Because with Edwards out of the race, I voted for Obama.
PAD
141 comments on “My Super Tuesday Prediction for New York”
From Politico.com:
Rush weighs a Hillary fundraiser
Rush Limbaugh, one of many conservative talkers deeply hostile toward John McCain, has begun talking about bailing out Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign for president, suggesting repeatedly on the air yesterday and today that he’d raise money for her — though not exactly because he likes her.
“It is rumored that the Clintons are digging into their own personal wealth to fund Hillary’s campaign. I’m thinking of maybe doing a fundraiser,” Limbaugh said yesterday.
He’s been talking about it all day today, and offered a slogan:
“Keep her in it so we can win it.”
I’ve got only a rough transcript of most of the rest of today’s show, on which he asked his listeners repeatedly if he should hold the fundraiser. He’s casting his offer in part, at least, as a parody of GOP “strategery,” mocking the notion that — in place of a conservative candidate — Republican strategists see Clinton as their savior.
Right. Because everything is about you
It should be.
PAD
I thought everything is about me.
Happy Birthday, Tim.
And yeah, I know Huck is out there too. But I think he and McCain have a deal
That’s what scares me. McCain is too old to take a chance on Huckabee as being a heartbeat away…give him secretary of, I don’t know, what’s the furthest from the line of succession?
Right. Because everything is about you.
Well, for a political discussion this thread had a good run before a really dopey comment showed up.
“”the three most beautiful words in the English Language”: “Ex-Mayor Giuliani”..”
I suppose that person was not around for the wonderful regime of David Dinkins then. Oh how we all should long for the days when we all needed to wear bulletproof vests to walk around Manhattan 🙂
All the reports I’ve seen have avoided saying Romney is flatly out of the race, because he’s still holding onto his delegates. McCain doesn’t seem to be exceeding 40%, even for his biggest wins, so if Huckabee can catch up, Romney’s delegates may become valuable.
Yeah, they have influence. But again, why?
Because the republican party typically moves as a pack, because they are more faithful to conformity. Normally, the nominee is the pick of the party bosses, becoming the frontrunner months before the primary.
Bush’s best prospect for keeping the books closed on what he’s done is a McCain presidency, but he’s unpopular enough now that he can’t announce a successor and not drive away support. Protesting too much that Bush’s obvious successor isn’t conservative enough for the far right may help him with moderates. For the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Dobsons, playing into reverse psychology is the only game in town.
Sean: Luigi–I never meant to say that Hannity’s past was in some way indicative of his intelligence. Hey, the fact that anybody responds to anything I write proves that. All I was trying to say was it just seems that there’re a lot of talking heads out there whose only qualification is that they can talk. And they have a head.
Luigi Novi: I hear ya. Sorry if my post came across wrong.
“but I wonder how the mail-in early votes are factored in.”
Sadly, most aren’t factored in at all, at least in the general election. Here in NC, and I imagine in most other areas, I believe that early voting ballots aren’t even counted unless the vote is close or there is a challenge for some reason.
Just to add my two cents in what has been an incredible campaign so far:
It looks like both parties may have been hampered by their own rules beforehand.
1.) You have the Democrats, out of power for 8 years yet riding a wave. A worthy challenger – Obama – challenges the Establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton. But wait. Because of “proportional representation” there is no clear winner early. And because so many states have instituted “early voting” – in the name of giving more people the “opportunity” to vote, as if Election “day” is some unbearable, unconquerable chore, those who may have voted for OBama voted for Hillary a month ago, in which their vote went against who they eventually wanted or went for somebody like John Edwards, in which it was literally wasted. Could we please do away with “early voting”.
2.) You have the Republicans, playing to their evangelical base but not doing much and taking it for granted, now confrontec with a lot of votes who feel betrayed. They were enough to help derail the ‘economic conservative” Romney. They May be enough to derail the “defense” conservative as well.
Like I said. fascinating.
Sadly, most aren’t factored in at all, at least in the general election. Here in NC, and I imagine in most other areas, I believe that early voting ballots aren’t even counted unless the vote is close or there is a challenge for some reason.
But if the state isn’t winner take all how will the dole out the delegates?
Being from Brazil, I have been watching the whole political process over there with some reserve. Sincerely, the newspapers here don’t go much in detail about John McCain. The only thing I know about the man is that he was POW during part of the Vietnan War and he’s a senator… Also that for Republican he has some left center positions regarding some issues. Is that correct?
The dispute in the Democrats looks very interesting. Personally, considering the last four presidents… We’re talking about a woman and african-american… Correct if I’m wrong, but that’s not historic, regardless who wins the nomination? Ok… I’m not exactly a specialist here and I don’t prentend to know exactly who’s the best. I know Hilary has more experience than Obama, but that’s it. What else?
Thanks,
Mau
Mau,
It would be pretty historic for us. Even just one of them getting the nomination is significant.
I think it would be ironic if the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico which does not get to vote in the presidential elections (do not pay federal taxes but contribute to social security and has a constitution that is superseded by the U.S. constitution and has many people in the U.S. armed forces and the MLB 🙂 ) be the deciding factor in the presidential candidate race. I know the race may be decided before June but still I think is food for thought.
Also that for Republican he has some left center positions regarding some issues. Is that correct?
On a handful of issues, perhaps. But he votes pretty much the party ticket; his record is quite conservative.
He plays the maverick quite well, but submits to party discipline when needed to.
The fact that the Democratic nominee will almost certainly not be a white male is definitely interesting.
Another thing that, while not a milestone, is certainly a rarity, is that at this point it’s all but guaranteed that our next President will come out of the Senate. The last time that happened was JFK, and before that Harding — that’s only twice in nearly a century. Kinda interesting, I think.
TWL
Another thing that, while not a milestone, is certainly a rarity, is that at this point it’s all but guaranteed that our next President will come out of the Senate. The last time that happened was JFK, and before that Harding — that’s only twice in nearly a century. Kinda interesting, I think.
Also note that both those men were assassinated in office.
Also note that both those men were assassinated in office.
All the more reason for an Obama/Clinton ticket. That’d make ANY assasin think twice…no matter how wingnuttery….
Harding wasn’t assassinated, unless you buy the story about his wife poisoning him. He died in office, yes.
TWL
Mau, you can get a detailed sense of John McCain’s positions by going to http://www.wikipedia.org, and searching for the article “Political positions of John McCain”. All of the candidates have such articles, in addition to the main articles on themselves.
Tim Lynch: “The fact that the Democratic nominee will almost certainly not be a white male is definitely interesting.”
You have a gift for understatement, Mr. Lynch. Not that long ago, societal barriers all but guaranteed that neither women nor minorities could have a realistic shot at the White House.
In 1972,
an African American woman named Shirley Chisholm ran for the Democratic presidential nomination. She won only 152 delegates, and took a lot of abuse along the way. The mere fact that she “dared” to run was a step forward.
Now we have a woman and an African American man vying for the Democratic presidential nomination. Given the Republican party’s vulnerabilities, whoever gets the Democratic nod will have a realistic shot at the White House. Society has made a great deal of progress in the last 36 years.
I’m still keeping my fingers crossed for the “McCain Doomsday Scenario” — which involves the unlikely tossing of support from Romney to Huckabee, for a Huckabee/Romney ticket.
a Huckabee/Romney ticket.
They’d be slaughtered! It would be an electoral massacre! George McGovern would feel sorry for them!
Not that long ago, societal barriers all but guaranteed that neither women nor minorities could have a realistic shot at the White House.
Also consider that Nancy Pelosi’s current position as Majority Leader of the House puts her 3rd in line for the White House, and that’s the the closest a woman has gotten to the top job to date.
I don’t get to choose, since I’m not an American, but I’m happy that the only social conservative in the race has little chance of winning and has a goofy name to boot. Eight years of a guy playing for the hardcore evangelicals was enough.
Still, my view of America is indirect, through the Internet, the news, the popular culture. Did 8 years of Bush really made America more socially conservative? Sometimes I think Bush and co. merely fired up people that already were conservative and gave them a sort of… dunno how to describe it – pride?
I do remember a time until the mid-1990s when it seemed like expousing socially conservative ideas was seem as very uncool. The “silent majority” Nixon spoke of was really mostly silent. Then in the couple of last years of Clinton’s and in the Bush years it all changed, and suddenly it seemed like young conservative people weren’t ashamed of being conservative anymore.
Posted by Rene at February 8, 2008 11:05 PM I do remember a time until the mid-1990s when it seemed like expousing socially conservative ideas was seem as very uncool. The “silent majority” Nixon spoke of was really mostly silent. Then in the couple of last years of Clinton’s and in the Bush years it all changed, and suddenly it seemed like young conservative people weren’t ashamed of being conservative anymore.
Thank you for noticing. Seriously
Im not absolutly happy with everything Bush has done, Im not ashamed to be conservative.
Im also not that young either so please dont card me.
I think that part of it is an overall social change in how people see themselves–it isn’t all that “cool” to try not to be “uncool” any more.
One of the things I like most about working in a high school now is seeing how easier it is for kids to express themselves in their own unique ways. It isn’t so much that there aren’t people who won’t disapprove–there are. It’s just that it isn’t so important to fit in with the so-called “popular crowd”. (Said “popular crowd” NOT being the crypto-fascists portrayed on endless TV detective shows as ruling the roost but simply another sub group. Just watch the graduation ceremonies–the “popular” kids get polite scattered applause while an “ordinary” kid in the marching band might get practically a standing ovation.)
Of course, the marching band IS practically a cult. Seriously. If your kid is lonely teach them how to use the triangle (it’s easy) and have them join. Instant friends. And they look out for each other too. “Lay off the triangle kid” a crudely scrawled note will read, affixed to your door, a pile of your dry erase markers neatly snapped in two on the floor.
So…anyhoo…the point is, whatever social pressure there was to keep political beliefs to yourself has largely vanished in many places, though if you want a job as a college professor you might not want to be on the record as having thrown a fundraiser for Republicans.
Bill Mulligan: “…whatever social pressure there was to keep political beliefs to yourself has largely vanished in many places…”
Is that entirely a good thing, though? I mean, I abhor the idea of “peer pressuring” people into silence because their political beliefs aren’t “cool.” But I also abhor the way so many people are “in your face” about politics today.
Case in point: I noticed that the woman in the cube across the aisle from mine had some Hillary Clinton buttons hanging up. I joking said I was having trouble figuring out her political affiliation. She began talking about how she had been campaigning for Clinton. I casually mentioned my preference for Obama. I made no attempt to persaude her that he was the right choice for her — I simply said I’d decided he was the right choice for *me.*
She harangued me for five minutes about why Clinton was the best candidate. I finally had to bark “ENOUGH!” so I could extricate myself and get back to work. Her reply? “YOU started it.”
Yeah. Because I mentioned a preference for Obama, that was an invitation to spouting campaign slogans like a parrot and try to browbeat me into changing my mind. That’s like saying if I invite you into my house, I’ve given you urinate on my living room carpet. Sorry — doesn’t work that way.
Having a belief, or hearing a belief contrary to your own, doesn’t give you license to ignore common courtesy. Unfortunately, so few people seem to recongize that anymore that I’ve decided to no longer engage in any political discussions at work, period. These days I’m content to get informed, to support organizations with which I am aligned philosophically, and to get out and vote. Perish the thought.
I suspect your co-worker longs for the days when she could have brow beat people into keeping their preferences to themselves.
An unfortunate development has been the collapse of many people’s ability to have reasonable disagreements. I blame the internet, although I love it so. It’s too easy to engage in anonymous attacks on people without any fear of punishment–for some it becomes their only way to argue. Plus, you can surround yourself with an echo chamber of people who parrot the same political lines over and over again, until you become convinced that it’s the only way to think–when people like that are faced with an actual disagreement they are reduced to sputtering rage.
I have some sympathy for the hard core Hillary fans out there–this hasn’t been a fun few months. I have a co-worker who I disagree with on most politics but we both shared the belief that Hillary had a great chance of winning it all. The rise of Obama and, frankly, Hillary’s piss poor response to it, has hit this person hard. And it isn’t just the disappointment of having your candidate losing that hurts–Hillary’s biggest fans felt like they were doing something revolutionary, that this was an incredibly groundbreaking run, that they were on the cutting edge. Then along comes Obama and suddenly they look like the establishment fighting a guy who is even more groundbreaking. It’s Kennedy vs Nixon all over again and who wants to be on Nixon’s side?
So there’s a lot of anger on the Hillary side toward this upstart who has dared to steal their thunder (I’m waiting for some idiot to call him “uppity”).
And yet, I still think it’s her race to lose. Talk to the Hillary folks you get–well, you saw what you get. Talk to the Obama people you get how much they like him. The enthusiasm is definitely his…but my sense is that the Hillary people are more likely to actually get out and vote. Time and time again, the people who rely on the youth vote get let down on election day.
(then again, if the polls show Obama would do better against McCain and the delegate and popular vote is close enough and Obama wins way more states than Hillary…it’s possible that a brokered convention might get caught up in the wave. If I were him I’d be getting ready a rip roaring bring the house down “Cross of Gold” speech)
So…anyhoo…the point is, whatever social pressure there was to keep political beliefs to yourself has largely vanished in many places, though if you want a job as a college professor you might not want to be on the record as having thrown a fundraiser for Republicans.
Actually, if you’re a biz school prof, that’s almost a job requirement these days…
Bill Mulligan: “I suspect your co-worker longs for the days when she could have brow beat people into keeping their preferences to themselves.”
Smart-ášš. 😛
Bill Mulligan: “I have some sympathy for the hard core Hillary fans out there–this hasn’t been a fun few months.”
No, but if you can’t stand the heat, etc.
Anyway, I think ultimately I think this race will leave the Democratic Party stronger — if Clinton and Obama mind their p’s and q’s. You know, delineate the differences between each other but smile and keep their dislike of each other from showing too much.
While there is much to admire about McCain, I believe he is easily beatable. On a personal level, his vulnerabilities include his temper and his lapses into mean-spiritedness. On a policy level, his position on Iraq is absurd, and completely unsupported by the facts as we knew them before the war *and* what we known now. And on a larger level, he is representing a party that has damaged our national security, has irresponsibly weakened our defense forces, ballooned our deficit, and generally took a bad situation and made it unbelievably worse.
I believe Obama to be the best candidate to exploit those vulnerabilities, if he can learn to capitalize on the better angels of his nature. Maureen Dowd of all people said Obama can and should learn to “flick away” personal attacks with a smile and a joke, the way the Gipper used to do.
Actually, if you’re a biz school prof, that’s almost a job requirement these days…
I think it’s actually about even. There’s a study at
69.104/search?q=cache:ISCMNncWRlAJ:www.criticalreview.com/2004/pdfs/cardiff_klein.pdf+political+affiliations+college+disciplines&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
that breaks it down–I don’t know how legit this particular study is or how it compares to others and I literally am about to run out the door for a shoot so if anyone knows a better one please let me know. It seems to suggest that if you are an outed Republican you might want to focus on business, military studies and finance, the only places where you might be on semi-equal footing (in military studies you might even be in the majority!). Skip sociology and ethnic studies entirely, unless you want to be very very lonely.
One last thing–mulling it over it occurs to me that I may be underestimating the likelihood of Obama’s supporters to show up at the polls–he’s doing great in the caucus states and it takes a lot more effort to caucus than to just vote.
I mean, the GOP hasn’t even BEGUN its attack politics. Matters are not going to remain static. The GOP attack dogs can, and will, turn up the heat, and as much as the right wing pundits may be underwhelmed by McCain, I think they will move heaven and earth to make sure Clinton doesn’t get into the White House.
What else is new? She’s already taken their best shots for more than 15 years. They have nothing new to throw at her.
Whereas if Obama gets nominated, they will quickly dig up every unsubstantiated rumor and define him for the voting public. We’ve gone down this road before.
I’d rather stick with a candidate who’s proven she can stand up to the right-wing attack machine then go searching every four years for a candidate the Republicans won’t smear. Because such a thing doesn’t exist.
Unfortunately, such a thing doesn’t exsist for either party. Someone will always dig something up on someone and spread it around like a six-year old who just caught someone picking their nose. The truth behind it can be shakier than something holding salt, but still it’ll spread.
“I blame the internet”
Yeah, so do I. When you’re sitting there typing it’s a lot easier to be really sure of yourself, that you’re so much more right than whoever you’re arguing with, and social graces don’t seem to extend to many keyboards. You poopyhead.
There is that. People today are more eager to show off their individual oppinions, even when they diverge from their friends’ oppinions (particularly when they diverge, maybe).
But I think that in politics, specifically, there is something else going on too. The 1960s started the trend among young people that the left was cool, the right was uncool. It remained more or less like that until the 1980s, I suppose. Then in the 1990s it started to seem as if believing in ANYTHING was uncool.
And then, in the tail end of the 1990s, and then in the 2000s, I started to see, for the first time, many people who had right-wing oppinions and weren’t embarassed of them. While formerly it seemed like only the usual suspects dared defend Conservative values (like, the Churchgoing Christian Housewife, the Older Businessman, etc.), today we have a good portion of the comic book readership defending those values, for instance.
This is most obvious when you see the reaction to certain storylines. In the 1960s-1980s period, stories with left-wing leanings usually were unanimously accepted and praised. Nowadays it doesn’t happen like that anymore. A left-leaning story draws loud disapproval from some fans.
Regarding the Internet and its effect on political and other forms of discourse: I believe a forum like this is a perfectly good place to air out views. Hëll, I’ve come away from some debates here with newly expanded knowledge, and in some cases have even changed my mind on an issue based on someone else’s argument. While I seriously doubt anyone could sway me away from voting Democrat in this year’s presidential election, there are regular posters here with contrary views that I take seriously.
But when you’re at work, you’re there to work. It’s just not the time and place to be trying to harass people into changing their votes.
Then again, this “office neighbor” of mine who was running off at the mouth about her preferred candidate is also running a side business and using company time and equipment to do it. So I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised that she fails to respect boundaries.
Bill brings up an interesting point, one that I think the majority of people I currently work with could pay attention to, and not just involving political topics. (If occasionally the discussions could GET to anything as serious as politics, well, I’d be happier.) But, moreso than that, a lot of politcal or civically active people act like anyone who isn’t in their rank and file needs to be shown The True Way. Too many people are doing too much preaching.
She harangued me for five minutes about why Clinton was the best candidate. I finally had to bark “ENOUGH!” so I could extricate myself and get back to work. Her reply? “YOU started it.”
I suspect your co-worker longs for the days when she could have brow beat people into keeping their preferences to themselves.
An unfortunate development has been the collapse of many people’s ability to have reasonable disagreements.
Going by Bill’s account, his disagreement with his co-worker was completely at his discretion, and therefore, by definition, unreasonable. As far as his coworker’s arguments were unchallenged she was, by definition, being completely reasonable. Reasonable ≠ Right
that breaks it down–I don’t know how legit this particular study is or how it compares to others and I literally am about to run out the door for a shoot so if anyone knows a better one please let me know. It seems to suggest that if you are an outed Republican you might want to focus on business, military studies and finance, the only places where you might be on semi-equal footing (in military studies you might even be in the majority!). Skip sociology and ethnic studies entirely, unless you want to be very very lonely.
Well, I also note that a lot of medical and engineering professors tend to run more conservative than you think (there’s a lot of exposure to businessmen and entrepreneurs, and many professors are on boards of start up businesses, even today). Getting down and dirty with businesses does tend to move you over to more pro-business (and, hence, Republican) attitudes.
I was looking at this old posting a noticed a comment about Ron Paul’s position on flag burning. Sadly, Luigi bought into one of the many smears that were leveled against Paul to try and shut him up about the war, the economy and everything else that the powers in Washington don’t want anyone to talk about. This link from Salon.com explains his true position on flag burning: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html
While the media has done a good job of burying Ron Paul as far as the nomination goes, he’s got a large following who aren’t going to disappear so quickly or quietly.
• 
From Politico.com:
Rush weighs a Hillary fundraiser
Rush Limbaugh, one of many conservative talkers deeply hostile toward John McCain, has begun talking about bailing out Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign for president, suggesting repeatedly on the air yesterday and today that he’d raise money for her — though not exactly because he likes her.
“It is rumored that the Clintons are digging into their own personal wealth to fund Hillary’s campaign. I’m thinking of maybe doing a fundraiser,” Limbaugh said yesterday.
He’s been talking about it all day today, and offered a slogan:
“Keep her in it so we can win it.”
I’ve got only a rough transcript of most of the rest of today’s show, on which he asked his listeners repeatedly if he should hold the fundraiser. He’s casting his offer in part, at least, as a parody of GOP “strategery,” mocking the notion that — in place of a conservative candidate — Republican strategists see Clinton as their savior.
Right. Because everything is about you
It should be.
PAD
I thought everything is about me.
Happy Birthday, Tim.
And yeah, I know Huck is out there too. But I think he and McCain have a deal
That’s what scares me. McCain is too old to take a chance on Huckabee as being a heartbeat away…give him secretary of, I don’t know, what’s the furthest from the line of succession?
Right. Because everything is about you.
Well, for a political discussion this thread had a good run before a really dopey comment showed up.
“”the three most beautiful words in the English Language”: “Ex-Mayor Giuliani”..”
I suppose that person was not around for the wonderful regime of David Dinkins then. Oh how we all should long for the days when we all needed to wear bulletproof vests to walk around Manhattan 🙂
All the reports I’ve seen have avoided saying Romney is flatly out of the race, because he’s still holding onto his delegates. McCain doesn’t seem to be exceeding 40%, even for his biggest wins, so if Huckabee can catch up, Romney’s delegates may become valuable.
Because the republican party typically moves as a pack, because they are more faithful to conformity. Normally, the nominee is the pick of the party bosses, becoming the frontrunner months before the primary.
Bush’s best prospect for keeping the books closed on what he’s done is a McCain presidency, but he’s unpopular enough now that he can’t announce a successor and not drive away support. Protesting too much that Bush’s obvious successor isn’t conservative enough for the far right may help him with moderates. For the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Dobsons, playing into reverse psychology is the only game in town.
Sean: Luigi–I never meant to say that Hannity’s past was in some way indicative of his intelligence. Hey, the fact that anybody responds to anything I write proves that. All I was trying to say was it just seems that there’re a lot of talking heads out there whose only qualification is that they can talk. And they have a head.
Luigi Novi: I hear ya. Sorry if my post came across wrong.
“but I wonder how the mail-in early votes are factored in.”
Sadly, most aren’t factored in at all, at least in the general election. Here in NC, and I imagine in most other areas, I believe that early voting ballots aren’t even counted unless the vote is close or there is a challenge for some reason.
Just to add my two cents in what has been an incredible campaign so far:
It looks like both parties may have been hampered by their own rules beforehand.
1.) You have the Democrats, out of power for 8 years yet riding a wave. A worthy challenger – Obama – challenges the Establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton. But wait. Because of “proportional representation” there is no clear winner early. And because so many states have instituted “early voting” – in the name of giving more people the “opportunity” to vote, as if Election “day” is some unbearable, unconquerable chore, those who may have voted for OBama voted for Hillary a month ago, in which their vote went against who they eventually wanted or went for somebody like John Edwards, in which it was literally wasted. Could we please do away with “early voting”.
2.) You have the Republicans, playing to their evangelical base but not doing much and taking it for granted, now confrontec with a lot of votes who feel betrayed. They were enough to help derail the ‘economic conservative” Romney. They May be enough to derail the “defense” conservative as well.
Like I said. fascinating.
Sadly, most aren’t factored in at all, at least in the general election. Here in NC, and I imagine in most other areas, I believe that early voting ballots aren’t even counted unless the vote is close or there is a challenge for some reason.
But if the state isn’t winner take all how will the dole out the delegates?
Being from Brazil, I have been watching the whole political process over there with some reserve. Sincerely, the newspapers here don’t go much in detail about John McCain. The only thing I know about the man is that he was POW during part of the Vietnan War and he’s a senator… Also that for Republican he has some left center positions regarding some issues. Is that correct?
The dispute in the Democrats looks very interesting. Personally, considering the last four presidents… We’re talking about a woman and african-american… Correct if I’m wrong, but that’s not historic, regardless who wins the nomination? Ok… I’m not exactly a specialist here and I don’t prentend to know exactly who’s the best. I know Hilary has more experience than Obama, but that’s it. What else?
Thanks,
Mau
Mau,
It would be pretty historic for us. Even just one of them getting the nomination is significant.
What do you guys think of this?
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/2/6/puerto-rican-poll-power.html
I think it would be ironic if the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico which does not get to vote in the presidential elections (do not pay federal taxes but contribute to social security and has a constitution that is superseded by the U.S. constitution and has many people in the U.S. armed forces and the MLB 🙂 ) be the deciding factor in the presidential candidate race. I know the race may be decided before June but still I think is food for thought.
On a handful of issues, perhaps. But he votes pretty much the party ticket; his record is quite conservative.
He plays the maverick quite well, but submits to party discipline when needed to.
The fact that the Democratic nominee will almost certainly not be a white male is definitely interesting.
Another thing that, while not a milestone, is certainly a rarity, is that at this point it’s all but guaranteed that our next President will come out of the Senate. The last time that happened was JFK, and before that Harding — that’s only twice in nearly a century. Kinda interesting, I think.
TWL
Another thing that, while not a milestone, is certainly a rarity, is that at this point it’s all but guaranteed that our next President will come out of the Senate. The last time that happened was JFK, and before that Harding — that’s only twice in nearly a century. Kinda interesting, I think.
Also note that both those men were assassinated in office.
Also note that both those men were assassinated in office.
All the more reason for an Obama/Clinton ticket. That’d make ANY assasin think twice…no matter how wingnuttery….
Harding wasn’t assassinated, unless you buy the story about his wife poisoning him. He died in office, yes.
TWL
Mau, you can get a detailed sense of John McCain’s positions by going to http://www.wikipedia.org, and searching for the article “Political positions of John McCain”. All of the candidates have such articles, in addition to the main articles on themselves.
Tim Lynch: “The fact that the Democratic nominee will almost certainly not be a white male is definitely interesting.”
You have a gift for understatement, Mr. Lynch. Not that long ago, societal barriers all but guaranteed that neither women nor minorities could have a realistic shot at the White House.
In 1972,
an African American woman named Shirley Chisholm ran for the Democratic presidential nomination. She won only 152 delegates, and took a lot of abuse along the way. The mere fact that she “dared” to run was a step forward.
Now we have a woman and an African American man vying for the Democratic presidential nomination. Given the Republican party’s vulnerabilities, whoever gets the Democratic nod will have a realistic shot at the White House. Society has made a great deal of progress in the last 36 years.
I’m still keeping my fingers crossed for the “McCain Doomsday Scenario” — which involves the unlikely tossing of support from Romney to Huckabee, for a Huckabee/Romney ticket.
a Huckabee/Romney ticket.
They’d be slaughtered! It would be an electoral massacre! George McGovern would feel sorry for them!
Not that long ago, societal barriers all but guaranteed that neither women nor minorities could have a realistic shot at the White House.
Also consider that Nancy Pelosi’s current position as Majority Leader of the House puts her 3rd in line for the White House, and that’s the the closest a woman has gotten to the top job to date.
I don’t get to choose, since I’m not an American, but I’m happy that the only social conservative in the race has little chance of winning and has a goofy name to boot. Eight years of a guy playing for the hardcore evangelicals was enough.
Still, my view of America is indirect, through the Internet, the news, the popular culture. Did 8 years of Bush really made America more socially conservative? Sometimes I think Bush and co. merely fired up people that already were conservative and gave them a sort of… dunno how to describe it – pride?
I do remember a time until the mid-1990s when it seemed like expousing socially conservative ideas was seem as very uncool. The “silent majority” Nixon spoke of was really mostly silent. Then in the couple of last years of Clinton’s and in the Bush years it all changed, and suddenly it seemed like young conservative people weren’t ashamed of being conservative anymore.
Posted by Rene at February 8, 2008 11:05 PM
I do remember a time until the mid-1990s when it seemed like expousing socially conservative ideas was seem as very uncool. The “silent majority” Nixon spoke of was really mostly silent. Then in the couple of last years of Clinton’s and in the Bush years it all changed, and suddenly it seemed like young conservative people weren’t ashamed of being conservative anymore.
Thank you for noticing. Seriously
Im not absolutly happy with everything Bush has done, Im not ashamed to be conservative.
Im also not that young either so please dont card me.
I think that part of it is an overall social change in how people see themselves–it isn’t all that “cool” to try not to be “uncool” any more.
One of the things I like most about working in a high school now is seeing how easier it is for kids to express themselves in their own unique ways. It isn’t so much that there aren’t people who won’t disapprove–there are. It’s just that it isn’t so important to fit in with the so-called “popular crowd”. (Said “popular crowd” NOT being the crypto-fascists portrayed on endless TV detective shows as ruling the roost but simply another sub group. Just watch the graduation ceremonies–the “popular” kids get polite scattered applause while an “ordinary” kid in the marching band might get practically a standing ovation.)
Of course, the marching band IS practically a cult. Seriously. If your kid is lonely teach them how to use the triangle (it’s easy) and have them join. Instant friends. And they look out for each other too. “Lay off the triangle kid” a crudely scrawled note will read, affixed to your door, a pile of your dry erase markers neatly snapped in two on the floor.
So…anyhoo…the point is, whatever social pressure there was to keep political beliefs to yourself has largely vanished in many places, though if you want a job as a college professor you might not want to be on the record as having thrown a fundraiser for Republicans.
Bill Mulligan: “…whatever social pressure there was to keep political beliefs to yourself has largely vanished in many places…”
Is that entirely a good thing, though? I mean, I abhor the idea of “peer pressuring” people into silence because their political beliefs aren’t “cool.” But I also abhor the way so many people are “in your face” about politics today.
Case in point: I noticed that the woman in the cube across the aisle from mine had some Hillary Clinton buttons hanging up. I joking said I was having trouble figuring out her political affiliation. She began talking about how she had been campaigning for Clinton. I casually mentioned my preference for Obama. I made no attempt to persaude her that he was the right choice for her — I simply said I’d decided he was the right choice for *me.*
She harangued me for five minutes about why Clinton was the best candidate. I finally had to bark “ENOUGH!” so I could extricate myself and get back to work. Her reply? “YOU started it.”
Yeah. Because I mentioned a preference for Obama, that was an invitation to spouting campaign slogans like a parrot and try to browbeat me into changing my mind. That’s like saying if I invite you into my house, I’ve given you urinate on my living room carpet. Sorry — doesn’t work that way.
Having a belief, or hearing a belief contrary to your own, doesn’t give you license to ignore common courtesy. Unfortunately, so few people seem to recongize that anymore that I’ve decided to no longer engage in any political discussions at work, period. These days I’m content to get informed, to support organizations with which I am aligned philosophically, and to get out and vote. Perish the thought.
I suspect your co-worker longs for the days when she could have brow beat people into keeping their preferences to themselves.
An unfortunate development has been the collapse of many people’s ability to have reasonable disagreements. I blame the internet, although I love it so. It’s too easy to engage in anonymous attacks on people without any fear of punishment–for some it becomes their only way to argue. Plus, you can surround yourself with an echo chamber of people who parrot the same political lines over and over again, until you become convinced that it’s the only way to think–when people like that are faced with an actual disagreement they are reduced to sputtering rage.
I have some sympathy for the hard core Hillary fans out there–this hasn’t been a fun few months. I have a co-worker who I disagree with on most politics but we both shared the belief that Hillary had a great chance of winning it all. The rise of Obama and, frankly, Hillary’s piss poor response to it, has hit this person hard. And it isn’t just the disappointment of having your candidate losing that hurts–Hillary’s biggest fans felt like they were doing something revolutionary, that this was an incredibly groundbreaking run, that they were on the cutting edge. Then along comes Obama and suddenly they look like the establishment fighting a guy who is even more groundbreaking. It’s Kennedy vs Nixon all over again and who wants to be on Nixon’s side?
So there’s a lot of anger on the Hillary side toward this upstart who has dared to steal their thunder (I’m waiting for some idiot to call him “uppity”).
And yet, I still think it’s her race to lose. Talk to the Hillary folks you get–well, you saw what you get. Talk to the Obama people you get how much they like him. The enthusiasm is definitely his…but my sense is that the Hillary people are more likely to actually get out and vote. Time and time again, the people who rely on the youth vote get let down on election day.
(then again, if the polls show Obama would do better against McCain and the delegate and popular vote is close enough and Obama wins way more states than Hillary…it’s possible that a brokered convention might get caught up in the wave. If I were him I’d be getting ready a rip roaring bring the house down “Cross of Gold” speech)
Actually, if you’re a biz school prof, that’s almost a job requirement these days…
Bill Mulligan: “I suspect your co-worker longs for the days when she could have brow beat people into keeping their preferences to themselves.”
Smart-ášš. 😛
Bill Mulligan: “I have some sympathy for the hard core Hillary fans out there–this hasn’t been a fun few months.”
No, but if you can’t stand the heat, etc.
Anyway, I think ultimately I think this race will leave the Democratic Party stronger — if Clinton and Obama mind their p’s and q’s. You know, delineate the differences between each other but smile and keep their dislike of each other from showing too much.
While there is much to admire about McCain, I believe he is easily beatable. On a personal level, his vulnerabilities include his temper and his lapses into mean-spiritedness. On a policy level, his position on Iraq is absurd, and completely unsupported by the facts as we knew them before the war *and* what we known now. And on a larger level, he is representing a party that has damaged our national security, has irresponsibly weakened our defense forces, ballooned our deficit, and generally took a bad situation and made it unbelievably worse.
I believe Obama to be the best candidate to exploit those vulnerabilities, if he can learn to capitalize on the better angels of his nature. Maureen Dowd of all people said Obama can and should learn to “flick away” personal attacks with a smile and a joke, the way the Gipper used to do.
Actually, if you’re a biz school prof, that’s almost a job requirement these days…
I think it’s actually about even. There’s a study at
69.104/search?q=cache:ISCMNncWRlAJ:www.criticalreview.com/2004/pdfs/cardiff_klein.pdf+political+affiliations+college+disciplines&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
that breaks it down–I don’t know how legit this particular study is or how it compares to others and I literally am about to run out the door for a shoot so if anyone knows a better one please let me know. It seems to suggest that if you are an outed Republican you might want to focus on business, military studies and finance, the only places where you might be on semi-equal footing (in military studies you might even be in the majority!). Skip sociology and ethnic studies entirely, unless you want to be very very lonely.
One last thing–mulling it over it occurs to me that I may be underestimating the likelihood of Obama’s supporters to show up at the polls–he’s doing great in the caucus states and it takes a lot more effort to caucus than to just vote.
I mean, the GOP hasn’t even BEGUN its attack politics. Matters are not going to remain static. The GOP attack dogs can, and will, turn up the heat, and as much as the right wing pundits may be underwhelmed by McCain, I think they will move heaven and earth to make sure Clinton doesn’t get into the White House.
What else is new? She’s already taken their best shots for more than 15 years. They have nothing new to throw at her.
Whereas if Obama gets nominated, they will quickly dig up every unsubstantiated rumor and define him for the voting public. We’ve gone down this road before.
I’d rather stick with a candidate who’s proven she can stand up to the right-wing attack machine then go searching every four years for a candidate the Republicans won’t smear. Because such a thing doesn’t exist.
Unfortunately, such a thing doesn’t exsist for either party. Someone will always dig something up on someone and spread it around like a six-year old who just caught someone picking their nose. The truth behind it can be shakier than something holding salt, but still it’ll spread.
“I blame the internet”
Yeah, so do I. When you’re sitting there typing it’s a lot easier to be really sure of yourself, that you’re so much more right than whoever you’re arguing with, and social graces don’t seem to extend to many keyboards. You poopyhead.
There is that. People today are more eager to show off their individual oppinions, even when they diverge from their friends’ oppinions (particularly when they diverge, maybe).
But I think that in politics, specifically, there is something else going on too. The 1960s started the trend among young people that the left was cool, the right was uncool. It remained more or less like that until the 1980s, I suppose. Then in the 1990s it started to seem as if believing in ANYTHING was uncool.
And then, in the tail end of the 1990s, and then in the 2000s, I started to see, for the first time, many people who had right-wing oppinions and weren’t embarassed of them. While formerly it seemed like only the usual suspects dared defend Conservative values (like, the Churchgoing Christian Housewife, the Older Businessman, etc.), today we have a good portion of the comic book readership defending those values, for instance.
This is most obvious when you see the reaction to certain storylines. In the 1960s-1980s period, stories with left-wing leanings usually were unanimously accepted and praised. Nowadays it doesn’t happen like that anymore. A left-leaning story draws loud disapproval from some fans.
Regarding the Internet and its effect on political and other forms of discourse: I believe a forum like this is a perfectly good place to air out views. Hëll, I’ve come away from some debates here with newly expanded knowledge, and in some cases have even changed my mind on an issue based on someone else’s argument. While I seriously doubt anyone could sway me away from voting Democrat in this year’s presidential election, there are regular posters here with contrary views that I take seriously.
But when you’re at work, you’re there to work. It’s just not the time and place to be trying to harass people into changing their votes.
Then again, this “office neighbor” of mine who was running off at the mouth about her preferred candidate is also running a side business and using company time and equipment to do it. So I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised that she fails to respect boundaries.
Bill brings up an interesting point, one that I think the majority of people I currently work with could pay attention to, and not just involving political topics. (If occasionally the discussions could GET to anything as serious as politics, well, I’d be happier.) But, moreso than that, a lot of politcal or civically active people act like anyone who isn’t in their rank and file needs to be shown The True Way. Too many people are doing too much preaching.
Going by Bill’s account, his disagreement with his co-worker was completely at his discretion, and therefore, by definition, unreasonable. As far as his coworker’s arguments were unchallenged she was, by definition, being completely reasonable. Reasonable ≠ Right
Well, I also note that a lot of medical and engineering professors tend to run more conservative than you think (there’s a lot of exposure to businessmen and entrepreneurs, and many professors are on boards of start up businesses, even today). Getting down and dirty with businesses does tend to move you over to more pro-business (and, hence, Republican) attitudes.
I was looking at this old posting a noticed a comment about Ron Paul’s position on flag burning. Sadly, Luigi bought into one of the many smears that were leveled against Paul to try and shut him up about the war, the economy and everything else that the powers in Washington don’t want anyone to talk about. This link from Salon.com explains his true position on flag burning:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html
Here’s a statement he made to Congress about this subject as well: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html
While the media has done a good job of burying Ron Paul as far as the nomination goes, he’s got a large following who aren’t going to disappear so quickly or quietly.