don't like it you obviously hate America and are part of the Taliban marxist conspiracy!!!11!!!1!1!!!!!
16
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 13:43
I agree with weykool and Khahan on this one. The rally wasn't to counter conservatives. It was to counter the lying and fear mongering. The fact that much of that is happening from the Right these days is besides the point. And if you came away from the rally thinking this was a great blow for the Left then you've missed the point.
17
Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 13:49
Wow, tree, are you really denying that there are liars and dishonest people and people with hatred that are liberals? Sorry Tree, but there aren't really shades of grey here.
i simply challenged you to find some examples. a similar challenge was made in regards to McConnell's statements, and that too went unanswered.
Right now the right is doing just that: they are putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum. The left is not doing that. They may have in baldwin's youth done so, but they are doing it now.
this, sums up my point. Thank you.
Seriously Tree are you just posting these as a joke? If you are seroius I will give you props for making it 24 hours before taking a cheap shot at the other side.
fine. step up to the plate if you think i'm joking. Care to take to the challenge Khahan didn't?
I agree with weykool and Khahan on this one. The rally wasn't to counter conservatives. It was to counter the lying and fear mongering. The fact that much of that is happening from the Right these days is besides the point. And if you came away from the rally thinking this was a great blow for the Left then you've missed the point.
absolutely, and that's what i said. but i maintain that the lies and hate are more prevalent from the leadership on the right than the left.
18
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 13:50
19
The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 14:16
Yeah Khahan. Scour the nether regions of cyberspace all so Tree and Seattle Zen can dismiss your points.
20
Boldwin
ID: 49104717 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 14:17
i challenge you then. show me something that shows the level of dishonesty and bile from the party in power is as far ranging of the conservatives and matches that of the conservatives.
Really? The party that can't even think about their opposition without imagining him a racist thot criminal should not be thowing stones.
Grayson lying and calling his opponent 'taliban Dan'?
The relentless campaigns to belittle Palin, Quayle, Coulter really are no less relentless than the way Pelosi and Reid are treated. Sure you will retort, 'Clinton' but his hounding was over actual crimes and misdemeanors, not spelling gaffes.
21
Khahan
ID: 373143013 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 14:23
Care to take to the challenge Khahan didn't?
Exaclty tree, I honestly do not care to take the challenge. I'd rather put energy into helping both sides realize just how screwed up things are. I'd rather not spend energy contributing to the finger pointing, name calling, hatred and bigotry that pervade our national scene.
22
Boldwin
ID: 49104717 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 14:35
Dick Armitage points out that it was quite generous of Stewart and Colbert to take the time and energy away from their dayjob to decry what they do for a living.
23
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 14:37
Somebody has to.
24
Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 14:54
Heres one for you. The president said this last week on Univision.
The president said: “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us’
25
Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 15:25
Yeah Khahan. Scour the nether regions of cyberspace all so Tree and Seattle Zen can dismiss your points.
if it's that difficult to find a reputable source, then obviously, there's a reason for that.
I honestly do not care to take the challenge
that's your choice. it was a simple enough request.
Grayson lying and calling his opponent 'taliban Dan'?
no doubt, bad form. and pretty disgusting. and from a freshman representative with little or no political experience prior to his 2008 victory.
makes you kind of wonder about electing people with similar backgrounds who speak angry words, such as Angle or O'Donnell, eh?
The relentless campaigns to belittle Palin, Quayle, Coulter
Palin has dug her own grave repeatedly. things like saying you're a foreign policy expert because you can see Alaska from your house or when asked what magazines you read you respond with "oh. um. er. um. all of them!" is something she did on her very own.
Coulter is antagonistic and baiting. she gets what she gives. she's also not a politician.
for that matter, neither is Sarah Palin anymore.
and Quayle? really? you need to go back 20 years?
so, after your perfectly legit Taliban example from a freshman rep and political outsider, you follow with examples that include two non-politicians and a guy who hasn't run for political office in nearly 20 years?
Heres one for you. The president said this last week on Univision.
The president said: “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us’
this is a good example of context mattering. the entire quote is below, and the last sentence is important in regards to the tone:
"If Latinos sit out the election, instead of saying we're going to punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us. If they don't see that upsurge in voting in this election, then, I think it going to be harder."
i see nothing wrong with that statement, and if you do, please explain what is.
26
Khahan
ID: 373143013 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 15:44
And Boldwin and Tree will go on to exemplify my point.
Both parties need a house cleaning and we need a serious overhaul of how our government works. Do I have specific answers? No, but a general outline of what needs done is:
1) Term limits - across the board. 2) Severe restrictions on campaign spending. 3) A greater focus on individual constituencies rather than party lines. This one is tricky because you have to balance the wants of your particular constituency vs the need of the country as a whole. 4) Special interests - this is another tough one. They can do REALLY good things. Or they can do REALLY bad things. How do you let the REALLY good things still happen w/out letting the REALLY bad things in?
There are other things can definitely use some work. Little things like the use of riders on bills needs looked at (ok, that can be a big thing) among other parts of the bill writing process.
But as long people are so focused on, "Hey, look at what Joe did on that side! Thats terrible and that whole sucks." or "Wow, John on that side really said that? That whole side should be ashamed and everything they say from here out is tainted and worthless," we'll never get the reform we need.
27
Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 16:37
And Boldwin and Tree will go on to exemplify my point.
no, not at all. my point was made. no one could even be bothered to provide one tiny link. personal choice, but made a point.
Baldwin provided one passable example sans link, and three that weren't relative to the question. that being said, i'll maintain that as a whole, bili's #10 sums up what i'm trying to say.
28
weykool
ID: 138481617 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 18:02
Pelosi: I think the time has come to speak very frankly about the lack of leadership in the White House, the lack of judgment.
I think that we have to have a change of leadership. Of course, I would like to see that be John Kerry. I think he has a better approach to this. But I will say this: Maybe the Republicans would like to rethink who is leading the charge for them because this cannot be an acceptable standard, a war of choice. A war of choice. Let's not even go into the lack of basis to go into the war. We go in. We are one team, one fight. We're with our troops all the way. But we owe them more than the lack of preparation, the lack of equipment, the lack of intelligence, the lack of knowledge.
I long, weeks ago, called for the resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld, for a number of reasons.
supported Dick Gephardt for president of the United States and was proud to do so.
So whoever he decides, I will celebrate and work very hard to elect so that in November we will have a Democratic president of the United States, one who can restore our national reputation for our country and grow our economy at home to create jobs. And we will have a Democratic Congress. We will have Tom Daschle as the majority leader of the Senate, and I'll be proud to be the first woman speaker in the history of our country when the Democrats take back the House of Representatives.
Well, I'll guarantee you one thing, one guarantee a program: I will guarantee you that John Kerry will be president of the United States.
To be honest here....making a big deal about the Mitch McConnell quote I find it to be a tad bit obsurd. Calling Bush a liar or accusing Republicans of wanting to starve children is okay with Democrats but dont you dare say you want to limit Obama to one term, because that is somehow out of bounds? Give me a break.
Tree, calling for civility and then a little more than 24 hours calling the other side a bunch of liars reminds me of: "There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch".
#14 FYI Its the freedom OF religion...not the freedom FROM religion.
29
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 18:10
bili wasn't advocated that Guru use some kind of Constitutional standard. Only that posters be less quick to post Biblical quotes as though this were some kind of knockout blow after which no discussion need occur.
Meanwhile, you are all seemingly falling into the trap of utilizing civility as a club against the "other side."
The problem isn't that there are people with whom you have serious disagreements. Or even that you can point to some of those people being uncivil. Civility is neither a club not a standard you only hold the other side to in order to score perceived political points.
30
Razor
ID: 57854118 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 18:16
So you don't think there's any difference between Pelosi saying, "I think that we have to have a change of leadership. Of course, I would like to see that be John Kerry. I think he has a better approach to this." in the middle of an election cycle and McConnell saying, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." two years from the next Presidential election?
If you can't, I will be glad to explain it to you.
31
Khahan
ID: 13126822 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 19:08
Seriously this is an issue? When 2 sides are competing for 1 thing its a big deal for one side to say they want the other side to lose?
This is yet another example of exactly what I'm talking about. This whole debate is a non-issue. Its only an issue because 1 side wants it to be ammo against the other (hint, its not. Its no different than if Obama, while campaigning said he wants to be a 2 term president). And as long as both sides do nothing but look for ammo against the other, we as a country will only sink down.
There are 2 things elected officials do: 1) help lead the country (or local/state government)
2) Campaign for the next election
The problem is, #1 keeps being pushed aside and keeps taking a backseat to #2. Even when it comes time to vote, its no longer about whats best for the people who elected me. Its now about, "whats the best move to help me with #2."
Thats the problem in a nutshell. When a politician is campaigning there is nothing wrong with them saying, "We want so and so out so we can be in." THAT'S THE POINT! When they are campaigning, that's fine.
Its when they aren't campaigning that I take issue with that kind of behavior. If the sole reason for voting against a bill is because not letting it pass hurts a 'strategy' that the other side has, then I have a problem with both sides. Cause the other side's 'strategy' is usually voting for something because it will make them look good.
As a country, our people and our leaders have forgotten what we elect officials to do for us. We elect them to pass laws and lead us ahead and to govern us. We do not elect them to squabble and point fingers, to tell lies and spew hatred, or to position themselves for a re-election.
So keep on harping on the fact that during a campaign somebody said what their goal was. And keep on harping on the belief that one side is more vile or hateful or full of liars than the other.
I'll keep believing and talking about getting all those self-serving, backstabbing liars out of office, regardless of which side they are on.
32
Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 19:59
post 28 - and none of that said anything close to "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
the details are important. THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE WANT TO ACHIEVE.
it's not improving the economy. it's not making the country safer. it's not adding jobs.
it's making sure Obama is a one-term president.
there is a difference between wanting the president to be from your side of the aisle (because that's a given) and from saying that your number one goal is to get a new president in there.
33
DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 20:34
"#14 FYI Its the freedom OF religion...not the freedom FROM religion."
If you (this is a collective you, I'm not specifically picking on you, though you're the one that brought it up) keep trying to use government ram your religion down my throat, then I clearly have neither.
34
J-Bar
ID: 491057119 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 20:58
re 32 In his mind the other things you listed will be taken care of if the first thing happens. Amazing this is a 'GOTCHA' moment, must be a slow press week.
35
Tree
ID: 248472317 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 21:06
re 32 In his mind the other things you listed will be taken care of if the first thing happens.
well, except for the fact that these things are already happening, while Obama is president.
36
weykool
ID: 138481617 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 21:16
Exactly what religion am I ramming down anyone's throat? I suppose that because I posted something from Meet the Press I'm trying to ram the NBC network down your throat as well?
Tree you can keep parsing words all you want. I have zero problem with what Pelosi said as well as McConnell. However, calling the other side a bunch of liars is completely out of line when you appear to be making an appeal for civility.
37
J-Bar
ID: 491057119 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 21:19
Your right Tree how silly of McConnell; He should have said that he endorses Obama and can only hope that the constitution can be amended to allow for a third and maybe fourth term.
38
Boldwin
ID: 481011122 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 23:11
A lifelong committed communist in the WH is obviously, by definition, America's biggest problem unless you believe America is the world's biggest problem and think it needs to be destroyed.
39
DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 23:52
Ah, yes, Boldwin presents shining evidence of the evil that Stewart reminds us to fight against yet again. Thanks for playing.
weykool -- "Exactly what religion am I ramming down anyone's throat?"
Obviously, you a) missed the "it's a collective you" part, and b) if you don't notice it happening it's because you haven't been paying any attention whatsoever over the last couple of years. That you would even contest the point is quite frankly mind-boggling.
40
Khahan
ID: 13126822 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 00:04
Today (as of 4 mins ago where I am) is the day to vote. Go get the institution overhauled. Get out the incumbents, but make sure you aren't just putting in another dummy.
Let the people who you are voting into office know what YOU as their constituent wants from them.
41
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 00:11
Unfortunately, in my area, the guys I wouldn't mind seeing out of office are running against genuine idiots.
I would *love* to see the GOP run a moderate candidate in my House district. He (or she) would really clean up. My rep (Paul Kanjorski) is a nice guy who has been around far too long. But the Republicans keep running idiots against him--he should have been voted out a long time ago.
[I've been encouraging my locate PA State Rep to run--he's a moderate Republican and very well liked here. But no dice. I told him I'd even help run his campaign.]
I'm not going to make it worse by voting out a guy just because he's been there awhile. To get my vote, the new candidate has to show me he can do a better job.
42
Khahan
ID: 13126822 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 00:28
I've actually got the same problem in my area. Though the local guy for me is actually pretty good. He still seems willing/able to serve rather than run for next term. That is probably more common on the local levels.
43
Frick
ID: 42825248 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 08:32
My choice for Representative is similar. The incumbent is a D, who I don't agree with on a number of issues. His R challenger has only done negative attack ads and hasn't said what she would do to fix any issue, other than vote against Obama and Pelosi. It doesn't help that she comes across as a Palin/O'Donnell wannabe wacko. With those two choices I'm either voting for the D or the libertarian candidate who was much, much better than both of them in the debates, but I'm sure will get less than 2% of the vote.
44
Tree
ID: 248472317 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 08:46
hasn't said what she would do to fix any issue, other than vote against Obama and Pelosi.
as i read that, a commercial came across my screen raging against a candidate who apparently is an "obama/pelosi" liberal.
45
Frick
ID: 42825248 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 08:50
Yeah, I just don't get the strategy. Tell me how you are going to fix a problem. Any one can bitch and moan about the current person can't fix a problem. A leader is able to formulate a plan and work to implement it. I don't see very many Republican candidates running as leaders.
46
biliruben
ID: 34820210 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 08:53
I agree. That's my main concern. I want someone who will actually govern.
Those candidates who will often didn't make it out of the primaries, because they were painted as something other than Obama-wreckers, i.e. RINOs.
47
Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 10:05
I don't see very many Republican candidates running as leaders.
That's because the current Republican leaders are Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter - dysfunctional personalities who have no constituency to answer to and promote other dysfunctional personalities as legitimate party representatives, Christine O'Donnell the most obvious example. They distort their obstinance as adhering to principles, yet they consistently abandon principle with blatant dishonesty in both their personal and professional lives.
Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert understand that they are comedians, satirists and political observers; they understand that their positions as media personalities doesn't extend to being kingmakers, the result being a likeability factor across a wide cross-section of Americans.
Keith Olberman, taking his cues from the conservative attack dog personalities, doesn't enjoy the popularity of Stewart/Colbert, because his tactics mirror those he villifies.
Spanning the conservative punditry, there's only one personality I can truly say I enjoy listening to, and that would be Dennis Miller, ironically, a comedian.
48
C1-NRB
ID: 2672611 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 12:54
PD #41: Unfortunately, in my area, the guys I wouldn't mind seeing out of office are running against genuine idiots. (snip) I'm not going to make it worse by voting out a guy just because he's been there awhile. To get my vote, the new candidate has to show me he can do a better job.
Khahan #42: I've actually got the same problem in my area. Though the local guy for me is actually pretty good. He still seems willing/able to serve rather than run for next term. That is probably more common on the local levels.
I say it every election cycle but I don't know if I post it every cycle (although maybe I should.)
The problem isn't MY representative, senator, councilman, trustee, alderman, justice of the peace, county commissioner, and/or dog catcher. S/he does right by me.
The problem is YOUR representative, senator, councilman, trustee, alderman, justice of the peace, county commissioner, and/or dog catcher. If YOUR (or THEIR) representative, senator, councilman, trustee, alderman, justice of the peace, county commissioner, and/or dog catcher was looking out for MY interests like MY representative, senator, councilman, trustee, alderman, justice of the peace, county commissioner, and/or dog catcher does we wouldn't be in this mess.
49
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 13:01
That's exactly why I discount the "generic ballot" or Approve/Disapprove of Congress polling questions. Poll after poll after poll show that voters are nearly unanimous in giving higher approval ratings to their own representative than to Congress as a whole.
Which is probably how it should be.
50
Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 13:23
one thing that will surely be interesting after these elections is the attitude toward Sarah Palin from the GOP.
my gut feeling is that if she announces she will run for president, the GOP leaders will push strongly to have her NOT get the nomination, because they know if she does, Obama is a shoo-in for a second term.
51
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 13:38
I think they are already doing such a push, behind the scenes.
Regardless of whether she's on the ticket, she'll want to have a place at the table. And, frankly, she probably should be at the table.
52
Boldwin
ID: 481011122 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 14:06
My gut feeling is that she is perfectly happy being the worlds highest paid, and most effective cheerleader/fundraiser/kingmaker while she puts in the same 3 decades of personal education in conservative principles and realpolitic that Reagan put in.
Rushing her would be a mistake so hopefully someone other than 'RomneyCare' Romney comes to the fore so she doesn't have to go off prematurely.
53
boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 14:31
re 26: I will add one simple fix do away with the primary system. who pays for the primary system anyway? does government pay or do parties pay for there own? either way get rid of it.
54
Boldwin
ID: 481011122 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 14:34
Careerism and corruption would go thru the roof without primaries. That's just halfbaked, Boikin.
55
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 14:49
Primaries that are paid for by the parties would work for me. I don't believe the general public should foot the bill for partisan endeavors.
While we're at it, the parties should pay for their own conventions, too.
56
boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 15:34
Careerism and corruption would go thru the roof without primaries.
not sure how you have any form of justification for that answer, unless forcing politicians to the middle is seen as a form of corruption. The 2 party system sure seems to breed a lot of career politicians.
While we're at it, the parties should pay for their own conventions, too.
I don't even know where to begin...remind me not to ask questions it is better to just not know.
57
Boldwin
ID: 481011122 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 16:12
For example Murkowski would still be safe and impossible to remove without primaries.
58
Boldwin
ID: 481011122 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 16:13
Crist in Fla would be another prime example.
59
boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 16:28
Crist is going to lose with out a primary so it looks like you are wrong on that one.
60
Mith
ID: 28646259 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 16:46
How in the world could you do away with primaries? Ban from contention anyone who was chosen by public tally to run for office?
61
Mith
ID: 28646259 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 16:51
I think boldwin's point is that crist would be effectively unopposed from the right if not for losing the primary.
62
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 16:55
Also that primaries are a very good way to bring new blood (and ideas) into a party.
63
Boldwin
ID: 481011122 Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 19:00
64
boikin
ID: 532592112 Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 09:33
How in the world could you do away with primaries? Ban from contention anyone who was chosen by public tally to run for office?
No but the government does not have to support the system. And why do you have to 'register' your party affiliation? I mean think what the uproar would be if you had register your religion. Can the parties not keep track of there own players?
I think boldwin's point is that crist would be effectively unopposed from the right if not for losing the primary.
Actually he did not lose in the primary he quit before it happened. but that is not the point, so Rubio would have said oh i better not run because crist is too middle of the road my more right philosophy has no chance? If this is true this the best arguement yet that primaries do more to drag us to extremes then most other arguments.
65
Mith
ID: 4982142 Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 09:51
And why do you have to 'register' your party affiliation?
You don't. As far as I know, you can register as an independent in every jurisdiction in the country. If you mean to ask why government would want to register a candidate's party affiliation, simple logistics is probably the best answer. How would you decide who's name goes on a ballot? In the current system, if a party's candidate gets enough support in a previous election, that party's next nominee will get on the ballot and have access to public funding.
Don't get me wrong, I think our current two-party system is a bust, too. But not because they use primaries to select their nominees or because candidates in most jurisdictions take advantage of the opportunities provided by registering with an established political party.
66
Mith
ID: 4982142 Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 09:56
so Rubio would have said oh i better not run because crist is too middle of the road my more right philosophy has no chance?
No, because Rubio made a name for himself through his strong challenge of Crist during the primary season. If not for the process by which the GOP selects a nominee, far fewer would have heard Rubio's message and he likely would have stood no chance in a general election. The primary season is what made him.
67
Khahan
ID: 373143013 Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 10:19
Boikin, what exactly would getting rid of primaries do? Each party needs a way to select a candidate to represent itself. How would you propose this happens without primaries?
68
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 10:35
I don't think boikin wants to get rid of primaries per se, but get rid of them being held at taxpayer expense.
69
DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 11:14
"Boikin, what exactly would getting rid of primaries do? Each party needs a way to select a candidate to represent itself. How would you propose this happens without primaries?"
Actually, there's a bit of method to the madness there -- insofar as it would take a lot of power away from the actual PARTIES and put it back in the hands of the individuals. It'd also tend to move the politicians closer to the center of the electorate. Eliminate primaries + instant runoff voting?
(No, I haven't given it that much thought -- but there's some potential there.)
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com