Political Gum.

[TheHouse]

Just throwing some topics out there to chew on:

1) Funny how everyone here plays into the two main political parties strategy of making people believe that you should only have two choices for President (Democrats and Republicans). There are other parties out there that haven’t received any press at all….Does Hillary really represent you and make you life better (no way in hell for me)? Does John McCain truly represent everything that you believe in (no way in hell for me)? Why can’t we get the other political parties (mainly Libertarian and Green) to gain momentum when people are so discouraged with the status quo?

2) Why would you ever want to vote for a political party that is without doubt going to increase “BIG” government (yes, I’m picking on Democrats). Do you really feel that you and all other individuals cannot think for themselves? When I hear Clinton and Obama speak, it’s as if they are playing to a crowd of second graders. If I were a true Democrat (which I am not), I would be offended with the way that this party continually rants “I represent change”. There will be change regardless of who is in office….that goes without saying.

PS….If you’re truly liberal you should vote for McCain. He’s a better ally than Hillary or Obama. If you’re not up to speed on how he destroyed campaign reform, Google it.

Share This

[Anonymous]

TheHouse, I liked the points you just made. Something to think about. I just joined this website and was thinking maybe I was the only non-Democrat.

Share This

[JoB]

house..your assertion that McCain is liberal depends upon your definition of liberal i think:) Campaign finance reform following nearly getting your hand caught in the Keating cookie jar doesn’t exactly qualify one as a liberal.

and your assertion that democrats equal big government is also dependent upon definition. If you equate big government with big social programs, you might be right. But if you equate big government with huge tax relief and subsidies for private businesses you might be wrong.

the assertion that every new president equals change is also dependent upon definition. If your definition includes the words “in policy”, then a new president does not necessarily mean change.

As for why the alternate parties aren’t getting much attention this year… i think the last two elections are a good indicator of that. Alternates pulled enough “liberal” vote to lose an election for the democrats. Not a good idea this time:)

You do make some good points though and they sound like the basis for an interesting conversation.

I agree that all of the candidates sound as though they are speaking to second graders… and that is due to our sound bite driven press.

None of the candidates will quickly forget the press’s reaction to Kerry’s attempt at articulate answers in the last election. His front porch talks were actually quite thought provoking, but his press coverage was anything but.

America elected the candidate they would most like to have a beer with because that’s what the second graders led them to believe was important. A major award winning newspaper actually endorsed Bush for his second term because he was likable and they loved his campaign promises… in spite of acknowledging that he hadn’t fulfilled any of them in his first term. And this was on their editorial page. Amazing.

i think there are plenty of republicans as well as democrats who aren’t too happy with the directions our nation has taken. And i don’t think most of us believe that any of the presidential candidates now offered are the ideal solution. But you have to work with what you’ve got.

I just think it is time that American citizens became a larger part of the conversation than American business… and i hope it’s time for Americans to think for themselves and not just take the information offered by an increasingly sensationalized press as the final word.

Personally i don’t think your political affiliation is nearly as important as how you feel about issues that will affect all of us. When it comes to the real issues, rhetoric aside, most of us are more alike than different.

I am a conservative… a true conservative… a conservative democrat. imagine that:)

Share This

[Ken]

I an enjoying how much McCain is hated by the current Republican leadership, the pundits and free republic.

But that does not make him a “liberal”

Now days Goldwater and Eisenhower would both be considered too liberal today and hounded out of the party.

The Dems would take them.

McCain’s poor judgement was on display several months ago when he visited the Baghdad market.

My nephew was one of those several hundred troops in a cordon around him. There were 3 gunships directly above and a dozen more staged close by.

He still needed advanced ceramic armor just to walk a couple of blocks.

The next day many of those Iraqis shown on the news footage were dead or kidnapped and presumed dead.

He is a republican. His family are long time Republicans.

He may not vote for a Dem but he swears he will not vote for “that F—kin old fool”.

Pass the popcorn.

Share This

[Kayleigh]

As to why the Green and Libertarian parties don’t gain momentum: I don’t think they offer a viable alternative. The views they hold don’t resonate with enough people–plus they don’t have the years of establishment, infrastructure, money, etc. There are always the “anti” people who consider themselves independent,renegades,anti-whatever-is-popular, etc. who will latch onto someone outside the two main parties. But that’s not most Americans,I don’t think.

Must also say McCain is no liberal in my mind, and no ally to those of us truly on the left. Interesting that some neo-cons see him that way–shows you how far right the right wing has become. If you are against torture, I guess that makes you a liberal.

Share This

[Ken]

I am still chewing but some of it sure taste “funny”.

There are other parties out there that haven’t received any press at all

Can you name some of those third parties? Google is little help today.

Wikipedia has the most complete info so go here for the overview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_presidential_candidates,_2008

The communist party has not offered a candidate since 1988 google tells me and Brian Moore is again the candidate for the Socialist party USA (which I think only exist in California now)

The Constitution Party has a couple of unknowns and is trying to draft Ron Paul after he drops out of the Republican race (which I hope does not happen, RP could certainly liven up the usually boring, scripted convention)

The Green Party is trying to draft Ralph Nader.

Nuff Said.

The Libertarians have 9 candidates and they describe themselves in ways that cover every possible permutation from far left to bull goose looney.

They also are trying to draft Ron Paul.

Prohibition Party has some anti alcohol minister from some flyover state. As usual.

Independents. No party since they cannot agree on anything.

There are 26 of them running for president.

Good luck to them all.

One thing they all have in common?

They did not garner enough support to get on the ballot in Washington State.

Ok I chewed on that for a while and all I got was a vaguely bilious taste in my mouth.

Lets see what else you got.

Meanwhile I think it might be time to let liberals define liberalism.

---

I am a liberal. We live in a liberal democracy.

That’s what we created in this country. That’s in our Constitution. … I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principals of the Enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn’t founded on the idea that someone would get stuck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can’t lose that in this country. We’ve got to get it back.

— Wes Clark – September 5, 2003

---

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then … we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

— John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960

---

Long ago, there was a noble word, LIBERAL, which derived from the word FREE [libre]. Now a strange thing happened to that word. A man named Hitler made it a term of abuse, a matter of suspicion, because those who were not with him were against him, and liberals had no use for Hitler. And then another man named McCarthy cast the same opprobrium on the word. Indeed, there was a time–a short but dismaying time–when many Americans began to distrust the word which derived from FREE. One thing we must all do. We must cherish and honor the word FREE or it will cease to apply to us….

— Eleanor Roosevelt

Share This

[Jeffro]

McCain was a fresh idea eight years ago. I did like the guy, but the fact that he held his tongue and supported Bush in ’04 was unforgivable to me.

“BIG” government is a smear and doesn’t mean anything. You (the candidate) need to tell me what areas of government you think are big and how you plan on going about shrinking them. For me, ending the war in Iraq would be a good start. I will allow for the possibility of government to step in where private enterprise has failed us, and big on that list is health care. Nothing’s free. We all know that. Part of the dishonesty with the Repub side is they cut taxes and then increase spending. A true conservative should balance the checkbook, something we haven’t seen since the Clinton years.

I personally see no difference between Hillary or McCain, and will not vote for either. I’d really like to see Obama get through, and failing that, I’d like to see Ron Paul go it alone.

Share This

[JoB]

This link to a Nation article came in my mailbox today.. clearly supporting Obama. I am still thinking about it.. but since we are throwing things out there for people to think about.. i throw this.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/hayes

Share This

[JoB]

I wrote my reply to my friend and clarified my thinking.. so here it is:)

My problem with the article is that beyond the assertion that Hillary is a hawk and surrounds herself with hawks… there is little there beyond the fact that the south might find Obama a less bitter pill to swallow.

Again, what bothers me is the unknown.

When Bush was campaigning, he said all the right things, but there in his history was what he did.. not what he said.

I think Obama has shown us the same thing in his history… what he does is not the same as what he says.

Hillary on the other hand does pretty much what she says…and owns up to what she calls hard decisions that don’t always please.

something about that attracts me.

I really can’t wait to hear other reactions to this. Let er rip:)

Share This

[JoB]

Move-on.org just came out for Obama

from their on-line poll:

Obama: 197,444

70.4%

Clinton: 83,084

29.6%

From their comments section… one person from a red state said that Obama was a candidate that he heard people from the other side voice interest in… he thought they could perhaps be drawn by Obama.

interesting.

Share This

[Ken]

Comparing Obama to Bush seems a bit forced if not a rationalization for a choice already made.

“If conservatives were compassionate, they wouldn’t have to put the adjective in front of it.” – Wesley Clark

I knew Bush was lying the first time I heard that “compassionate conservative” line. His record of mismanagement, incompetence and down hard ignorance with a mean streak was legendary in Texas.

But it seems to have escaped the corporate media.

So we reached the “Mencken point”

–On July 26, 1920, HL Mencken wrote in The Evening Sun:

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

— H.L. Mencken(1880-1956)

Republicans and sometimes Conservative Democrats suffer from a condition that can only be described as empathy constriction.

Their empathy can only reach the end of their arms. So anyone they hug or shake hands with regularly can share in their empathy and be treated like another human. Everyone else is “the Other” and “The Stranger” or deamonized into “The Enemy”

Wars are seldom caused by spontaneous hatreds between people, for peoples in general are too ignorant of one another to have grievances and too indifferent to what goes on beyond their borders to plan conquests. They must be urged to the slaughter by politicians who know how to alarm them.”

— Henry Mencken

Notice how those who suffer from this condition change their views when confronted with what was only an issue for “other people”.

The Cheney’s don’t join in the gay bashing now that they have a daughter that is out.

Nancy Reagen was all for stem cell research when there was a chance it could have eased St Ronnie’s suffering. And a wingnut talk show host gets converted to “health care for all” by one painful and long visit to the emergency room.

My brother in Law is not quite as gung-ho as he used to be since his son watched the driver of his hummer killed by an rpg that went through my nephews open window.

Most of us developed empathy as children. In some Democrats I think it extends too far. I know one highly educated man who neglected his own children while traveling around the world building water systems, wells and hospitals as a member of half a dozen charitable organizations, some religious, some not.

Another feels livestock are worthy of the same protections as humans, ignoring the fact that they would not exist if they were not both tasty and edible.

And we now have a chance to start the recovery.

Either Hillary or Obama should probably be expected to do little harm to the constitution, though I think the scale tilts a little towards Obama as a constitutional scholar.

Hillary’s advisers and potential cabinet are a mixed bag. Wes Clark, Madeline Albright and Ambassador Holbrook are all smart and tough and though they have been through war, they will not use it as a substitute for buying resources on the world market. Terry McAuliff is a world class snake, known liar and completely owned by the corporate overlords especially the telco/ communication and media giants. Mark Penn and Chris LeHane are professional liars and PR flacks specializing in union busting.

Obama does not seem to have a specific group of associates waiting for patronage jobs that I can find. I can assume he has some good people as well as some of the ugly side of the direct mail industry in his campaign.

I don’t think he has been inside the beltway long enough to collect a large group of both saints and sinners that we can point to.

I will take either one. But I have to speak up when I see an unfair attack on either one, or both as it seems I have done in this forum.

Share This

[JoB]

Ken,

I wasn’t trying to slander Obama.

Would you have been happier if i had skipped the last two presidential campaigns and used the example of Bill Clinton’s campaign promises? He certainly didn’t deliver what he promised in some very fundamental ways.

The question becomes how close their marketing resembles the reality of their positions.

Clinton was an unknown charismatic… and i think his actual positions didn’t surface until he was embroiled with the presidency.

I don’t think that turned out well for progressive democrats.

Bush’s campaign was simply the most recent and blatant example of a Presidential candidate’s marketing being at odds with his reality… I certainly didn’t call Obama a lieing sack of sh.t … nor do i think that. And yes, i do think Bush was. I think his record in Texas was very clear for anyone who bothered to look at it.

There is a clear difference between Republican and Democratic candidates. And for those who are looking for a place to get offended, please let me go on record as stating that i think there is a serious gulf of truth between the marketing of the Republican hopefuls and their actual positions… but that is another post:)

As to Obama, i merely reacted to one article in the Nation contrasting the two Democratic hopefuls and stated my response to it.

Between Democrats, we should be talking about minor ideological differences… and those small differences can matter a great deal.

We know that Obama’s “progressive views” are not reflected in his congressional record. He does seem to come in slightly to the left of Hillary, but only slightly. So it is less than truthful to market him as a being more progressive than she.

As for his political advisors, i think we can be fairly sure of at least one of them, Ted Kennedy:)

I would be far more comfortable if we had a better idea who the others were. To me.. this increases my concern about the unknown and makes his campaign harder to evaluate.

Hillary’s bunch…

“Terry McAuliff is a world class snake, known liar and completely owned by the corporate overlords especially the telco/ communication and media giants. Mark Penn and Chris LeHane are professional liars and PR flacks specializing in union busting.”

Every campaign has PR flacks and outright liars.

That’s part of the business of getting elected. I am glad she has selected the very best she can find. She will need them if she goes head to head with the Republicans. And since we are allowed to assume here:) I assume she realizes that is really all they are good at.

However when it comes to policy “Wes Clark, Madeline Albright and Ambassador Holbrook ” are a pretty substantial lineup, don’t you think?

Who will Obama have instead? At this point, we have absolutely no idea.

Thus my comment… with Hillary you get what you see. We are pretty sure we know what we will get from her.

It’s just an opinion Ken.

I have never said that i don’t think Obama is a viable candidate. I just don’t think he is the best candidate right now.

I would be much happier supporting him in 4 years because i don’t believe that Hillary will survive past 4 years of telling America hard truths and non-stop “scrutiny”… and i believe hard truths and hard decisions are going to be the only way America can begin to pull back from the incredible mess we are in right now.

I honestly think my candidate is the right woman for the job for some pretty substantial reasons.

Still, i am actively involved in plenty of conversations with those who disagree with me because it is only by hearing the opinions of all sides (yes, including republicans) that we can truly clarify our own opinions.

Share This

[Ken]

To get back to the original topic :)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/348434_mccainonline24.html?source=mypi

excerpt:

Don’t be fooled by the myth of John McCain

JOHANN HARI

A lazy, hazy myth has arisen out of the mists of New Hampshire and South Carolina. Across the pan-Atlantic press, the grizzled 71-year-old Vietnam vet, John McCain, is being billed as the Republican liberals can live with.

read the rest at the link.

Share This

[JanS]

Ken…I saw that article last week, and it definitely made me pause. I suppose we all have things form our youth, from our past, that we have changed as we have matured, become wiser (at times). But…how recent was his little ditty about “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”? Not that long ago, and not fitting behavior for a man who would like to be president IMO. Sort of blatantly tells us where he stnads, even if he does say it was in jest.

What struck me about that article was the comments.. wow, some really scary thinking out there…

Share This

[JoB]

This us just too rich not to share.

When Ann Coulter comes out in favor or Hillary, on national TV.. even on the dog and pony show that masquerades for debate on Fox, it can’t be a good thing… entertaining though:

“I will campaign for her if it’s McCain! … She isn’t going to be a weak woman; compared to John McCain, she’ll be better. … She lies less than John McCain; she’s smarter than John McCain, so when she gets caught shamelessly lying, at least the Clintons know they’ve been caught lying. McCain is so stupid, he doesn’t even know he’s been caught. … Yes if it’s close, and the candidate is John McCain, because John McCain is not only bad for Republicanism, which he definitely is; he is bad for the country. He is very, very bad for the country.”

from: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/coulter-will-campaign-for-clinton-if.html

Share This

[JanS]

wow…Ann Coulter…the woman who gives a bad name to womanhood in particular, and to humanity in general….wow…

Share This

[Anonymous]

It’s offensive that someone would say Ann Coulter gives a bad name to womanhood AND humanity!! She is an intelligent woman who says what she thinks! That should be applauded, regardless of whether you agree with her opinions or not!

Share This

[Ken]

Perhaps you’re referring to her recent update of this scholarly classic.

On the heels of her widely successful books on Liberal treachery, Slander and Treason, Ann Coulter is about to publish a special updated edition of one of the most influential political tracts of the modern age.

http://www.zenpickle.com/Coulter.php

excerpt:

VOLUME I: A RETROSPECT

CHAPTER 10

WHY AMERICAN SOCIETY COLLAPSED

It must be admitted that all this was partly the result of extraordinary crafty tactics on the part of Liberals on the one hand, and obvious official stupidity or naïveté on the other hand. The Liberals were too clever to allow a simultaneous attack to be made on the whole of their Press. No one section functioned as cover for the other. While the alternative newspaper, in the most despicable manner possible, reviled everything that was sacred, furiously attacked the State and Government and incited certain classes of the community against each other, the national papers, also in Liberal hands, knew how to camouflage themselves as model examples of objectivity. They studiously avoided harsh language, knowing well that block-heads are capable of judging only by external appearances and never able to penetrate to the real depth and meaning of anything. They measure the worth of an object by its exterior and not by its content. This form of human frailty was carefully studied and understood by the Liberal Press.

[…]

I believe that our present generation would easily master this danger if they were rightly led. For this generation has gone through certain experiences which must have strengthened the nerves of all those who did not become nervously broken by them. Certainly in days to come the Liberals will raise a tremendous cry throughout their newspapers once a hand is laid on their favorite nest, once a move is made to put an end to this scandalous Liberal Press and once this instrument which shapes public opinion is brought under Conservative control and no longer left in the hands of Liberals and enemies of the people. I am certain that this will be easier for us than it was for our fathers. The scream of the twelve-inch shrapnel is more penetrating than the hiss from a thousand Liberal newspaper vipers. Therefore let them go on with their hissing.

Share This

[Ken]

Note for the humor impaired, the above is satire.

If it needs to be explained any more clearly, just ask.

Share This

[Anonymous]

Wow. Some people REALLY don’t like Ann Coulter here! I guess it would be easy to find her threatening.

Share This

[JanS]

Ann Coulter , in my opinion, has got to be one of the most offensive people in the world…she’s insulting, she’s mean spirited. she’s cruel…yes, I can’t stand the woman. She doesn’t have just a different opinion….she goes out of her way to be patently nasty to just about everyone. She’s not threatening to me, not at all.

Share This

[Ken]

Tell us more about how “Joe McCarthy was a great American patriot” if you like.

Share This

[Anonymous]

For not being threatened by Ann Coulter, you sure have some mean things to say about her. To feel that much hatred for someone, you “can’t stand the woman”, you obviously are threatened! That’s so obvious, it’s funny! For example, it’s ridiculous and appalling to me that former President Clinton lied under oath and was DISBARRED, but yet he is considered by some to have been a great President! I don’t hate former President Clinton and i can actually stand him. He’s ridiculous, but kind of just a joke if you ask me. Has anyone taken the time to read the 9/11 Commission Report, by the way?

Share This

[WSMom]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter

It’s reasonable to find Ann Coulter offensive, it’s her job to offend and she makes a lot of money being good at it. Read what she has to say about pretty much any subject and tell me how her words are not reprehensible. She may be clever, but I find her message to be dark and mean spirited.

Share This

[Ken]

Clinton lied about a blow job.

Who was threatened by that?

Did anyone die? Did anyone have their civil rights violated? Did the Clinton Penis (the Clenis tm) violate the 4th amendment? The 9th? The freakin 2nd? Are you asking us to believe there is a single Republican politician past or present who would NOT lie about a blowjob?

It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.”

— Henry Mencken

Bush and his cronies lie as easily as breathing and have casually doomed hundreds of thousands to their death.

Here is a list that has not been updated in a while since the db of lies got to big for the software.

http://www.unknownnews.net/logoflies.html

This is the true moral relativism of the conservatives.

The Clenis is all powerful and threatening to them. And yet the most blatent lies, halftruths and propaganda are accepted even when they contradict last years blatent lies, halftruths and propaganda. Even when there are real people suffering a laundry list of harm from torture to homelessness and PTSD, from the simple appointment of cronies, ideologs, industry lobbiest, fundraises and pious Liberty University chuckleheads to federal agencies.

Come on NR. give us some new lies half truths and propaganda. I hear Fox is going to roll out a new series of them tomorrow to the captive audience at the superbowl. Be sure to take notes.

And note this: telling us we are “mean” does not bother me. But it makes you sound kinda squishy. :)

Share This

[Author]

Posts