He won. The “West Wing” scenario played out exactly as–
Uh oh.
Has anyone checked on Joe Biden?
PAD
456 comments on “I’ll be darned”
Shhh!!! Roger, don’t use logic or bring real world facts into this matter. It just messes the arguments up.
~;?)
blindpew, I was wrong. Despite the 6 point win, there are people (mostly at FOX News and the like) claiming that he had no mandate. I should never doubt the human ability to ignore facts.
Hi Guys,
Sorry, but the straw man is wrong. They ain’t trying to redefine a word, they are trying to redefine a social and religious institution. Redefining words is easy, changing a society is hard, especially when the society doesn’t want, and sees no need to change what a majority feels is right, when a minority wants them to.
Charlie
Hi Guys,
Sorry, but the straw man is wrong. They ain’t trying to redefine a word, they are trying to redefine a social and religious institution. Redefining words is easy, changing a society is hard, especially when the society doesn’t want, and sees no need to change what a majority feels is right, when a minority wants them to.
Charlie
AJ: How soon before the second asassination attempt? (Especially since the Bush DOJ doesn’t seem interested in prosecuting the first one.)
Luigi Novi: What assassination attempt was this? Where and when was this?
Charlie: Sorry, but the straw man is wrong. They ain’t trying to redefine a word, they are trying to redefine a social and religious institution. Redefining words is easy, changing a society is hard, especially when the society doesn’t want, and sees no need to change what a majority feels is right, when a minority wants them to.
Luigi Novi: Well, some of them say themselves that it’s about the word. You’re the first I’ve encountered to argue that gay marriage opponents want to redefine marriage, since heretofore, it was the opponents who have always accused its advocates of attempting to do that.
As for what society wants, well, society does not speak with one voice. Each of the millions or billions in a society speak with their own individual ones, many of whom want to be able to pursue the happiness that comes with marrying the one you’re in love with. They may be a minority, be then, so were blacks who wanted to vote. Our laws are predicated partially on democratic ideals, but also on respect for individual rights. The Constitution is supposed to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. True it may be hard, but it will happen, since the majority may not have wanted an end to slavery, segregation, or lack of civil rights for blacks. Protecting individual rights sometimes means telling the majority that they’re wrong.
“And so far, it looks like California will also pass Amendment 8.”
With Prop. 8 passing lets hope that the will of the people will be honored here in California. We vote for a reason. Majority wins. And lets keep in mind that there were three states with referendums defending traditional marriage and all three passed. And for you people screaming right now, sorry, but the majority isn’t always wrong as you’d like to think in this case.
“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is the sheep armed with a gun and objecting.”
— Sir Winston Churchill
“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is the sheep armed with a gun and objecting.”
— Sir Winston Churchill
The final results were 52% to 46%, which is a very big mandate for this country. There won’t be the slightest bit of quibbling about things being close, it wasn’t close at all.
Ok, but whatever happened to all of those T-Shirts that said “51% is NOT a majority” (huh?) that were all the rage in 2000?
Word is Schwarzenegger is going to try to Veto it, and he is right to do so.
It is not the right of the people or the government to take rights away.
What proposition 8 is doing is outlawing something that does no harm to anyone. They can no longer leave a will for their loved ones, or visit them in the hospital.
You are hung up on a word. Why? Who cares what people do or what they call it. It simply doesn’t affect you. Give a good reason that doesn’t involve religion. I mean any at all.
Word is Schwarzenegger is going to try to Veto it, and he is right to do so.
It is not the right of the people or the government to take rights away.
What proposition 8 is doing is outlawing something that does no harm to anyone. They can no longer leave a will for their loved ones, or visit them in the hospital.
You are hung up on a word. Why? Who cares what people do or what they call it. It simply doesn’t affect you. Give a good reason that doesn’t involve religion. I mean any at all.
Some thoughts generated by the The West Wing comparisons:
Bill Richardson has the resume’ for Secretary of State — I even suggested it to his campaign in an e-mail after he withdrew from the race. The idea of John McCain doing it breaks the analogy — both tempermentally and politically, Senator McCain is nothing like Arnie Vinick, and presumably also doesn’t have the international stature that Vinick was depicted as having.
Of course, if you want a Republican with international standing and also the gravitas required, get Hal Holbrook — no, not the character he portrayed on The West Wing, but Hal Holbrook himself. Half of being a diplomat is simply being able to communicate and being dignified while doing it; Holbrook is both.
Josh Lyman had the capability to be obnoxious when he let his ego loose, but certainly was good-hearted. Josh was never mean in the way Rahm Emanuel is rumored to be…but I suppose of those in real life, Emanuel is closer to Leo (more about half-way between Josh and Leo, I think) than anyone else on the current political scene.
The question is, will George Stephanopolous get to be Sam Seaborn (again), this time to Emanuel’s Josh?
Who are the equivalent of Donna and C. J. (and my favorites, Charlie, Margaret, and Mrs. Landingham)? Who gets to be the Toby Ziegler?
When does the overall analogy start to fail?
Some thoughts generated by the The West Wing comparisons:
Bill Richardson has the resume’ for Secretary of State — I even suggested it to his campaign in an e-mail after he withdrew from the race. The idea of John McCain doing it breaks the analogy — both tempermentally and politically, Senator McCain is nothing like Arnie Vinick, and presumably also doesn’t have the international stature that Vinick was depicted as having.
Of course, if you want a Republican with international standing and also the gravitas required, get Hal Holbrook — no, not the character he portrayed on The West Wing, but Hal Holbrook himself. Half of being a diplomat is simply being able to communicate and being dignified while doing it; Holbrook is both.
Josh Lyman had the capability to be obnoxious when he let his ego loose, but certainly was good-hearted. Josh was never mean in the way Rahm Emanuel is rumored to be…but I suppose of those in real life, Emanuel is closer to Leo (more about half-way between Josh and Leo, I think) than anyone else on the current political scene.
The question is, will George Stephanopolous get to be Sam Seaborn (again), this time to Emanuel’s Josh?
Who are the equivalent of Donna and C. J. (and my favorites, Charlie, Margaret, and Mrs. Landingham)? Who gets to be the Toby Ziegler?
When does the overall analogy start to fail?
Word is Schwarzenegger is going to try to Veto it, and he is right to do so.
he can veto a proposition??? If that’s the case I don’t see why there was any problem to begin with. I think it’s way more likely that opponents of prop 8 will try to get it declared unconstitutional.
The final results were 52% to 46%, which is a very big mandate for this country. There won’t be the slightest bit of quibbling about things being close, it wasn’t close at all.
mandate=when the guy you like wins, no matter how close. That’s the way the game is played. But let’s not pretend otherwise.
Look, I remember when Reagan stomped Mondale 58.8% to 40.6% and people still argued there was no mandate. It goes something like this: he only got 58% of those who voted, which is no big deal because only half the eligible people voted. Half of 58 is only 29%! Mandate? Oh, I don’t think so!
Word is Schwarzenegger is going to try to Veto it, and he is right to do so.
he can veto a proposition??? If that’s the case I don’t see why there was any problem to begin with. I think it’s way more likely that opponents of prop 8 will try to get it declared unconstitutional.
The final results were 52% to 46%, which is a very big mandate for this country. There won’t be the slightest bit of quibbling about things being close, it wasn’t close at all.
mandate=when the guy you like wins, no matter how close. That’s the way the game is played. But let’s not pretend otherwise.
Look, I remember when Reagan stomped Mondale 58.8% to 40.6% and people still argued there was no mandate. It goes something like this: he only got 58% of those who voted, which is no big deal because only half the eligible people voted. Half of 58 is only 29%! Mandate? Oh, I don’t think so!
Posted by Bill Mulligan at November 6, 2008 06:54 AM
“Look, I remember when Reagan stomped Mondale 58.8% to 40.6% and people still argued there was no mandate. It goes something like this: he only got 58% of those who voted, which is no big deal because only half the eligible people voted. Half of 58 is only 29%! Mandate? Oh, I don’t think so!”
It’s an appealing argument – Labours “landslide” victories over here are (were?) often made by about 1/3rd of those eligible to vote. (Or by Scottish MP’s voting on English law, but that’s a different bunch of sour grapes..)
What your figures show is that 29.4% voted Reagan, 20.3% voted Mondale and 50.3% didn’t give a rodent’s rectum who won, which at least shows again that democracy may not be perfect, but it does always give us the leaders we deserve…
Until we get compulsory voting – which I’m in favour of – the cookie will continue to crumble that way. You should all be proud of the turn-out figures this year.
Cheers!
“With Prop. 8 passing lets hope that the will of the people will be honored here in California. We vote for a reason. Majority wins. And lets keep in mind that there were three states with referendums defending traditional marriage and all three passed. And for you people screaming right now, sorry, but the majority isn’t always wrong as you’d like to think in this case.”
So Rich, if the “majority” vote to take away EVERYTHING you own, and to make you a slave, and turn your loved ones into sex slaves, that’s OK with you because the “majority” voted for it?
You are a fûçkìņg idiot if you actually believe that just bacause the “majority” says so, that makes it right….
“With Prop. 8 passing lets hope that the will of the people will be honored here in California. We vote for a reason. Majority wins. And lets keep in mind that there were three states with referendums defending traditional marriage and all three passed. And for you people screaming right now, sorry, but the majority isn’t always wrong as you’d like to think in this case.”
So Rich, if the “majority” vote to take away EVERYTHING you own, and to make you a slave, and turn your loved ones into sex slaves, that’s OK with you because the “majority” voted for it?
You are a fûçkìņg idiot if you actually believe that just bacause the “majority” says so, that makes it right….
For someone who calls complying with the majority f**king stupid, it’s a wonder you place so much urgency on cyber-bullying and ridiculing dissent.
For someone who calls complying with the majority f**king stupid, it’s a wonder you place so much urgency on cyber-bullying and ridiculing dissent.
The only problem with compulsory voting is that just because people are forced to vote doesn’t mean they know HOW to vote. Not in terms of going into the booth and pushing the buttons, but who and what they’re actually voting FOR. Having to vote does not necessitate being informed. Heck, even some of the people I know who DID vote don’t seem to know what they were voting for. Case in point–someone I know who voted for McCain because Obama’s pro-choice. If the vote was just for President of Controversial Female Procedures, that’d be valid, but I think the POTUS has one or two things to deal with beside that.
Sorry all, but Arnold doesn’t have a veto on propositions. They are a direct form of democracy, for good or bad, and automatically become state law. Your only hope is that the California Supreme court (who started this mess) will overturn the proposition by declaring it unconstitutional. But then, how do you declare a direct addition to the constitution unconstitutional? Easy, when you don’t care about the document in the first place…
It will then go to the US Supreme Court, which is what both sides really want. If they rule on it, it becomes a federal precedent, and can be used in other states as well.
Charlie
Until we get compulsory voting – which I’m in favour of
Good grief, why??? Why not insist on everyone having a gun as well? Anyone who doesn’t care enough to vote, I say, thank you for not voting. Encourage your friends not to vote as well.
Compulsory anything is something that should be done only when the outcome makes it desirable. Forcing people to vote doesn’t in anyway seem to me to be more likely to give us better politicians and quite possibly lead to worse ones.
Until we get compulsory voting – which I’m in favour of
Good grief, why??? Why not insist on everyone having a gun as well? Anyone who doesn’t care enough to vote, I say, thank you for not voting. Encourage your friends not to vote as well.
Compulsory anything is something that should be done only when the outcome makes it desirable. Forcing people to vote doesn’t in anyway seem to me to be more likely to give us better politicians and quite possibly lead to worse ones.
How about somethinghalfway between compulsary voting and what we have?
Make Election Day a Holiday and require employers to give workers the day off or something…
How about somethinghalfway between compulsary voting and what we have?
Make Election Day a Holiday and require employers to give workers the day off or something…
And for you people screaming right now, sorry, but the majority isn’t always wrong as you’d like to think in this case.
I guess the majority were wrong about slavery and civil rights and interracial marriage, too.
Case in point–someone I know who voted for McCain because Obama’s pro-choice.
Not that it matters, but I’ve seen comments from informed voters who voted for McCain for the exact same reason: because Obama is pro-choice.
Apparently some in this country are still working on a one-track mind, oblivious to everything else that is going on around them. And to them I can only say: well, whatever.
Has anybody in office seriously suggested such a thing?
Whether what works now is certainly worth debating, but simply because somebody appeared before a committee doesn’t mean much of anything.
With Prop. 8 passing lets hope that the will of the people will be honored here in California. We vote for a reason.
Sure, lots of reasons: Bias. Stupidity. Arrogance. Ignorance. Hatred. Bigotry. Take your pick.
On Tuesday we elected a man who, sixty years ago, there were laws on the books of some states that would have prohibited his parents marrying.
And hey, let’s let gay couples just have something similar to marriage but not actually marriage. Because separate-but-equal, the courts totally approve of that, right? Better still, let’s arrange to make sure gays drink from separate water fountains so we don’t catch germs from them.
PAD
With Prop. 8 passing lets hope that the will of the people will be honored here in California. We vote for a reason.
Sure, lots of reasons: Bias. Stupidity. Arrogance. Ignorance. Hatred. Bigotry. Take your pick.
On Tuesday we elected a man who, sixty years ago, there were laws on the books of some states that would have prohibited his parents marrying.
And hey, let’s let gay couples just have something similar to marriage but not actually marriage. Because separate-but-equal, the courts totally approve of that, right? Better still, let’s arrange to make sure gays drink from separate water fountains so we don’t catch germs from them.
PAD
That boils down to a question that does not have a definite answer – who’s opinion is more important, the courts, or the voters? PAD, you’d probably say the courts in this case, but what if, for example, the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade, something the majority of the voting public does not want to see happen. Who’s right then?
Rich: We vote for a reason. Majority wins.
Luigi Novi: Unless the majority wishes something that violates the Constitution. Then it loses.
As it usually has.
Rich: The majority isn’t always wrong as you’d like to think in this case.
Luigi Novi: If you concede toward the end of this passage that Craig was only making a statement about “this case”, then why do you imply prior to it that it was a statement about “always”?
MikeT: The final results were 52% to 46%, which is a very big mandate for this country.
Luigi Novi: What exactly does the word “mandate” even mean in this context? I never understood what this was supposed to indicate or imply. It made no sense to me when the GOP said when Bush won in 2004, and it doesn’t make sense now. The only people up until now that have even touched upon this notion were right-wingers, and since I hadn’t heard Obama supporters saying it, it came across as a right-wing Straw Man. But now what appears to be an Obama supporter is using it. What does it mean? Obama won. If being elected President is called a “mandate”, then every winner of a Presidential election has a “mandate”. How is this particular to this election, or to 2004, or any other specific election?
Rich: We vote for a reason. Majority wins.
Luigi Novi: Unless the majority wishes something that violates the Constitution. Then it loses.
As it usually has.
Rich: The majority isn’t always wrong as you’d like to think in this case.
Luigi Novi: If you concede toward the end of this passage that Craig was only making a statement about “this case”, then why do you imply prior to it that it was a statement about “always”?
MikeT: The final results were 52% to 46%, which is a very big mandate for this country.
Luigi Novi: What exactly does the word “mandate” even mean in this context? I never understood what this was supposed to indicate or imply. It made no sense to me when the GOP said when Bush won in 2004, and it doesn’t make sense now. The only people up until now that have even touched upon this notion were right-wingers, and since I hadn’t heard Obama supporters saying it, it came across as a right-wing Straw Man. But now what appears to be an Obama supporter is using it. What does it mean? Obama won. If being elected President is called a “mandate”, then every winner of a Presidential election has a “mandate”. How is this particular to this election, or to 2004, or any other specific election?
I can’t see how anyone can call 52% a clear majority. I think Bush made the same mistake in ’04. The Dems would be wise to remember that. Personally, to me a clear, mandate-worthy majority would be 65% or over.
I can’t see how anyone can call 52% a clear majority. I think Bush made the same mistake in ’04. The Dems would be wise to remember that. Personally, to me a clear, mandate-worthy majority would be 65% or over.
‘Mandate’ means the same thing in this election that it means in other elections. That there was a clear winner instead of a photo finish.
The confusion over the word being used in 2004 is due to the fact that the right wingers were lying when they said Bush had a mandate. He actually won by the smallest margin that any sitting President has ever been re-elected by. It wasn’t that the word had a different meaning, just that they were lying by using the word.
We could debate what margin should actually be considered a mandate. Is it 6%? 8%? I don’t think there is a clearly agreed upon number, but we can make do without one. Whether everyone agrees on an exact percentage or not, the meaning of the word is that it’s not just a win, it’s a significant win.
Vinny Valenti: Personally, to me a clear, mandate-worthy majority would be 65% or over.
Since that’s never happened in American history, that’s not a very useful definition of mandate.
Vinny Valenti: Personally, to me a clear, mandate-worthy majority would be 65% or over.
Since that’s never happened in American history, that’s not a very useful definition of mandate.
I can’t see how anyone can call 52% a clear majority.
It’s more than half. that’s enough to make it a majority. “Clear”? Well, if you take the thought that a huge chunk of the nonvoters would have voted Mccain, maybe not. But there’s no reason to think that. or to care. If they don’t vote it doesn’t matter.
i agree with Luigi about “mandate” though. Entirely in the eye of the beholder. But I have to disagree that the word is mostly being used by right wingers; Reuters has as a headline Even with mandate, Obama faces health care pain. ABC news The Note: Obama Seeks to Define Mandate LA Times Obama’s victory is a mandate for change. The M word is (ahem) liberally sprinkled about the left of center blogosphere. I don’t think it’s fair to call it a strawman.
I can’t see how anyone can call 52% a clear majority.
It’s more than half. that’s enough to make it a majority. “Clear”? Well, if you take the thought that a huge chunk of the nonvoters would have voted Mccain, maybe not. But there’s no reason to think that. or to care. If they don’t vote it doesn’t matter.
i agree with Luigi about “mandate” though. Entirely in the eye of the beholder. But I have to disagree that the word is mostly being used by right wingers; Reuters has as a headline Even with mandate, Obama faces health care pain. ABC news The Note: Obama Seeks to Define Mandate LA Times Obama’s victory is a mandate for change. The M word is (ahem) liberally sprinkled about the left of center blogosphere. I don’t think it’s fair to call it a strawman.
The smell is becoming odious. Would someone please change Mike’s diaper?
“Since that’s never happened in American history, that’s not a very useful definition of mandate.”
Right. And which leads to my point that no president should ever disregard the other side completely as a result. Bush basically did that, so Obama should not so the same.
“Since that’s never happened in American history, that’s not a very useful definition of mandate.”
Right. And which leads to my point that no president should ever disregard the other side completely as a result. Bush basically did that, so Obama should not so the same.
“Compulsory anything is something that should be done only when the outcome makes it desirable. Forcing people to vote doesn’t in anyway seem to me to be more likely to give us better politicians and quite possibly lead to worse ones.’
It works here.
“Compulsory anything is something that should be done only when the outcome makes it desirable. Forcing people to vote doesn’t in anyway seem to me to be more likely to give us better politicians and quite possibly lead to worse ones.’
It works here.
If Obama only got 60 million votes, then only 20% of Americans voted for him.
Joe the Dumber heard from no more? Nope. He wants to become an online political watchdog.
It looks like Fox News has started to cut Palin off from the republican base. They reported amogn other things she needed to be informed Canada, the US, and Mexico formed NAFTA, and that Africa wasn’t a country: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezh2SNwPcKc
The smell is becoming odious. Would someone please change Mike’s diaper?
Alan, have you stocked up on your “Obama bin Lyin'” t-shirts yet? You like to employ logic barked at that level of integrity, so you must be sold.
• 
Shhh!!! Roger, don’t use logic or bring real world facts into this matter. It just messes the arguments up.
~;?)
blindpew, I was wrong. Despite the 6 point win, there are people (mostly at FOX News and the like) claiming that he had no mandate. I should never doubt the human ability to ignore facts.
Hi Guys,
Sorry, but the straw man is wrong. They ain’t trying to redefine a word, they are trying to redefine a social and religious institution. Redefining words is easy, changing a society is hard, especially when the society doesn’t want, and sees no need to change what a majority feels is right, when a minority wants them to.
Charlie
Hi Guys,
Sorry, but the straw man is wrong. They ain’t trying to redefine a word, they are trying to redefine a social and religious institution. Redefining words is easy, changing a society is hard, especially when the society doesn’t want, and sees no need to change what a majority feels is right, when a minority wants them to.
Charlie
AJ: How soon before the second asassination attempt? (Especially since the Bush DOJ doesn’t seem interested in prosecuting the first one.)
Luigi Novi: What assassination attempt was this? Where and when was this?
Charlie: Sorry, but the straw man is wrong. They ain’t trying to redefine a word, they are trying to redefine a social and religious institution. Redefining words is easy, changing a society is hard, especially when the society doesn’t want, and sees no need to change what a majority feels is right, when a minority wants them to.
Luigi Novi: Well, some of them say themselves that it’s about the word. You’re the first I’ve encountered to argue that gay marriage opponents want to redefine marriage, since heretofore, it was the opponents who have always accused its advocates of attempting to do that.
As for what society wants, well, society does not speak with one voice. Each of the millions or billions in a society speak with their own individual ones, many of whom want to be able to pursue the happiness that comes with marrying the one you’re in love with. They may be a minority, be then, so were blacks who wanted to vote. Our laws are predicated partially on democratic ideals, but also on respect for individual rights. The Constitution is supposed to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. True it may be hard, but it will happen, since the majority may not have wanted an end to slavery, segregation, or lack of civil rights for blacks. Protecting individual rights sometimes means telling the majority that they’re wrong.
“And so far, it looks like California will also pass Amendment 8.”
With Prop. 8 passing lets hope that the will of the people will be honored here in California. We vote for a reason. Majority wins. And lets keep in mind that there were three states with referendums defending traditional marriage and all three passed. And for you people screaming right now, sorry, but the majority isn’t always wrong as you’d like to think in this case.
“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is the sheep armed with a gun and objecting.”
— Sir Winston Churchill
“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is the sheep armed with a gun and objecting.”
— Sir Winston Churchill
The final results were 52% to 46%, which is a very big mandate for this country. There won’t be the slightest bit of quibbling about things being close, it wasn’t close at all.
Ok, but whatever happened to all of those T-Shirts that said “51% is NOT a majority” (huh?) that were all the rage in 2000?
Word is Schwarzenegger is going to try to Veto it, and he is right to do so.
It is not the right of the people or the government to take rights away.
What proposition 8 is doing is outlawing something that does no harm to anyone. They can no longer leave a will for their loved ones, or visit them in the hospital.
You are hung up on a word. Why? Who cares what people do or what they call it. It simply doesn’t affect you. Give a good reason that doesn’t involve religion. I mean any at all.
Word is Schwarzenegger is going to try to Veto it, and he is right to do so.
It is not the right of the people or the government to take rights away.
What proposition 8 is doing is outlawing something that does no harm to anyone. They can no longer leave a will for their loved ones, or visit them in the hospital.
You are hung up on a word. Why? Who cares what people do or what they call it. It simply doesn’t affect you. Give a good reason that doesn’t involve religion. I mean any at all.
Some thoughts generated by the The West Wing comparisons:
Bill Richardson has the resume’ for Secretary of State — I even suggested it to his campaign in an e-mail after he withdrew from the race. The idea of John McCain doing it breaks the analogy — both tempermentally and politically, Senator McCain is nothing like Arnie Vinick, and presumably also doesn’t have the international stature that Vinick was depicted as having.
Of course, if you want a Republican with international standing and also the gravitas required, get Hal Holbrook — no, not the character he portrayed on The West Wing, but Hal Holbrook himself. Half of being a diplomat is simply being able to communicate and being dignified while doing it; Holbrook is both.
Josh Lyman had the capability to be obnoxious when he let his ego loose, but certainly was good-hearted. Josh was never mean in the way Rahm Emanuel is rumored to be…but I suppose of those in real life, Emanuel is closer to Leo (more about half-way between Josh and Leo, I think) than anyone else on the current political scene.
The question is, will George Stephanopolous get to be Sam Seaborn (again), this time to Emanuel’s Josh?
Who are the equivalent of Donna and C. J. (and my favorites, Charlie, Margaret, and Mrs. Landingham)? Who gets to be the Toby Ziegler?
When does the overall analogy start to fail?
Some thoughts generated by the The West Wing comparisons:
Bill Richardson has the resume’ for Secretary of State — I even suggested it to his campaign in an e-mail after he withdrew from the race. The idea of John McCain doing it breaks the analogy — both tempermentally and politically, Senator McCain is nothing like Arnie Vinick, and presumably also doesn’t have the international stature that Vinick was depicted as having.
Of course, if you want a Republican with international standing and also the gravitas required, get Hal Holbrook — no, not the character he portrayed on The West Wing, but Hal Holbrook himself. Half of being a diplomat is simply being able to communicate and being dignified while doing it; Holbrook is both.
Josh Lyman had the capability to be obnoxious when he let his ego loose, but certainly was good-hearted. Josh was never mean in the way Rahm Emanuel is rumored to be…but I suppose of those in real life, Emanuel is closer to Leo (more about half-way between Josh and Leo, I think) than anyone else on the current political scene.
The question is, will George Stephanopolous get to be Sam Seaborn (again), this time to Emanuel’s Josh?
Who are the equivalent of Donna and C. J. (and my favorites, Charlie, Margaret, and Mrs. Landingham)? Who gets to be the Toby Ziegler?
When does the overall analogy start to fail?
Word is Schwarzenegger is going to try to Veto it, and he is right to do so.
he can veto a proposition??? If that’s the case I don’t see why there was any problem to begin with. I think it’s way more likely that opponents of prop 8 will try to get it declared unconstitutional.
The final results were 52% to 46%, which is a very big mandate for this country. There won’t be the slightest bit of quibbling about things being close, it wasn’t close at all.
mandate=when the guy you like wins, no matter how close. That’s the way the game is played. But let’s not pretend otherwise.
Look, I remember when Reagan stomped Mondale 58.8% to 40.6% and people still argued there was no mandate. It goes something like this: he only got 58% of those who voted, which is no big deal because only half the eligible people voted. Half of 58 is only 29%! Mandate? Oh, I don’t think so!
Word is Schwarzenegger is going to try to Veto it, and he is right to do so.
he can veto a proposition??? If that’s the case I don’t see why there was any problem to begin with. I think it’s way more likely that opponents of prop 8 will try to get it declared unconstitutional.
The final results were 52% to 46%, which is a very big mandate for this country. There won’t be the slightest bit of quibbling about things being close, it wasn’t close at all.
mandate=when the guy you like wins, no matter how close. That’s the way the game is played. But let’s not pretend otherwise.
Look, I remember when Reagan stomped Mondale 58.8% to 40.6% and people still argued there was no mandate. It goes something like this: he only got 58% of those who voted, which is no big deal because only half the eligible people voted. Half of 58 is only 29%! Mandate? Oh, I don’t think so!
Posted by Bill Mulligan at November 6, 2008 06:54 AM
“Look, I remember when Reagan stomped Mondale 58.8% to 40.6% and people still argued there was no mandate. It goes something like this: he only got 58% of those who voted, which is no big deal because only half the eligible people voted. Half of 58 is only 29%! Mandate? Oh, I don’t think so!”
It’s an appealing argument – Labours “landslide” victories over here are (were?) often made by about 1/3rd of those eligible to vote. (Or by Scottish MP’s voting on English law, but that’s a different bunch of sour grapes..)
What your figures show is that 29.4% voted Reagan, 20.3% voted Mondale and 50.3% didn’t give a rodent’s rectum who won, which at least shows again that democracy may not be perfect, but it does always give us the leaders we deserve…
Until we get compulsory voting – which I’m in favour of – the cookie will continue to crumble that way. You should all be proud of the turn-out figures this year.
Cheers!
“With Prop. 8 passing lets hope that the will of the people will be honored here in California. We vote for a reason. Majority wins. And lets keep in mind that there were three states with referendums defending traditional marriage and all three passed. And for you people screaming right now, sorry, but the majority isn’t always wrong as you’d like to think in this case.”
So Rich, if the “majority” vote to take away EVERYTHING you own, and to make you a slave, and turn your loved ones into sex slaves, that’s OK with you because the “majority” voted for it?
You are a fûçkìņg idiot if you actually believe that just bacause the “majority” says so, that makes it right….
“With Prop. 8 passing lets hope that the will of the people will be honored here in California. We vote for a reason. Majority wins. And lets keep in mind that there were three states with referendums defending traditional marriage and all three passed. And for you people screaming right now, sorry, but the majority isn’t always wrong as you’d like to think in this case.”
So Rich, if the “majority” vote to take away EVERYTHING you own, and to make you a slave, and turn your loved ones into sex slaves, that’s OK with you because the “majority” voted for it?
You are a fûçkìņg idiot if you actually believe that just bacause the “majority” says so, that makes it right….
For someone who calls complying with the majority f**king stupid, it’s a wonder you place so much urgency on cyber-bullying and ridiculing dissent.
For someone who calls complying with the majority f**king stupid, it’s a wonder you place so much urgency on cyber-bullying and ridiculing dissent.
The only problem with compulsory voting is that just because people are forced to vote doesn’t mean they know HOW to vote. Not in terms of going into the booth and pushing the buttons, but who and what they’re actually voting FOR. Having to vote does not necessitate being informed. Heck, even some of the people I know who DID vote don’t seem to know what they were voting for. Case in point–someone I know who voted for McCain because Obama’s pro-choice. If the vote was just for President of Controversial Female Procedures, that’d be valid, but I think the POTUS has one or two things to deal with beside that.
Sorry all, but Arnold doesn’t have a veto on propositions. They are a direct form of democracy, for good or bad, and automatically become state law. Your only hope is that the California Supreme court (who started this mess) will overturn the proposition by declaring it unconstitutional. But then, how do you declare a direct addition to the constitution unconstitutional? Easy, when you don’t care about the document in the first place…
It will then go to the US Supreme Court, which is what both sides really want. If they rule on it, it becomes a federal precedent, and can be used in other states as well.
Charlie
Until we get compulsory voting – which I’m in favour of
Good grief, why??? Why not insist on everyone having a gun as well? Anyone who doesn’t care enough to vote, I say, thank you for not voting. Encourage your friends not to vote as well.
Compulsory anything is something that should be done only when the outcome makes it desirable. Forcing people to vote doesn’t in anyway seem to me to be more likely to give us better politicians and quite possibly lead to worse ones.
Until we get compulsory voting – which I’m in favour of
Good grief, why??? Why not insist on everyone having a gun as well? Anyone who doesn’t care enough to vote, I say, thank you for not voting. Encourage your friends not to vote as well.
Compulsory anything is something that should be done only when the outcome makes it desirable. Forcing people to vote doesn’t in anyway seem to me to be more likely to give us better politicians and quite possibly lead to worse ones.
How about somethinghalfway between compulsary voting and what we have?
Make Election Day a Holiday and require employers to give workers the day off or something…
How about somethinghalfway between compulsary voting and what we have?
Make Election Day a Holiday and require employers to give workers the day off or something…
And for you people screaming right now, sorry, but the majority isn’t always wrong as you’d like to think in this case.
I guess the majority were wrong about slavery and civil rights and interracial marriage, too.
Case in point–someone I know who voted for McCain because Obama’s pro-choice.
Not that it matters, but I’ve seen comments from informed voters who voted for McCain for the exact same reason: because Obama is pro-choice.
Apparently some in this country are still working on a one-track mind, oblivious to everything else that is going on around them. And to them I can only say: well, whatever.
Is there any truth to this at all?
Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans?
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/23/would-obama-dems-kill-401k-plans.html
Is there any truth to this at all?
Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans?
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/23/would-obama-dems-kill-401k-plans.html
Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans?
Has anybody in office seriously suggested such a thing?
Whether what works now is certainly worth debating, but simply because somebody appeared before a committee doesn’t mean much of anything.
With Prop. 8 passing lets hope that the will of the people will be honored here in California. We vote for a reason.
Sure, lots of reasons: Bias. Stupidity. Arrogance. Ignorance. Hatred. Bigotry. Take your pick.
On Tuesday we elected a man who, sixty years ago, there were laws on the books of some states that would have prohibited his parents marrying.
And hey, let’s let gay couples just have something similar to marriage but not actually marriage. Because separate-but-equal, the courts totally approve of that, right? Better still, let’s arrange to make sure gays drink from separate water fountains so we don’t catch germs from them.
PAD
With Prop. 8 passing lets hope that the will of the people will be honored here in California. We vote for a reason.
Sure, lots of reasons: Bias. Stupidity. Arrogance. Ignorance. Hatred. Bigotry. Take your pick.
On Tuesday we elected a man who, sixty years ago, there were laws on the books of some states that would have prohibited his parents marrying.
And hey, let’s let gay couples just have something similar to marriage but not actually marriage. Because separate-but-equal, the courts totally approve of that, right? Better still, let’s arrange to make sure gays drink from separate water fountains so we don’t catch germs from them.
PAD
That boils down to a question that does not have a definite answer – who’s opinion is more important, the courts, or the voters? PAD, you’d probably say the courts in this case, but what if, for example, the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade, something the majority of the voting public does not want to see happen. Who’s right then?
Rich: We vote for a reason. Majority wins.
Luigi Novi: Unless the majority wishes something that violates the Constitution. Then it loses.
As it usually has.
Rich: The majority isn’t always wrong as you’d like to think in this case.
Luigi Novi: If you concede toward the end of this passage that Craig was only making a statement about “this case”, then why do you imply prior to it that it was a statement about “always”?
MikeT: The final results were 52% to 46%, which is a very big mandate for this country.
Luigi Novi: What exactly does the word “mandate” even mean in this context? I never understood what this was supposed to indicate or imply. It made no sense to me when the GOP said when Bush won in 2004, and it doesn’t make sense now. The only people up until now that have even touched upon this notion were right-wingers, and since I hadn’t heard Obama supporters saying it, it came across as a right-wing Straw Man. But now what appears to be an Obama supporter is using it. What does it mean? Obama won. If being elected President is called a “mandate”, then every winner of a Presidential election has a “mandate”. How is this particular to this election, or to 2004, or any other specific election?
Rich: We vote for a reason. Majority wins.
Luigi Novi: Unless the majority wishes something that violates the Constitution. Then it loses.
As it usually has.
Rich: The majority isn’t always wrong as you’d like to think in this case.
Luigi Novi: If you concede toward the end of this passage that Craig was only making a statement about “this case”, then why do you imply prior to it that it was a statement about “always”?
MikeT: The final results were 52% to 46%, which is a very big mandate for this country.
Luigi Novi: What exactly does the word “mandate” even mean in this context? I never understood what this was supposed to indicate or imply. It made no sense to me when the GOP said when Bush won in 2004, and it doesn’t make sense now. The only people up until now that have even touched upon this notion were right-wingers, and since I hadn’t heard Obama supporters saying it, it came across as a right-wing Straw Man. But now what appears to be an Obama supporter is using it. What does it mean? Obama won. If being elected President is called a “mandate”, then every winner of a Presidential election has a “mandate”. How is this particular to this election, or to 2004, or any other specific election?
I can’t see how anyone can call 52% a clear majority. I think Bush made the same mistake in ’04. The Dems would be wise to remember that. Personally, to me a clear, mandate-worthy majority would be 65% or over.
I can’t see how anyone can call 52% a clear majority. I think Bush made the same mistake in ’04. The Dems would be wise to remember that. Personally, to me a clear, mandate-worthy majority would be 65% or over.
‘Mandate’ means the same thing in this election that it means in other elections. That there was a clear winner instead of a photo finish.
The confusion over the word being used in 2004 is due to the fact that the right wingers were lying when they said Bush had a mandate. He actually won by the smallest margin that any sitting President has ever been re-elected by. It wasn’t that the word had a different meaning, just that they were lying by using the word.
We could debate what margin should actually be considered a mandate. Is it 6%? 8%? I don’t think there is a clearly agreed upon number, but we can make do without one. Whether everyone agrees on an exact percentage or not, the meaning of the word is that it’s not just a win, it’s a significant win.
Vinny Valenti: Personally, to me a clear, mandate-worthy majority would be 65% or over.
Since that’s never happened in American history, that’s not a very useful definition of mandate.
Vinny Valenti: Personally, to me a clear, mandate-worthy majority would be 65% or over.
Since that’s never happened in American history, that’s not a very useful definition of mandate.
I can’t see how anyone can call 52% a clear majority.
It’s more than half. that’s enough to make it a majority. “Clear”? Well, if you take the thought that a huge chunk of the nonvoters would have voted Mccain, maybe not. But there’s no reason to think that. or to care. If they don’t vote it doesn’t matter.
i agree with Luigi about “mandate” though. Entirely in the eye of the beholder. But I have to disagree that the word is mostly being used by right wingers; Reuters has as a headline Even with mandate, Obama faces health care pain. ABC news The Note: Obama Seeks to Define Mandate LA Times Obama’s victory is a mandate for change. The M word is (ahem) liberally sprinkled about the left of center blogosphere. I don’t think it’s fair to call it a strawman.
I can’t see how anyone can call 52% a clear majority.
It’s more than half. that’s enough to make it a majority. “Clear”? Well, if you take the thought that a huge chunk of the nonvoters would have voted Mccain, maybe not. But there’s no reason to think that. or to care. If they don’t vote it doesn’t matter.
i agree with Luigi about “mandate” though. Entirely in the eye of the beholder. But I have to disagree that the word is mostly being used by right wingers; Reuters has as a headline Even with mandate, Obama faces health care pain. ABC news The Note: Obama Seeks to Define Mandate LA Times Obama’s victory is a mandate for change. The M word is (ahem) liberally sprinkled about the left of center blogosphere. I don’t think it’s fair to call it a strawman.
The smell is becoming odious. Would someone please change Mike’s diaper?
“Since that’s never happened in American history, that’s not a very useful definition of mandate.”
Right. And which leads to my point that no president should ever disregard the other side completely as a result. Bush basically did that, so Obama should not so the same.
“Since that’s never happened in American history, that’s not a very useful definition of mandate.”
Right. And which leads to my point that no president should ever disregard the other side completely as a result. Bush basically did that, so Obama should not so the same.
“Compulsory anything is something that should be done only when the outcome makes it desirable. Forcing people to vote doesn’t in anyway seem to me to be more likely to give us better politicians and quite possibly lead to worse ones.’
It works here.
“Compulsory anything is something that should be done only when the outcome makes it desirable. Forcing people to vote doesn’t in anyway seem to me to be more likely to give us better politicians and quite possibly lead to worse ones.’
It works here.
If Obama only got 60 million votes, then only 20% of Americans voted for him.
Joe the Dumber heard from no more? Nope. He wants to become an online political watchdog.
http://tinyurl.com/583qh8
It looks like Fox News has started to cut Palin off from the republican base. They reported amogn other things she needed to be informed Canada, the US, and Mexico formed NAFTA, and that Africa wasn’t a country: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezh2SNwPcKc
Alan, have you stocked up on your “Obama bin Lyin'” t-shirts yet? You like to employ logic barked at that level of integrity, so you must be sold.