Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Campaign 2008

Election 2008 John Edwards Democrats

  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

#21 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 01:09 AM

Quote

And that is why he gets me so excited. One of my favorite pastimes is reading. I'm not a writer by any stretch of the imagination but I consider myself pretty articulate and I can find my way around words over two syllables. So imagine my six year nightmare with a president who stutters over the word AMERICAN.
In the course of my life many people have said I write well and I've scored in the 99th percentile in every single standardized verbal test I've ever taken but unless I've known you for a long time you wouldn't notice it from my speech. I stumble over words and whole sentance structures all the time because of anxiety and I mispronounce things and have an issue with stringing the last sylllable from one word into the next and I can barely talk when in front of a group but that does in no way make me stupid.  Nor can you judge someone's intelligence by thier ability to give a speech.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#22 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 02:49 AM

^ Tennyson, ordinarily I'd agree with you, but this [Bush] really is a bit more complex.  I don't have a problem with anyone who has difficulty with public speaking.  It is exactly as you say, no indicator of intelligence.  Only an indicator of some problem with public speaking.

The problem with Bush in particular, is that his decisions and policy seem to reflect a deep misunderstanding of social and political realities, and that, coupled with his poor public speaking, gives him the appearance of being an idiot.  Sorry it just does.

I think if he made sounder decisions, then no one would question his intelligence when he speaks.  But, he has made one poor decision after another.  What used to be "folk-sy" speech is now too closely associated with dumb decisions.  Now the speech itself is a refelction of "dumbness" in the minds of listeners.  It's that way because we've learned that he isn't just 'down to earth' and 'folk-sy', he is something else entirely.

I'd rather not get sidetracked with Bush, and keep to the up coming "idiots" who will make a run for the White House.   :whistle:

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#23 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 02:51 AM

View PostCardie, on Dec 28 2006, 05:12 PM, said:

I'd like someone more experienced, too, although there is something to be said for a charismatic person who can excite us to be our best.  Maybe I've lived in the south too long, but I'm still skeptical that this country will elect either a black person or a woman in the next fifty years.
Obama or Hillary both I think would be a stomp fest for McCain or Rudi Giuliani.  Besides have that against them Hillary has being Hillary against her and Obama has his inexperience as a strike against him.  I expect to see Obama and Hillary crush their opponents in the primaries while McCain or Rudi just barely squeak by.  The exact opposite then happens in the primary with McCain or Rudi stomping the Dems.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#24 enTranced

enTranced

    Chasing Your Starlight!

  • Islander
  • 15,772 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 09:39 AM

View PostSpidey, on Dec 29 2006, 05:32 AM, said:

I will NOT vote for a woman simply because she is a woman, or a black man simply because he is black.  I will vote for who I believe is the right person (or more right than his/her opponent) for the job.  It's a non issue for me whether that person is a woman, or black.  Don't care.

However, I will also not vote for Left-wing extremists bordering on being commie bleeding hearts like Obama, or Shrillary.  I'd choose Edwards any day.  His closet at least has a lot less skeletons to hide than any of the rest of them.  And, he seems to actually WANT to do the right things as a President, which is what we need.  What we don't need is another double talking serpant like Bush, Cheney, Hillary, Gulliani, or Obama to name a few.

For the life of my Spidey I still don't undertand how you see Hillary Clinton, *CLINTON* as a left wing commie extremist and if that in't enough you then bash her in the next thread for stealing your "rights".

Does. Not. Compute. If she is on one side of the fence for you then that is fine, we all plant that mental fence in different parts of our yard but you have her on BOTH sides of the fence!

But what will REALLY blow your mind is I see her a little to far to the right. :p

Anyway, I will vote for Hillary if she wins the primary since I like her more then all the Republican candidates right now, ESPECIALY McCain who became the definition of political whore this year, and the scary thing is I used to like him last year. Thank goodness he revealed his true self before I voted for him! :eek2:

enTranced
Posted Image

#25 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 10:41 AM

View PostenTranced, on Dec 28 2006, 10:14 PM, said:

View PostDrew, on Dec 29 2006, 01:46 AM, said:

I think Edwards is a flake.  :suspect:

That's a little harsh. The guy is smart and he is a guy who actualy seems to care about Americans who aren't making 6 or 7 figures. But the problem is he isn't a fighter. And Democrats, hell the NATION needs a fighter right now because the guys in charge are not playing fair.

enTranced

Isn't his legal career predicated on being a fighter?  It's hard for me to judge his worth as a presidential candidate based on his performance as Kerry's running mate.  What he'd do at the top of the ticket -- and what he learned from 2004 -- might make for a very different sort of candidate/campaign.  

That said, this is one of those rare occasions when I find myself in complete agreement with Drew: from what I've seen so far, the guy's a flake.  

View Posttennyson, on Dec 29 2006, 01:09 AM, said:

Quote

And that is why he gets me so excited. One of my favorite pastimes is reading. I'm not a writer by any stretch of the imagination but I consider myself pretty articulate and I can find my way around words over two syllables. So imagine my six year nightmare with a president who stutters over the word AMERICAN.
In the course of my life many people have said I write well and I've scored in the 99th percentile in every single standardized verbal test I've ever taken but unless I've known you for a long time you wouldn't notice it from my speech. I stumble over words and whole sentance structures all the time because of anxiety and I mispronounce things and have an issue with stringing the last sylllable from one word into the next and I can barely talk when in front of a group but that does in no way make me stupid.  Nor can you judge someone's intelligence by thier ability to give a speech.

The job of President of the United States requires good communications skills.  No--It requires *great* communications skills.  IMO, no one who doesn't possess them has any business running.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#26 enTranced

enTranced

    Chasing Your Starlight!

  • Islander
  • 15,772 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 11:48 AM

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 29 2006, 03:41 PM, said:

Isn't his legal career predicated on being a fighter?  It's hard for me to judge his worth as a presidential candidate based on his performance as Kerry's running mate.  What he'd do at the top of the ticket -- and what he learned from 2004 -- might make for a very different sort of candidate/campaign.  

That said, this is one of those rare occasions when I find myself in complete agreement with Drew: from what I've seen so far, the guy's a flake.

LOL!

You would think as a lawyer the guy would be able to state his opinion and state it strongly but he rarely did that in 2004. Maybe that came from Kerry though. Anyway, I will give him a fair shake. It is still WAY to early to cast my decision in stone. He like all the candidates have a chance to convince me. And yes, even the Republican ones can do that.


Quote

The job of President of the United States requires good communications skills.  No--It requires *great* communications skills.  IMO, no one who doesn't possess them has any business running.

*APPLAUSE!*  :clap:

Now, I don't expect a Abraham Lincoln all the time but good grief you should at least be able to name the people you are trying to lead correctly!

enTranced - Who has apparently been a citizen of the great nation of Mer'ca for the past six years.....

Edited by enTranced, 29 December 2006 - 11:48 AM.

Posted Image

#27 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 12:13 PM

McCain may be in the process of shooting himself in the foot. In 2000, the Bush campaign taught him not to run as a moderate Republican. To win the GOP nomination, apparently you have to appeal to the religious right. So he's been flip-flopping like crazy, reversing his opinions on abortion, etc., and hiring Falwell associates to help with his campaign.

http://thinkprogress...cain-falwell-2/

I don't know that the religious right will take the bait. They surely will be mistrustful that McCain has had a genuine change of heart. And he's alienating centrist Democrats (like me) and libertarian Republicans as he sets about wooing the religious right.

So, he may win the GOP nomination, but he's setting himself up to be portrayed as a flip-flopper extraordinaire in the general election. Furthermore, most Americans are a bit put off by the religious right (see the general disgusted response to Congress's craven grandstanding during the Terri Schiavo affair). Most Americans believe strongly in MYOB, and that's something that the Falwells and Robertsons and Dobsons don't do very well since they are the self-appointed moral arbiters of America.

McCain and Clinton both may be rejected because Americans are in a "throw the bums out" mood--and both are acting like consummate politicians. I think this helps Obama. His freshness works in his favor.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#28 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,634 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 12:23 PM

I was strongly for Edwards because of his economic populism and positive primary campaign; I voted for him in our primary.  I also met him at a fundraiser and he seemed smart and genuine.  But when a trial lawyer who has spellbound juries into coughing up millions in personal injury awards to defendants can't win a debate with Dick "the Grinch" Cheney, then you have to be concerned.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#29 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 12:41 PM

View PostDrew, on Dec 28 2006, 08:46 PM, said:

I think Edwards is a flake.  :suspect:


My friends in North Carolinia call him "Two Face".
Can't Touch This!!

#30 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 01:07 PM

View PostCardie, on Dec 29 2006, 11:23 AM, said:

But when a trial lawyer who has spellbound juries into coughing up millions in personal injury awards to defendants can't win a debate with Dick "the Grinch" Cheney, then you have to be concerned.

Well put. Also, recall that this was the debate in which, when asked about his position on gay marriage, started talking about Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter (and if I recall, not really answering the question). Cheney responded cordially during the debate, but afterwards admitted to being pretty pissed off about Edwards using a member of his family to score political points. Even Mary Cheney was pissed.

For me it's the famous case where he channeled a five-year-old girl to convince a jury to award damages in a childbirth malpractice suit. No appeal to facts, just appealing to emotions: "Right now I feel her presence . . . she's inside me and she's talking to you." That's a flake right there.

Things go wrong in childbirth and often there's very little that a doctor can do about it. But it's been said that John Edwards single-handedly caused a shortage in OB/GYNs in North Carolina.

Also recall his famous prediction regarding stem cell research (apparently in support of embryonic stem cell research, since that's the only kind that's controversial, although he, like most politicians, never clarifies): "If we can do the work that we can do in this country -- the work we will do when John Kerry is president -- people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again!"

Remember, he'd only had one term in the Senate -- that remains his only political experience -- before joining the Kerry ticket. His career as a personal injury lawyer accounts for almost all of his professional experience.

Edited by Drew, 29 December 2006 - 02:39 PM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#31 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 01:38 PM

View PostCait, on Dec 28 2006, 11:49 PM, said:

^ Tennyson, ordinarily I'd agree with you, but this [Bush] really is a bit more complex. I don't have a problem with anyone who has difficulty with public speaking. It is exactly as you say, no indicator of intelligence. Only an indicator of some problem with public speaking.

The problem with Bush in particular, is that his decisions and policy seem to reflect a deep misunderstanding of social and political realities, and that, coupled with his poor public speaking, gives him the appearance of being an idiot. Sorry it just does.

I think if he made sounder decisions, then no one would question his intelligence when he speaks. But, he has made one poor decision after another. What used to be "folk-sy" speech is now too closely associated with dumb decisions. Now the speech itself is a refelction of "dumbness" in the minds of listeners. It's that way because we've learned that he isn't just 'down to earth' and 'folk-sy', he is something else entirely.

I'd rather not get sidetracked with Bush, and keep to the up coming "idiots" who will make a run for the White House. :whistle:


I find him frightening. After everything that's gone wrong in Iraq and all the mistakes he's made, he's still doing the "we're in Iraq to hold the line against the people who caused 9/11" crap. He hasn't changed his tone nor his stance one whit from day one. It's like he's living in a bubble, and it's just plain creepy.

He doesn't even seem to understand that  HE'S the one who's turned Iraq into a breeding ground for up-and-coming terrorists.

Edited by Rhea, 29 December 2006 - 01:38 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#32 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 01:41 PM

View PostDrew, on Dec 29 2006, 10:07 AM, said:

View PostCardie, on Dec 29 2006, 11:23 AM, said:

But when a trial lawyer who has spellbound juries into coughing up millions in personal injury awards to defendants can't win a debate with Dick "the Grinch" Cheney, then you have to be concerned.

Well put. Also, recall that this was the debate in which, when asked about his position on gay marriage, started talking about Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter (and if I recall, not really answering the question). Cheney responded cordially during the debate, but afterwards admitted to being pretty pissed off about Edwards using a member of his family to score political points. Even Mary Cheney was pissed.

Mary Cheny gets no sympathy from me as she continues to support a party that marginalizes her and wants to take rights away from her and people like her. Talk about a hypocrite.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#33 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 02:32 PM

View PostRhea, on Dec 29 2006, 12:41 PM, said:

Mary Cheny gets no sympathy from me as she continues to support a party that marginalizes her and wants to take rights away from her and people like her. Talk about a hypocrite.

Of course, we're not talking about Mary Cheney. (But read the interview at the link I provided if you want to know her view about why she was working with Republicans and her views on the issue of gay marriage. You probably won't be so harsh on her.)

It's just that for the life of me I couldn't figure out what John Edwards was trying to accomplish by referring to Mary Cheney. Seemed like he was trying to score points somehow, and he seemed very much in trial lawyer mode when he did it. But the point is that Edwards (and later John Kerry*) used a family member of a political opponent as a pawn in their campaign game. And that's pretty damned low.

------------

*John Kerry's reference to Mary Cheney in the debates was even more ham-fisted than Edwards'. Both of them deserve a smack with a dead flounder for it.

Edited by Drew, 29 December 2006 - 02:37 PM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#34 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 02:59 PM

View PostDrew, on Dec 29 2006, 02:32 PM, said:

Of course, we're not talking about Mary Cheney. (But read the interview at the link I provided if you want to know her view about why she was working with Republicans and her views on the issue of gay marriage. You probably won't be so harsh on her.)

It's just that for the life of me I couldn't figure out what John Edwards was trying to accomplish by referring to Mary Cheney. Seemed like he was trying to score points somehow, and he seemed very much in trial lawyer mode when he did it. But the point is that Edwards (and later John Kerry*) used a family member of a political opponent as a pawn in their campaign game. And that's pretty damned low.

It's no lower than the whole "if your daughter was raped, wouldn't you support the death penalty?" line used on Mondale.  

That said, I absolutely agree with you: in an election season marked by its virulent homophobic rhetoric--and proposals--Edwards was trying to appeal to that 'constituency' by loudly proclaiming, "Gay Daughter!!  Gay Daughter!!  My opponent has a gay daughter!!"  Maybe it wasn't an attempt to sway any votes, but it surely was an attempt to dampen enthusiasm in that quarter -- and thereby, depress turnout.

It turned my stomach.  I actually threw something at the TV when Kerry did it, and proceeded to have a big fight with a friend who was a huge Kerry supporter.  We haven't talked since, actually.  

It *almost* cost Kerry/Edwards my vote.  (Not that I would've given it to Bush.)  

None of which is to say I have or had any sympathy for Mary Cheney.  As Rhea points out, she has stood up to be counted with the party that thinks people like her are abomination.  I get that blood is thicker than water -- but she could've just stayed out of it.  Instead, she took a job working for the campaign -- and cried foul when Kerry/Edwards named her in the debates while saying little and doing less about the administration's own appeals to homophobes, which were far more nauseating (e.g., writing discrimination into the constitution).

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#35 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 03:07 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 29 2006, 01:59 PM, said:

It's no lower than the whole "if your daughter was raped, wouldn't you support the death penalty?" line used on Mondale.

Yeah, I was going to mention that, too. But wasn't that Dukakis? And wasn't it the moderator of the debate who posed the question? I have to look that up.

EDIT: Okay . . . looked it up. Assuming you're talking about this incident, it was the moderator, the late Bernard Shaw, who asked Dukakis if he would favor the death penalty if his wife was raped and murdered.

Edited by Drew, 29 December 2006 - 03:17 PM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#36 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 03:20 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 29 2006, 11:59 AM, said:

Instead, she took a job working for the campaign -- and cried foul when Kerry/Edwards named her in the debates while saying little and doing less about the administration's own appeals to homophobes, which were far more nauseating (e.g., writing discrimination into the constitution).

I agree.  While I found the remarks of both Kerry and Edwards troubling, nothing as troubling as her support for a platform [party] that would write discrimination into the Constitution.  

But then I really thought about it.

People say offensive things all the time.  Some people regret their words and the effects those words create, while others take their opinions and words to a whole new level and try to cram it down my throat as law.  I find that more offensive than anything.

But when I really thought about it, I was more taken a back with the class-ism of her [Cheney's daughter] actions.  You see, no matter how Gay she is, she won't ever have to worry about her rights, or her ability to keep herself safe from discrimination.   She is in a protected class -- The wealthy.  

You can be as Gay as you want, or as perverted as you want, or as criminal as you want, or as stupid as you want and never suffer the same kinds of discrimination the most of us fear and fight against.  Why?  Because wealth protects you from it.  

So, it didn't surprise me much at all once I looked at it from a class angle.  She probably has no problem at all working for a Party that would deny *other* Gays & Lesbiams their rights.  It won't impact her one way or the other.  

That's classic "Elitism" at play.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#37 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 03:59 PM

Well, please let's not turn this thread into the Mary Cheney thread, but the link I provide above is an interview with Chris Wallace on the occasion of the publication of her book "Now it's My Turn."

Here's what she says:

Quote

CHENEY: President Bush obviously feels very strongly about this issue. Obviously, it's one that I disagree with him on, and I talk about it a great deal in the book.

But you know, it was an issue during the 2004 campaign. Quite honestly, it was an issue I had some trouble with, as I talk about in the book. I came very close to quitting my job on the re-election campaign over this very issue.

WALLACE: As you just heard me discuss with Mrs. Bush, Senate Republicans, with the support, perhaps at the urging of Karl Rove, plan to introduce an amendment next month once again, a constitutional amendment, to ban same sex marriage, at least in part, it is said, to mobilize their conservative base.

You talked about what the Democrats did [referencing her in the debates] as cheap. In the book you talk about sleazy, slimy politics. Is what the Republicans are engaged in sleazy and slimy politics?

CHENEY: Well, I certainly don't know what conversations have gone on between Karl and anybody up on the Hill. But you know, what I can say is look, amending the constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation. It is writing discrimination into the constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong.

Now, I would certainly hope that, you know, and understand, this is an issue that Americans do disagree on and that we do need to debate and discuss. And I would certainly hope that those discussions would continue.

And I would also hope that no one would think about trying to amend the constitution as a political strategy, that people wouldn't try and use amending the constitution to further their own political goals.

WALLACE: Now that you have gone public with this book, if this measure does come up, if there is an effort by Republicans to amend the constitution, will you speak out against it?

CHENEY: I think I just did. I think I just made my position pretty darn clear.

WALLACE: Are you going to continue, though, as it becomes more of a debate this summer?

CHENEY: Whenever people ask me about it, I will give them the exact same answer.

WALLACE: I was on the podium at the 2004 convention and couldn't help but notice that after your father's speech and you can see the pictures there there were your mom and dad, there was your sister and her husband Phil, and your, what, four nieces and I guess there's another one.

CHENEY: Yes. Well, actually, it's three nieces. Phillip, the youngest...

WALLACE: Ah, OK.

CHENEY: ... and then number five is on the way.

WALLACE: Conspicuously absent were you and your partner, Heather. The party platform that year, the party platform that had been adopted by the Republican Party at that convention, came out against gay adoption, against same sex marriage. On gay rights, is the official position of the Republican Party intolerant?

CHENEY: I think what's really important to remember, Chris, is that my job in 2004 the reason I spent, you know, a year and a half of my life working on the re-election campaign wasn't because of the Republican Party platform. It was because I believed in the leadership of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

It was because I knew how important that election was, how important for the future of this country, for the safety of this country, for the war on terror. That's why I worked on that campaign in 2004. It wasn't because of the Republican Party platform.

WALLACE: I want to talk about the other side of this, because I'm sure there are a lot of viewers out here who, you know, disagree with you very strongly, have their own opinions and are very much opposed to the idea of gay adoption and same sex marriage and all of that.

And I want you to answer that question. I want you to look at this quote from The Weekly Standard. "Once we say that gay couples have a right to have their commitments recognized by the state, it becomes next to impossible to deny the same right to polygamists, polyamorists," which I learned means group marriage, "or even cohabiting relatives and friends."

How do you respond to the slippery slope argument?

CHENEY: It's one that I don't take very seriously. You know, look. What we are talking about are relationships between two consenting adults. I think that is the debate that we need to have. That is the discussion that our country needs to have.

I think it's a mistake for people to start throwing around, you know, polygamy or incest, I think, was one of the other ones you mentioned. It's a completely different ball of wax.

I think you're all being pretty unfair to her. At the very least, she's willing to approach the issue from within rather than just stand outside and shoot rhetorical arrows. This is how you get things done -- you work with people; even people with whom you disagree. You attempt to reach some sort of parity or compromise. The big problem with politics in this country is that our politicians don't do that anymore. Instead of trying to reach across the aisle, they just build up walls and throw grenades over it.

If Republicans change their views on gay marriage, it won't be because Rosie O'Donnell insults them every chance she gets. It'll be because Republicans themselves changed from within.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#38 Caretaker

Caretaker
  • Islander
  • 1,741 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 04:21 PM

View PostRhea, on Dec 28 2006, 07:53 PM, said:

Ooh, I like it. Hillary's never going to get nominated - way too divisive, and why just hand the Republicans an election? :whistle:

I'm now seeing where there is a difference between hypothetically being a good president and actual electability.  Hillary would make a good president, but... getting elected is an entirely different thing.


Quote

I think there's probably a large segment that flatout won't vote for Obama for President because a) he's too young and b)he's black (sorry, but I think bigotry's alive and well in this particular venue) and c) he's flat too inexperienced (I like him too, but I think he needs a few more laps around the track myself). But with Edwards for President, Obama could slide in the back door and prove himself. I think Edwards is  a man of integrity and intelligence who practices what he preaches. They'd be a good team, I'm betting.

    Obama: This is why I just got a copy of his new book.  I hope it will provide some insights into the man.  As for Edwards, in 2004 I knew nothing about him and what he stood for.  But that election brought him to center stage, and after two-three years, we now "know" (for lack of a better word) him and exactly why he would be good for the presidency.
XBox Live gamercard

Watch the I've Got Munchies video podcast.

Start a free online family tree at GENi

#39 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 04:30 PM

View PostDrew, on Dec 29 2006, 03:07 PM, said:

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 29 2006, 01:59 PM, said:

It's no lower than the whole "if your daughter was raped, wouldn't you support the death penalty?" line used on Mondale.

Yeah, I was going to mention that, too. But wasn't that Dukakis? And wasn't it the moderator of the debate who posed the question? I have to look that up.

EDIT: Okay . . . looked it up. Assuming you're talking about this incident, it was the moderator, the late Bernard Shaw, who asked Dukakis if he would favor the death penalty if his wife was raped and murdered.

I suppose that does change it -- I forgot that it was Bernie Shaw who asked that question (and, obviously, forgot who he asked, too).  

Still, both are examples of classic "gotcha!" politics -- Low-blow ways of asking what could otherwise have been entirely legitimate questions about gay rights and the death penalty.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#40 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 29 December 2006 - 04:40 PM

View PostDrew, on Dec 29 2006, 12:59 PM, said:

If Republicans change their views on gay marriage, it won't be because Rosie O'Donnell insults them every chance she gets. It'll be because Republicans themselves changed from within.

^ This I *do* agree with 100%.  

However, I stand my by observations of classism.  It's been my observation in life, particularily in this country, that we are herded like cattle to 'hate' one group or another, while the wealthy sit back and pick and choose when to 'change' social mores.  She has the"choice" of whether or not to push for change.  She has that choice because she is in a protected class--the wealthy.  She can afford to take her time and work from wihtin the GOP for change because her life is not threatened if change does not occur.

Others struggle for freedom because without that freedom, their lives are "less".  There is a vast difference here in motivation.  However, I will give the rich credit for one thing--when they do opt to work for change, it is usually for highly principled reasons.  I do admire that.  I do not believe that many of the social changes in our country would have ever happened without the highly principled upper classes lending their voice to the struggle of a discriminated class.

She might be responsible for great change [within the GOP] in her life, which would be wonderful.  That doesn't mean she isn't an elitist.  The two concepts can co-exist quite nicely.  Just ask any rich, bleeding heart liberal in Hollywood.   :whistle:

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election 2008, John Edwards, Democrats

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users