What democratic positions are "outside the mainstream?" [Archive]

IJ Reilly

Nov 12, 2004, 10:07 PM

A book was recently published on this very subject, "What's the Matter with Kansas?"
The largely blue collar citizens of Kansas can be counted upon to be a "red" state in any election, voting solidly Republican and possessing a deep animosity toward the left. This, according to author Thomas Frank, is a pretty self-defeating phenomenon, given that the policies of the Republican Party benefit the wealthy and powerful at the great expense of the average worker. According to Frank, the conservative establishment has tricked Kansans, playing up the emotional touchstones of conservatism and perpetuating a sense of a vast liberal empire out to crush traditional values while barely ever discussing the Republicans' actual economic policies and what they mean to the working class. Thus the pro-life Kansas factory worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically. To much of America, Kansas is an abstract, "where Dorothy wants to return. Where Superman grew up." But Frank, a native Kansan, separates reality from myth in What's the Matter with Kansas and tells the state's socio-political history from its early days as a hotbed of leftist activism to a state so entrenched in conservatism that the only political division remaining is between the moderate and more-extreme right wings of the same party. Frank, the founding editor of The Baffler and a contributor to Harper's and The Nation, knows the state and its people. He even includes his own history as a young conservative idealist turned disenchanted college Republican, and his first-hand experience, combined with a sharp wit and thorough reasoning, makes his book more credible than the elites of either the left and right who claim to understand Kansas. --John Moe

Desertrat

Nov 13, 2004, 10:35 AM

Lotsa stuff; some perceived, some real.

Probably the least understood is the issue of "Welfare", of course. It isn't true--largely--that able-bodied people are given money by the government for no cause besides being upright and breathing. At the same time, there are way too many uncorrected abuses, and the overhead is way too high. (We castigate "charities" if over 15% goes to administration and fundraising, but most USG social programs run in the neighborhood of 50%, per the GAO.)

There is a vast difference between efficacious gun control measures aimed at crime and those commonly proposed or enacted. It angers ordinary citizens when they are hassled by laws which don't reduce crime. (Which holds true for many arenas far away from gun control.)

"Hollywood" is largely pro-Democrat. Hollywood is blamed for the ever-increasing amount of T&A on primetime TV. A lot of good churchgoers will watch T&A, but they don't want their kids watching. An obvious dichotomy, but one which has been around for 50 years and has been exacerbated in recent years. What once was occasional is now seen as too commonplace. The "If A, then B" of this is that the Democrats are blamed for "moral decay". As usual in blame games, truth is irrelevant.

Most professors who teach situational ethics vote Democrat and support liberal positions. (There's more to life than the missionary position. Oops, sorry. :D) Parents face kids who come home with these ideas and object to such smarminess. They then associate Bad Ideas with Democrats and Liberals.

Regardless, Democrats will not come back to power unless they truly believe in whatever changes are proposed in Party positions. They can't talk the talk unless they walk the walk. The national-level leadership has to Go Away for that to happen. I'm not saying what changes must be made. Not at all. I'm saying that the voter must believe that the Leadership believes. With Kerry and the DNC, they didn't. If you subtract the "I hate Bush" vote, Kerry was the Nowhere Man.

'Rat

IJ Reilly

Nov 13, 2004, 11:13 AM

If you subtract the "I hate Bush" vote, Kerry was the Nowhere Man.

Where is Bush if you subtract the evangelical vote, the people who support him for no other reason than he's a "good Christian" like them?

We can play this game forever. Please try another line of reasoning!

mactastic

Nov 13, 2004, 12:03 PM

Guns
Gays
God

The three 'G's are what seperate democrats from the mainstream.

The party needs to move away from the gun control issues, and they largely have since 2000. Not that that has helped much, there are many who believed wholeheartedly that a Kerry administration would come to their homes and take their guns from their cold dead hands, and many others who will never ever vote democratic for the sole reason that they feel their guns are safer with a republican in power on any and every level. nevertheless, over time the gun issue will go away if the Dems don't keep pushing unreasonable laws.

I think it was Juan Cole's blog that proposed the democrats take the position that the government should get out of the marriage business. That frames the debate as a 'lesser government' issue which moderate conservatives believe in fervently.

And they can sucessfully show that while many liberals are loyal churchgoers, they include those who don't believe as well.

Lastly, they need to shed the image of anti-war. They need to promote the concept of only fighting just and necessary wars as not a position of weakness. I know this is their position, but it has been grossly misrepresented by exaggerating the more pacifist activities of some of it's members.

themadchemist

Nov 13, 2004, 12:35 PM

Guns
Gays
God

you forgot abortion.

Thanatoast

Nov 13, 2004, 01:18 PM

Their refusal to give in to fear.

The gays are getting married!
The terrorists want to eat my children!
The government wants to steal my guns!

There is a fundamental difference in points of view. Liberals (okay, me) don't see the fabric of society unraveling and us all devolving to anarchy and cannibalsim if Adam and Steve get hitched. The sun will continue to rise, and tax day will continue to be April 20th. This anti-gay marriage position is the one which truly confuses me.

There may actually be terrorists who want to eat our children, but I've made the connection that they have reasons for doing so. Bush has them convinced that they hate our freedoms, whatever that means. I believe they hate our actions, in reagards to our policies in the middle east and elsewhere. Also, Bush has 51% of America convinced there is a terrorists around every corner with a suitcase nuclear bomb just waiting for them to drive by. This is patently ridiculous, but some people (most apparently) are willing to give up civil liberties and bomb the ever-loving piss out of civilians in other countries to make themselves feel safer, despite the fact that this makes them less safe.

God. I guess I posted my thoughts in the church thread, but I could expand a little bit. Anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ, and then turns around and supports discrimination and war is a hypocrite. End of story.

When it comes to guns, I think they cause more trouble than they solve. Crime rates per capita are much lower in countries without guns (feel free to prove me wrong). As for resisting an uppity government, I suppose it's working in Iraq...

Abortion is a tough call. I don't like abortion (who does?) but it's legal. I wouldn't attack any woman who had one, either. It has to be a difficult decision, but the image portrayed by the radical right of drive-thru abortions is stupid. Noboby *wants* to kill a potential life.

But alltogether, it comes down, I think, to religion versus state. Liberals want religion to be religion, and state to be state. Conservatives want state to take it's cues from religion. Again, counter-arguments are welcome.

pseudobrit

Nov 13, 2004, 01:23 PM

you forgot abortion.

A significant majority of Americans are pro-choice.

zimv20

Nov 13, 2004, 01:33 PM

are we coming to the conclusion that more right-leaning people vote single issue than left-leaning people? is that a fair assessment?

themadchemist

Nov 13, 2004, 01:36 PM

A significant majority of Americans are pro-choice.

No, no, mactastic pointed out the three points on which Republicans campaign. I'm suggesting he missed one--abortion. They campaign on Guns, Gays, God, and Abortion.

pseudobrit

Nov 13, 2004, 01:39 PM

You said too much. Allow me to edit.

more right-leaning people vote

Thomas Veil

Nov 13, 2004, 03:40 PM

If you subtract the "I hate Bush" vote, Kerry was the Nowhere Man.
Wait a minute...I thought I was the Nowhere Man. :D

http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9606/05/hw.min/upn.jpg

mactastic

Nov 13, 2004, 04:54 PM

No, no, mactastic pointed out the three points on which Republicans campaign. I'm suggesting he missed one--abortion. They campaign on Guns, Gays, God, and Abortion.

I suppose so, I would say it's a subset of God, but so is gays I guess.

themadchemist

Nov 14, 2004, 10:30 AM

I suppose so, I would say it's a subset of God, but so is gays I guess.

No worries, I'm just parroting Howard Dean, whom I heard speak on Thursday night.

Desertrat

Nov 14, 2004, 10:50 AM

"Evangelical vote"? Duh? Sure, lotsa noise is made about the evangelicals, but they're a very small percentage of churchgoers and preachers. They're given way, way too much credit.

I see them as a swing-vote group, much as the Communists in Costa Rica. There, the two major parties' strength in their legislature is split about 49/49, so the other 2% has the balance of power.

The evangelicals were important in this election because of the "I hate Bush" voters' votes for Kerry, but their actual numbers are small.

Creatures like these will fade back under their rocks if the leadership of the Democratic party changes to people who actually believe in a more centrist position. Since today's center is way, way left of, say, the 1940s or 1950s, I fail to see why it's a problem.

'Rat

IJ Reilly

Nov 14, 2004, 11:44 AM

In fact these people will retreat under their rocks if the Republicans adopt a more centrist position, not the Democrats. Why is it so easy to forget how these people got their access to political power in the first place?

blackfox

Nov 14, 2004, 07:00 PM

Xtremehkr

Nov 14, 2004, 08:05 PM

Since today's center is way, way left of, say, the 1940s or 1950s, I fail to see why it's a problem.

'Rat

I have heard this as well, but when I consider the source I know why that would be said. The last 24 years have been a move to the right, and now the republicans hold all three branchs of government. Does that mean we are way left of where we were then?

Without any kind of examples that statement is pretty empty, it sounds like a distraction from the issue because most people today don't know what it was like in the 40s and 50s.

Considering that period was the era of the New Deal, it does not seem like we are that much further left. In fact, so much de-regulation has occured, I would say that it is an inaccurate statement.

Unless there are examples of how we have become so much left of whatever "center" is, another vaguely defined "position."

I guess you would have to define what center was before then justifying why we are so far left of it.

It sounds like evasion to questions concerning the countries move to the right, especially since the government is dominated by the right now.

Just another catchphrase too many people have latched onto.

pseudobrit

Nov 15, 2004, 08:30 AM

Since today's center is way, way left of, say, the 1940s or 1950s, I fail to see why it's a problem.

Would those be the segregationist 40s and 50s?

You know, sometimes I think people look back on the past with some thick lensed rose-coloured glasses.

What happened since that era is simply social progress, not leftist progress.

There was a time in history when slavery was legal, women couldn't vote and education wasn't free. If conservatism would have won every sociopolictical battle in history, we'd all be serfs.

IJ Reilly

Nov 15, 2004, 10:22 AM

There was a time in history when slavery was legal, women couldn't vote and education wasn't free. If conservatism would have won every sociopolictical battle in history, we'd all be serfs.

Bravo!

mactastic

Nov 15, 2004, 10:40 AM

Since today's center is way, way left of, say, the 1940s or 1950s, I fail to see why it's a problem.

Because the center is way right of say, where it was in the 1960's and 1970's. Progress thwarted.

Lyle

Nov 15, 2004, 10:56 AM

Seems to me that as long as the Right is well-funded and coordinated, that through media channels and lobbyists, they define the mainstream.

As long as they are able to frame the arguments, all Democratic positions will be posited as "outside the mainstream" by the GOP.When trebblekicked started this thread a few days ago, I was drawn in by the title because I was curious to see the different perceptions of what people consider "mainstream" thought or opinion. When I actually read his first post, however, the question went in a slightly different direction than I had expected (because I don't think it's accurate to equate "mainstream America" with "rural voters").

So to answer the original question, "What Democratic positions are outside the mainstream?", it might be useful to see what different people think the word "mainstream" means. For example, your response seems to indicate that you believe that the mainstream is whatever media channels and lobbyists tell us it is. I think I'd more simply define it as "what most people think"...

IJ Reilly

Nov 15, 2004, 12:18 PM

Then take a look at the polls from the recent election. Democrats win on most of the social and economic issues, but a majority (albeit a slim one) still vote for Republicans. The inescapable conclusion is that many people are voting against what they believe and against their own best interests.

trebblekicked

Nov 15, 2004, 06:28 PM

When trebblekicked started this thread a few days ago, I was drawn in by the title because I was curious to see the different perceptions of what people consider "mainstream" thought or opinion. When I actually read his first post, however, the question went in a slightly different direction than I had expected (because I don't think it's accurate to equate "mainstream America" with "rural voters").

So to answer the original question, "What Democratic positions are outside the mainstream?", it might be useful to see what different people think the word "mainstream" means. For example, your response seems to indicate that you believe that the mainstream is whatever media channels and lobbyists tell us it is. I think I'd more simply define it as "what most people think"...

sorry about that. i'm curious about both, and should have framed it as a two part question:

what democratic positions are outside the mainstream
-and-
how does that relate to their inability to win rural districts?

so far, i'm inclined to go with blackfox. the republican party has done a fine job of defining the mainstream and defining the democratic party's position on the issues. i'd assume most people's opposition to the party as a whole is at least equally perception vs reality. it's just another symptom of the 30 second ad/talking points political process we're in.

blackfox

Nov 15, 2004, 06:56 PM

Here is a NYT Editorial which somewhat dovetails with my position:

If George Lakoff had his way, the Kerry campaign would have run a commercial attacking the "baby tax." Dr. Lakoff, a Berkeley linguistics professor and Kerry campaign adviser, wanted to divide the interest on the national debt by the number of Americans born each year. The result, $85,000 per newborn, say, would have been handed to a baby in the form of a bill, and the baby would have started to cry. That, Dr. Lakoff says, "frames" the issue "in a way people can understand."

"Framing" is a hot topic among political junkies and in the blogo-sphere right now, thanks to Dr. Lakoff. In "Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate," his surprise best seller, Dr. Lakoff argues that Republicans have been winning elections because they have been better than Democrats at framing issues - from taxes, to abortion, to national security - in ways that resonate with core American values.

Dr. Lakoff has been stepping out of the classroom lately to lecture everyone from the Senate Democratic caucus to "living wage" advocates on how to use linguistics to craft a more effective message. "Framing" alone won't give the Democrats the White House, or the Senate and House. But Dr. Lakoff's theories offer the Democrats a road map for going forward.

The title "Don't Think of an Elephant!" comes from a classic experiment Dr. Lakoff conducts in Cognitive Science 101. He tells his students not to think of an elephant, and he has yet to find one who has managed it. Thinking about elephants is the frame, and negating it simply reinforces it. This was the problem, he says, with President Richard Nixon's famous declaration, "I am not a crook."

Trying not to think of elephants, Dr. Lakoff suggests, sums up the Democrats' plight. Since Republicans have framed the key issues, Democrats cannot avoid being on the losing side. Take taxes. Republicans have succeeded in framing the issue as "tax relief," a metaphor that presents an affliction, and that predetermines who are the heroes - tax opponents - and villains. Taxes are, of course, necessary even for programs Republicans back, like the military, and simple economics dictates that we cannot keep cutting taxes and maintaining spending forever. But the Democrats are hard-pressed to make these points once the frame is "tax relief."

It is not by accident that "tax relief" presents taxes in moral terms, as a calamity in search of a cure. Values, Dr. Lakoff argues, are the key to framing campaign issues. Democrats have an unfortunate tendency, he says, to see campaigns as product launches, believing that if they roll out a candidate with the best features, or positions on issues, voters will support him. Republicans understand that people vote their identity, not their self-interest - that they seek out candidates whose values appear to match their own.

After the election, pundits made much of the influence of a few "moral" issues, like gay marriage and abortion, on the outcome. But Dr. Lakoff argues that values play an important role in almost every campaign issue. The Republicans' success has been driven in large part, he argues, by their ability to frame less morally charged subjects in terms of core values. He is impressed by a line from President Bush's last State of the Union address: that we do not need a "permission slip" to defend America. It reframed multilateralism, once a widely accepted foreign policy principle, as weakness and national infantilization.

As Dr. Lakoff sees it, Democrats need to start framing issues in terms of their own values, which, he insists, are no less popular with the American people than the Republicans' values. This project will, however, take more than spin and sloganeering. On many subjects, he argues, the Democrats suffer from what he calls "hypocognition" - more simply, a lack of ideas. Republicans have been working for the past 40 years, since the defeat of Barry Goldwater, in well-financed think tanks, on developing conservative ideas that voters will rally around. The Democrats, he says, need to start catching up.

One frame Dr. Lakoff likes, which he believes could become a progressive wedge issue, is "poison-free communities." The Republicans' war on government regulation has left industry increasingly free to spew toxins into the air and water, despite the harm it is doing to the public. Keeping people healthy is a core progressive value, but it is one that many swing voters and Republicans share. Few people want their children poisoned by mercury in the name of a theory about the appropriate size of government.

Framing can also deflect the other side's charges. Dr. Lakoff argues that the Democrats should fight the Republican campaign for "tort reform" by recasting it. Rather than debate over frivolous lawsuits, he says, they should talk about protecting people from law-breaking corporations and negligent doctors. When Republicans talk about greedy trial lawyers, he says, Democrats should talk about - and he really needs a better phrase here- "public protection attorneys."...SNIP
FWIW...

IJ Reilly

Nov 15, 2004, 07:07 PM

This is it exactly. The Democrats should hire Lakoff as an advisor. Immediately would not be soon enough. The Republicans already have a guy who does this for them, Frank Luntz.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/luntz.html

zimv20

Nov 15, 2004, 08:41 PM

Here is a NYT Editorial which somewhat dovetails with my position:

yep, that makes a lot of sense. maybe the dems should use "tax responsibility" to counter "tax relief". just one example.

Durandal7

Nov 15, 2004, 09:46 PM

This is politics, reality matters very little and perception is everything. I'm a Republican and I don't view the Democrats as "outside the mainstream" (I just happen to disagree with the bulk of their platforms.)

I view it mainly as a matter of strategy. Newt Gingrich was an excellent strategist and helped to give the GOP a majority in the House. Clinton was fooling around in the White House and that gave the GOP a wedge to make Democrats out as amoral perverts, probably inflicting some serious long-term damage. Follow that up with Karl Rove and other GOP strategists in recent years and you get the picture.

McAuliffe on the other hand, doesn't quite seem to know what he's doing. Kerry's campaign was scatter-brained, seemed to have power struggles behind the scenes and waited until the last minute to bring in competent strategists like "the Ragin' Cajun."

Politics is about bending reality and the Republicans are simply better at that for the moment.

zimv20

Nov 15, 2004, 10:09 PM

Politics is about bending reality and the Republicans are simply better at that for the moment.
and i thought *i* was cynical!

must it be about reality distortion? why can't it be about simply communicating your platform? plus undistorting the distortions your opponent generates...

or are you saying that the GOP has a message which _must_ be distorted in order to be palatable? ;-)

IJ Reilly

Nov 15, 2004, 10:16 PM

Kerry's campaign was fine. I fault him for was not raising the environment as an issue, but otherwise it was run with reasonable competence.

What I'm talking about here is the message the Democratic Party sends to the voters, taken as a whole. If the party marketed its message effectively Kerry's campaign would have been a success (keeping in mind that only 1.5% of the voters needed to change their votes to alter the outcome). This is not about one candidate, and it is not even about bending reality. It's about transmitting a coherent message, something the Republican Party does very well and the Democrats seem to think is beneath their dignity.

Lyle

Nov 16, 2004, 10:02 AM

sorry about that. i'm curious about both, and should have framed it as a two part question:

what democratic positions are outside the mainstream
-and-
how does that relate to their inability to win rural districts?

so far, i'm inclined to go with blackfox. the republican party has done a fine job of defining the mainstream and defining the democratic party's position on the issues. i'd assume most people's opposition to the party as a whole is at least equally perception vs reality. it's just another symptom of the 30 second ad/talking points political process we're in.When considering which Democratic positions might be considered "outside the mainstream", the issue that immediately came to mind was the whole gay marriage thing. I'm not taking a position on it, merely observing that (so far) whenever it's been put to a popular vote, it's been turned down. If you define "mainstream" as "what most people want" (or at least, what most people think they want) that would seem an appropriate example.

I understand blackfox's point about the Republicans' ability to frame the arguments to their advantage after reading that excerpt from the NYT editoria about Dr. Lakoff, and agree with it up to a point. I'm certainly intrigued enough to find out if Lakoff's book is in our library yet. ;) But it seems like there are at least some arguments (such as that over abortion rights) that are going to be difficult for the Democrats to "frame" in a way that makes them sound like the "heroes" to voters with "core American values" (another ambiguous phrase, I think).

blackfox

Nov 16, 2004, 10:21 AM

Again Lyle, it is largely a framing issue. Although there is considerable resistance to the concept of "gay-marriage", if the issue is recast as one of civil rights as a citizen (which it is), then most Americans would agree with that and the GOP position would be seen as the prejudice it really is. This reality is reflected in the support for civil-unions.

With regards to Abortion, I was under the impression that most people supported the right-to-choose. In any case, if you frame it as the "killing of babies", most people will not support it, but again if you frame it as another issue of citizen rights (which it is), you end up with the same as above.

You get the idea.

IJ Reilly

Nov 16, 2004, 10:29 AM

Since a clear majority of Americans are pro-choice, this is an issue the Democrats don't need to reframe. They already win. "Gay marriage" is the frame of the issue created by Republicans, to which Democrats have not responded effectively. One reframing I've suggested several times is civil rights. If every time Republicans talk about "protecting the institution of marriage," Democrats respond with a civil rights argument (using those words explicitly), then they will turn the tide over time because most Americans innately understand and endorse civil rights for everyone. They can also be reminded of the history of conservative opposition to expanding civil rights to women and racial minorities. This is another issue Democrats can quite easily win if they don't allow the Republicans to dictate the terms of the debate.

blackfox

Nov 16, 2004, 10:33 AM

Lyle

Nov 16, 2004, 10:39 AM

Since a clear majority of Americans are pro-choice, this is an issue the Democrats don't need to reframe. They already win.Yes, that was not a good example. I had originally worded that part to say that it would be difficult to frame that argument in a way that would appeal to conservative voters (and not voters in general); but even conservatives are somewhat split over the abortion rights issue.

"Gay marriage" is the frame of the issue created by Republicans, to which Democrats have not responded effectively. One reframing I've suggested several times is civil rights. If every time Republicans talk about "protecting the institution of marriage," Democrats respond with a civil rights argument (using those words explicitly), then they will turn the tide over time because most Americans innately understand and endorse civil rights for everyone. They can also be reminded of the history of conservative opposition to expanding civil rights to women and racial minorities. This is another issue Democrats can quite easily win if they don't allow the Republicans to dictate the terms of the debate.It will be interesting to see how (if) the Democratic party evolves over the next few years: if they choose this approach (changing how they frame the issues and talk about things) or they instead try to moderate some of their positions. Or some mix of the two. In the meantime, I think I'll browse over to the library's online catalog and see if they have Lakoff's book. I'm almost finished re-reading that book about your namesake. ;)

IJ Reilly

Nov 16, 2004, 11:08 AM

Yes, that was not a good example. I had originally worded that part to say that it would be difficult to frame that argument in a way that would appeal to conservative voters (and not voters in general); but even conservatives are somewhat split over the abortion rights issue.

Democrats no more need to appeal to conservative voters than Republicans need to appeal to liberal voters. Most Americans dwell somewhere in the great middle of the political spectrum, and this is where elections are won and lost. Your question might be predicated on the assumption that the US has become an ideologically far more conservative nation than it was however many years ago. I don't think this is actually the case. I believe Americans, particularly working-class Americans, have been sold a bill of goods by Republicans that causes them to vote against their best interests. This can change and I predict it will.

It will be interesting to see how (if) the Democratic party evolves over the next few years: if they choose this approach (changing how they frame the issues and talk about things) or they instead try to moderate some of their positions. Or some mix of the two. In the meantime, I think I'll browse over to the library's online catalog and see if they have Lakoff's book. I'm almost finished re-reading that book about your namesake. ;)

You will need to point out where Democrats need to "moderate" their positions.

IJ Reilly

Nov 16, 2004, 11:10 AM

You know IJ, at times I feel like although we are on the same page, that yours is much better written...mine are mostly in crayon (those I don't eat or stick up my nose).

Thanks, but not to worry -- you communicate your ideas very well. Of course you really know you've made it on this forum when Skunk corrects your spelling. :)

themadchemist

Nov 16, 2004, 11:12 AM

To flip the question, these are the mainstream positions outside the democrats:
President, Vice Presient, cabinet posts, Senator, Representative, Klansman, and eek, maybe Supreme Court Justice, soon!

edit: Klansman is probably mainstream in some places...Frightening, but not Democratic!

Durandal7

Nov 16, 2004, 04:31 PM

edit: Klansman is probably mainstream in some places...Frightening, but not Democratic!

Now, now. We don't want Robert Byrd to feel left out.

Xtremehkr

Nov 16, 2004, 06:18 PM

The republican spin has also got a very efficient distribution network that helps get the message out. Air America is 20 years behind AM radio and is not nearly as well polished as they are.

Even if George Lakoff were to come on board immediately it would take some time to come up with a whole new approach, and a way to get the message out.

At least this is coming to prominence though, that is the first step. I wonder about the DNC sometimes, their job is to know this stuff. I'm a little disappointed that it took so long to catch on to what they have been doing. Maybe the have been a little arrogant over the years, time to change that now. The way campaigns have been run in the past will have to change completely.

IJ Reilly

Nov 16, 2004, 06:53 PM

Even if George Lakoff were to come on board immediately it would take some time to come up with a whole new approach, and a way to get the message out.

Formulating the strategy wouldn't take very long, but getting it implemented might take years, and to take effect, more time yet. Like I said, starting immediately isn't soon enough.

Desertrat

Nov 17, 2004, 09:28 AM

Sorry, but I'll stick by what I said about the general mass of people in this country as to comparative conservative/liberal when measured against 50 years back.

I'm not judging on any one issue. For instance, I'm conservative, but that doesn't mean I'm against abortion. I'm not in favor of the way things were in the days of Jim Crow laws.

Where many conservatives differ from liberals is in the arena of "how to", as I've said before. We don't automatically see a government program as a solution to some social problem. This doesn't mean no programs, but we're not into the knee-jerk bit. Just because the private sector hasn't provided a solution doesn't mean it cannot. It takes the marketplace a while to figure things out--and, of course, there has to be an awareness of a problem as a starting point.

Think for a minute: Reagan was, initially, a Democrat. I believe that were JFK alive today and speaking of his opinions about the body politic, he'd be labelled as conservative in his thinking. After all, he ran on the idea of getting government off the back of business and the idea of reducing taxes. And regardless of what you think of Zell Miller's comments about the DemParty leaving him, the man's not stupid and has been an insider for decades.

As to public policy, Dubya is no conservative. He grew up in LBJ's Great Society, and believes government not only can but should try to solve social problems. That he's seen as inefficient is an argument over ability, not belief. Hey, Gore campaigned in Florida with the idea of free or low-cost medicines for us Old Farts. Bush went and done it. Whether Bush did it the best way is a whole other argument.

Civil liberties? Both parties have been equally guilty of their erosion; just different facets, different areas of attack.

'Rat

IJ Reilly

Nov 17, 2004, 10:08 AM

I'm really into the knee-jerk bit. How'd you know?

Desertrat

Nov 18, 2004, 09:56 AM

:D Watch those knees, IJ. Arthritis is puredee misery...

Back when I lived in Austin and was more active in political stuff, I was intrigued by the "we need a program to..." folks. No matter what had them upset about "the way things are", some government program at some level--city, county or state--was ALWAYS the solution. Worse, it wasn't an incentive-type deal. Always the stick, never the carrot.

One rather amazing solution to the mass-transit "problem" of few users in the city's bus system was to end all downtown parking on the streets. "We can't let them..." seemed to be a mantra for this and other equivalent groups--"them" being the citizenry who pay the taxes.

A lot of stuff sounds good, until you read the fine print. Doesn't matter whether it's an insurance policy or a government program.

mactastic

Nov 18, 2004, 10:42 AM

Myself, I'm always fascinated by the 'we need to deregulate X to save it' crowd. Always promising the free market will bring us consumers more choice and lower prices, but rarely is it so. Just look at the media conglomerates for one.

Not to mention that those regulations were enacted in the first place because industry wasn't capable of acting responsibly then. What makes anyone think they will do differently this time?

IJ Reilly

Nov 18, 2004, 11:49 AM

UnixMac

Nov 18, 2004, 12:11 PM

i'd like to hear from both sides on this. what is keeping rural america from voting for democrats? list perceptions and realities, if you can.

example:

the perception that democrats are soft on terror

-or-

the opposition to bush's tax cuts.

anyone?

Why many vote against them is as follows...

Anti-White male agenda:
-Affirmative Action for middle class white women and blacks/Hispanics.. when it should be for the poor (irrespective of race/sex).

-Anti God (not just a little, but a lot)
a) abortion on demand agenda (making a right, to be funded by tax dollars)
b) can't even bow your head in silence at school or say the pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God"
c) Gay marriage agenda

-Turned their backs on Unions and working "joe" They are no different than the Republican party on corporate money and influence.

-Weak on military issues dear to the men in the military.... funding, gay issue, women into combat (nutty agenda)... etc..

That cover's pretty much their areas where they are extreme.. and where 10% to 30% of this country at most may agree with them.

pseudobrit

Nov 18, 2004, 12:55 PM

Why many vote against them is as follows...

Anti-White male agenda:
-Affirmative Action for middle class white women and blacks/Hispanics.. when it should be for the poor (irrespective of race/sex).

Being pro-minority is not the same as being anti-white male.

Affirmative action tries to correct for some of society's racial imbalance. It ain't perfect but if society was a little closer to equal, it wouldn't have to exist.

Do you really think blacks should have fewer opportunities (as a percentage) than whites?

Anti God (not just a little, but a lot)
a) abortion on demand agenda (making a right, to be funded by tax dollars)

Abortions aren't funded by federal tax money. If your state funds them, talk to your local Reps & Governor.

Abortion exists because government don't belong in an individual's medical decision-making process.

Most of America agrees with the pro-choice stance. It is you who are outside the mainstream.

b) can't even bow your head in silence at school or say the pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God"

You can bow your head in silence anytime you please. What you can't do is lead your class in a secular prayer.

Religious indoctrination is antithetical to education. Even Catholic schools realise this, and plan the day accordingly to accomodate both separately. but they're allowed to do it; public schools are forbidden by our Constitution. You do support Constitutional rule, don't you?

c) Gay marriage agenda

Civil rights agenda. We all deserve equal protection under and application of the law. Do you think some people don't deserve equal rights as allowed for by the law? Are some people "less-than-equal" citizens?

-Turned their backs on Unions and working "joe" They are no different than the Republican party on corporate money and influence.

Corporate America seems to think differently. So do unions.

-Weak on military issues dear to the men in the military.... funding, gay issue, women into combat (nutty agenda)... etc..

John Kerry proposed raising the number of troops.

Bush undermanned and underfunded the Iraq invasion.

Clinton's "slashed spending" "bare bones" military kicked the crap out of Saddam's regime so fast Bush says he didn't have time to plan for the post-conquest arrangements.

Where has the Democratic party suggested putting women in combat?

Wasn't the right-wing adopted "make America proud" story of the troubles of Jessica Lynch about a woman in a combat zone?

tristan

Nov 18, 2004, 02:32 PM

Forget Kansas - focus on the south.

The Democrats used to have a lock on the south because they were the party of farmers, labor unions, and blacks. It was pretty amazing that for a while, a southern factory worker, farmer, and poor black were all voting for the same party.

One of way the democrats pulled this off was because they didn't tell the southerners that they couldn't have their gun and their bible. Once the dems started doing this, they lost the south.

This may be distasteful to us northeast liberals, but the answer may be to respect their values. If they want a gun let them have it. If they want to pray, go for it. States rights and all that. Of course, that means they can't tell the rest of us what to do either.

UnixMac

Nov 18, 2004, 03:48 PM

Affirmative action tries to correct for some of society's racial imbalance. It ain't perfect but if society was a little closer to equal, it wouldn't have to exist.

Wow! where do I begin...

1. who said that we should all be equal? You probably believe this since judging from your avitar your a "Kommie Pinko" as John Wayne use to say... but wake up man..

A) Minorities?
1. White women are not a minority
2. they aren't equal to the male in every aspect (certainly not physically).. they are better at some things and worse at others statistically speaking, there are always going to be outliers, but you can't build a society on outliers.
3. Have you ever watched the Firefighters chalange on ESPN? See the difference in time to run the obstacle course for the 50 year old male "fire chief" vs the 20 year old prime athleat female? let alone the score of the 20 year old male vs the females? YES - Breaking news - Men and Women are different... Only Communists refuse to accept reality, that which either God or Nature gave us... Gender. The Godless communists that you support believe in social engineering, while I believe that we're all different and that's a good thing

Do you really think blacks should have fewer opportunities (as a percentage) than whites?

I think we should all have the same opportunity under the law.. but the end outcome should be left to a free market.

And rather than worry about black and white, what about poor and rich? The fact is a rich black man's son will get a lot more "opportunity" than a poor white mans.

Abortions aren't funded by federal tax money. If your state funds them, talk to your local Reps & Governor.

Absolute BS... Boulderdash! Under Roe V. Wade and subsequent rulings there is now a "right" to an abortion. The Planned Parenthood funding that comes from tax dollars (under prior Democratic legislation) is just what the Democrats want to continue, along with UN funding.. It's the fact that we have a conservative President and lawmakers in congress that we aren't paying as much now to fund those causes.. but do you think a Kerry presididency with a Democratic congress wouldn't increase this? If so, you're either a fool or a liar.

Abortion exists because government don't belong in an individual's medical decision-making process.

Most of America agrees with the pro-choice stance. It is you who are outside the mainstream.

both are BS again..

Abortion is about as personal as murder to a pro-life person of faith. It's just a matter of where do we draw the line for what is life. Today under conservative leadership partial-birth abortions for cleft pallets and downs syndrome are no longer legal so the line has been re-drawn in a pro-life direction.

As for most Americans being pro-choice, that is debatable as the question can be asked in many ways... the ability to get a medically necessary abortion will likely yield a high level of public acceptance, vs a abortion on demand at any level of gestation which the liberals in congress wish for our nation. And there are numerous levels of grey between those views... The public is not "pro-life" or "pro-choice" .. only some 10% of people care enough to make it a major issue, but the majority don't agree with liberal abortion laws that the Democrats promote.

You can bow your head in silence anytime you please. What you can't do is lead your class in a secular prayer.

Religious indoctrination is antithetical to education. Even Catholic schools realise this, and plan the day accordingly to accomodate both separately. but they're allowed to do it; public schools are forbidden by our Constitution. You do support Constitutional rule, don't you?

I do, but the fist Amendment is to protect from an "Establishment" of a particular religion.. not to discourage the practice of any... A moment of silent prayer to any or no God is not an infringement on the 1st Amendment, and neither is The nations' Pledge. Also, the money we use has "In God we trust" and the Supreme Court building has the 10 commandments ... what do you think the Founding Fathers and their successors believed? Freedom of Religion --- not Freedom from it!

Again, Communist agenda item...

Civil rights agenda. We all deserve equal protection under and application of the law. Do you think some people don't deserve equal rights as allowed for by the law? Are some people "less-than-equal" citizens?

Society and Government should promote a renewal of the people and the country and thus the marriage laws favor unions that can yield such a renewal (kids)... That said, I am for "Gay unions" but not for Gay Marriage.

Corporate America seems to think differently. So do unions.

John Kerry proposed raising the number of troops.

Bush undermanned and underfunded the Iraq invasion.

Clinton's "slashed spending" "bare bones" military kicked the crap out of Saddam's regime so fast Bush says he didn't have time to plan for the post-conquest arrangements.

Where has the Democratic party suggested putting women in combat?

Wasn't the right-wing adopted "make America proud" story of the troubles of Jessica Lynch about a woman in a combat zone?

First, I'm no supporter of the war in Iraq...

The Jessica Lynch story is a sad one, since this sweet young girl joined the army (as a transportation driver) to help pay for school so she can go on to a career as a teacher... and the Politicians turned her into a combat hero to suite their own agendas (what they were I have no idea).

She was a girl whos was in a unit that was ambushed and sustained several injuries and deaths. She was basically a complete victim and as a POW, our hearts went out to her family. But to have given her the Silver Star and called her a "hero" was too far.

Men who stormed the beach in Normandy and got their heads literally blown off while forming a beachhead got not more than a purple heart. A man jumped on a grenade on Omaha beach to save 3 of his fellow soldiers lives and was killed and only got a Bronze Star.

German and Russian soldiers committed numerous acts of heroism during the great war in the east and most of them got not a damn thing...

It's disgraceful to all of the men who fell in real combat that we turned Jessica Lynch into combat hero. But worse, she's no better for it.

mactastic

Nov 18, 2004, 03:58 PM

1. who said that we should all be equal? You probably believe this since judging from your avitar your a "Kommie Pinko" as John Wayne use to say... but wake up man..

Does this mean you have never read the Declaration of Independance? Something about 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal'? I didn't realize that sentiment was a Kommie Pinko one.

Wake up man!

UnixMac

Nov 18, 2004, 04:12 PM

Does this mean you have never read the Declaration of Independance? Something about 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal'? I didn't realize that sentiment was a Kommie Pinko one.

Wake up man!

You need to understand a legal concept called "intent"

Moral equality(the founders intent in the preamble) is not the same as physical or mental capacity. The communist manifesto addresses the equality issue the same way as affirmative action does.. outcome based, and not opportunity based.

Otherwise we could read that as the men are equal but the women aren't which is what I'm trying to say anyway.

so you can wake up..

mactastic

Nov 18, 2004, 04:25 PM

You need to understand a legal concept called "intent"

Moral equality(the founders intent in the preamble) is not the same as physical or mental capacity. The communist manifesto addresses the equality issue the same way as affirmative action does.. outcome based, and not opportunity based.

Otherwise we could read that as the men are equal but the women aren't which is what I'm trying to say anyway.

so you can wake up..

Funny, that's not what you said before. You said "who said that we should all be equal?"

I'm awake.... are you?

UnixMac

Nov 18, 2004, 04:27 PM

Funny, that's not what you said before. You said "who said that we should all be equal?"

I'm awake.... are you?

no, no, no... equal opportunity is not equal outcome. Please get that straight or we can't have an intelligent conversation.

mactastic

Nov 18, 2004, 04:31 PM

no, no, no... equal opportunity is not equal outcome. Please get that straight or we can't have an intelligent conversation.

No, no, no. Aff. Action is all about equal opportunity, not equal outcome. If you don't recognize THAT we can't have an intelligent conversation.

If aff act was about equal outcome all college students admitted under such programs would get the same grades regardless of work, right?

UnixMac

Nov 18, 2004, 04:39 PM

No, no, no. Aff. Action is all about equal opportunity, not equal outcome. If you don't recognize THAT we can't have an intelligent conversation.

If aff act was about equal outcome all college students admitted under such programs would get the same grades regardless of work, right?

This just isn't working...

Clearly you haven't seen the SF Fire Dept hiring guidelines lately, or at all for that matter. If you think aff action is just about Berkley student ratio's racial or otherwise, you've got a lot to learn about politics.

mactastic

Nov 18, 2004, 04:46 PM

Lyle

Nov 18, 2004, 04:52 PM

Or phrased another way, providing an equal opportunity for everyone.Except, of course, for the communists.

Sorry, just kidding! Kinda makes you wish Voltron was back, doesn't it? ;)

UnixMac

Nov 18, 2004, 05:11 PM

Sigh, you just don't get it do you?

Aff action isn't about making everyone equal. It's about leveling the playing field. Or phrased another way, providing an equal opportunity for everyone. What you make of that opportunity is up to you.

I may have a lot to learn about politics, but you obviously have a lot to learn about affirmative action.

Also, did our money have 'IGWT' on it when the founding fathers were around? Did our pledge have 'under God' in it when the founders were around?

The Pledge was modified by an act of congress (the people) to have those words added.

And AFAIK the earliest money that had this was during the Civil War period.

So, do you propose we get rid of those references to God as well?
(and people wonder why the Democrats are a minority party)

As for the founders, I can cite a great many writings from the founders about God and religion beginning with the preamble of the Constitution that was quoted above. There are many writings by Madison, Jefferson and Washington about God being important in public life. Or you can just get a copy of the Federals Papers and do the reading yourself and save me the trouble, since I already know what they say.

mactastic

Nov 18, 2004, 05:16 PM

The Pledge was modified by an act of congress (the people) to have those words added.

And AFAIK the earliest money that had this was during the Civil War period.

So, do you propose we get rid of those references to God as well?
(and people wonder why the Democrats are a minority party)

Lol, you sure do like to shift positions don't you? Isn't that called flip-flopping? "I said the FF wanted God in the Pledge and on the money before I said they didn't" :D

And I qoute:
Also, the money we use has "In God we trust" and the Supreme Court building has the 10 commandments ... what do you think the Founding Fathers and their successors believed? Freedom of Religion --- not Freedom from it!

You sure make it sounds like the FF intended for money and the pledge to contain God.

As for the founders, I can cite a great many writings from the founders about God and religion beginning with the preamble of the Constitution that was quoted above. There are many writings by Madison, Jefferson and Washington about God being important in public life. Or you can just get a copy of the Federals Papers and do the reading yourself and save me the trouble, since I already know what they say.

And I can cite just as many FF writings that support the seperation of Church and State, and that many were deists rather than Christian. Save me the trouble and go look it up yourself. I already know what they say.

blackfox

Nov 18, 2004, 05:23 PM

As for the founders, I can cite a great many writings from the founders about God and religion beginning with the preamble of the Constitution that was quoted above. There are many writings by Madison, Jefferson and Washington about God being important in public life. Or you can just get a copy of the Federals Papers and do the reading yourself and save me the trouble, since I already know what they say.

I have got to ask whether this is relevant to American Society 200+ years later. I know the second Amendment was a much more sensible proposition back then. I am not really advocating a position here, so much as wondering whether priorities should change as society does.

Also, I would submit, that to a wise and decent man, the presence of "God" in their life often makes them humble and thoughtful. To a lesser man, it is just something else to subvert to acheive their own selfish ends.

Since we seem to have a lot of the latter, perhaps we should hold off on merging "God" with Politics. The former do not need an explicit declaration to practice their beliefs and the fact they don't advertize, does not mean that they do not exist.

IJ Reilly

Nov 18, 2004, 07:07 PM

UnixMac

Nov 18, 2004, 07:30 PM

I have got to ask whether this is relevant to American Society 200+ years later. I know the second Amendment was a much more sensible proposition back then. I am not really advocating a position here, so much as wondering whether priorities should change as society does.

Also, I would submit, that to a wise and decent man, the presence of "God" in their life often makes them humble and thoughtful. To a lesser man, it is just something else to subvert to acheive their own selfish ends.

Since we seem to have a lot of the latter, perhaps we should hold off on merging "God" with Politics. The former do not need an explicit declaration to practice their beliefs and the fact they don't advertize, does not mean that they do not exist.

A lot of what you say makes sense, and at least your intellectually honest enough to say that the Constitution was written 200+ years ago and maybe we have "evolved" past some of what was acceptable back then. The modern liberal tries to re-write the constitution thru an active judiciary and this is wrong. I frankly disagree and think we have evolved a bit too much for our own good (society is really falling apart, marriage, out of wedlock births, lack of family unity and divorce, etc..).

I am not advocating an Iran like theological state, but for God's sake the lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Liberals today want to have it all... they want the "right" to do everything that feels good to them, but they don't want to be responsible for the societal repercussions for those decisions or actions.

Basically saying that "I want my rights but I don't want any responsibility for them. The Government can take care of me."

people want to Marry on a whim... but don't want to stay married to the person they form a family with when they become "incompatible" or "fall out of love"... what about the greater purpose in marriage?

or people want to go out and screw anyone they want, when ever they want and when they get someone pregnant with a human life (a possible son or daughter - we were all once unborn) they want to snuff it out --- again action, and no responsibility.

Freedom to excess is not freedom the way the a sustainable society can survive on.

This is why we have laws... laws are basically "moral" judgments. Whether derived from God or secular morality is entirely up to the moral conscience of that society, and ours is for the most part Christian.

trebblekicked

Nov 18, 2004, 07:48 PM

Actually, no. Democrats had a lock on the South because they were the party of slavery, succession and segregation. For decades, Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats were a different political species. This fragile coalition broke apart over civil rights.

LBJ after signing the civil rights act:
"We just lost the south for a generation"

even funnier, the south seceded because a republican (lincoln) won the presidency. today's parties have drifted quite a bit from their original or historic platforms.

blackfox

Nov 18, 2004, 08:08 PM

A lot of what you say makes sense, and at least your intellectually honest enough to say that the Constitution was written 200+ years ago and maybe we have "evolved" past some of what was acceptable back then. The modern liberal tries to re-write the constitution thru an active judiciary and this is wrong. I frankly disagree and think we have evolved a bit too much for our own good (society is really falling apart, marriage, out of wedlock births, lack of family unity and divorce, etc..).

I am not advocating an Iran like theological state, but for God's sake the lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Liberals today want to have it all... they want the "right" to do everything that feels good to them, but they don't want to be responsible for the societal repercussions for those decisions or actions.

Basically saying that "I want my rights but I don't want any responsibility for them. The Government can take care of me."

people want to Marry on a whim... but don't want to stay married to the person they form a family with when they become "incompatible" or "fall out of love"... what about the greater purpose in marriage?

or people want to go out and screw anyone they want, when ever they want and when they get someone pregnant with a human life (a possible son or daughter - we were all once unborn) they want to snuff it out --- again action, and no responsibility.

Freedom to excess is not freedom the way the a sustainable society can survive on.

This is why we have laws... laws are basically "moral" judgments. Whether derived from God or secular morality is entirely up to the moral conscience of that society, and ours is for the most part Christian.

I understand where you are coming from, but I think your argument is a little narrow and subsequently inaccurate. Consider this:

As far as "Liberals" trying to rewrite the Constitutions through the Judiciary system, is it not the Judiciarys responsibility to interpret the Constitutionality of a particular greivance/law. I assume you imply the lack of participation by the people in this process ( aka rule of the majority ), but there are certain "unalienable" rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and not subject to majority rule. IMO, gay rights fit in this category, much like suffrage rights and minority rights before them.

In any case, this is a spurrious argument being advanced by the Right, as they have no problem using the power of the Judiciary or the Executive Branch to advance their opinions at the expense of others. Using "activist" Judges to allow gay rights, or uphold Church/State separation is bad, yet using those same means to deny rights or re-introduce Religion into the Government are seen as legitimate.

You say Liberals want it all without responsibility, but what about Republicans? Many of your complaints can be more (or equally) leveraged against them. The push to de-regulate Government and make a smaller imprint on citizen's lives, also allows people to pursue their own agendas at the expense of others, without accountability. In many ways, government is supposed to protect us from our excesses and our tendency to exploit.

When you talk about a sustainable society, you must address all of the people, the poor and the foolish, the greedy and the pious. While Government may do an imperfect job of mediation between competing interests, it certainly is preferable to letting the "free market" or people sort it out for themselves, as we are, above all, self-interested or interested only in narrow criteria. As an individual, we are simply not able to grasp the large picture in the same way that an overarching government can.

Do people take advantage of Government? Yes, some do and at other's expense. Still, that is not the fault of government, it is the fault of people. If there was no Government, people would still take advantage of one another, yet there would be no help offered for those taken advantage of.

I do not understand your marriage argument.

As for your abortion argument, I want you to think about the push by the right with regards to abortion, which in itself is an "action" without responsibility. They oppose adequate sexual education and contraceptive techniques being taught in schools, yet want to legislate over a woman's body. There are societal repercussion to these actions, which are ignored. Where do these "children" go, who will support them, how will this affect women? It is ideology divorced from pragmatism.

You are correct about the lack of responsibility being a major factor in our sorry state of modern Culture, but it is not the fault of Liberals anymore than that of the Republicans.

Of the two, I would have to say the latter is more about self-interest, which often precludes appropriate accountability.

As far as laws being "moral" choices, and we being a primarily Christian nation, I would submit that Liberal ideology is more Christian in character than Republican and that most of the country is also Liberal, depending on how you phrase the questions.

In any case, how does prohibiting something promote responsibility? I can turn your argument on it's head, and say that Conservatives do not need to worry about responsibility when they can just have the Government Legislate it for them. Instead of working to accept the essential disagreements that come up from the exercise of Liberty as the price one pays for freedom (responsibility), some instead choose to limit those freedoms to placate their uncomfortableness? Is that not abdicating responsibility?

UnixMac

Nov 18, 2004, 08:35 PM

blackfox,

We're not going to change either of our opinions, as we both come from totally different moral platforms. It's simply two different philosophies and unfortunately they are mutually exclusive so only one can exist at one time.

This last election I contend was a statement by this country that conservative (not Republican per se) values are in the majority. Therefore you can try to persuade those like me but frankly on issues such as these, you're not likely going to get any converts any more than I am.

Time will tell where we go as a nation and as a culture.

mactastic

Nov 18, 2004, 08:35 PM

A lot of what you say makes sense, and at least your intellectually honest enough to say that the Constitution was written 200+ years ago and maybe we have "evolved" past some of what was acceptable back then. The modern liberal tries to re-write the constitution thru an active judiciary and this is wrong. I frankly disagree and think we have evolved a bit too much for our own good (society is really falling apart, marriage, out of wedlock births, lack of family unity and divorce, etc..).

Modern conservatives (are there any other kind, or are we time-porting 'ancient' conservatives to the modern era?) want to use activist judges to re-write the constitution as well. Look at Judge Roy Moore. Is he a liberal? He sure was an activist judge. If the GOP had it's way, Roe v. Wade would be overturned. That would qualify as judicial activism, no? Quit seeing only one side of the issue. Both parties seek favorable judgements from the judiciary.

I am not advocating an Iran like theological state, but for God's sake the lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.

The baby Jesus you mean? No liberal I've ever met wants to force you to give up the Bible, or religion. They just want the right to be free from your religious beliefs.

Liberals today want to have it all... they want the "right" to do everything that feels good to them, but they don't want to be responsible for the societal repercussions for those decisions or actions.

Basically saying that "I want my rights but I don't want any responsibility for them. The Government can take care of me."

I don't see a lot of personal responsibility coming from the people what won't turn off the damn TV so their kids don't see what they deem to be 'objectionable material'. Where the conservative personal responsibility? All I see is conservatives saying "I want my rights, and government out of my gun cabinet, but I want the rights of minorities taken away and I want to dictate what popular culture is."

I don't see a lot of personal responsibility from conservative business people who want corporate welfare so they can rake in a few more dollars at the expense of the rest of society, yet bitterly complain about personal welfare recipients.

Conservatives want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be the party of morals, then they turn around and do the opposite of what Jesus said to do.

people want to Marry on a whim... but don't want to stay married to the person they form a family with when they become "incompatible" or "fall out of love"... what about the greater purpose in marriage?

Divorce rates are higher in red states. Kinda gives the lie to your I-hate-liberals rant there, eh? Not to mention, you don't leave much room for people to make a mistake in life. Would you rather a person suffer mental and/or physical abuse their entire life than grant them a divorce?

or people want to go out and screw anyone they want, when ever they want and when they get someone pregnant with a human life (a possible son or daughter - we were all once unborn) they want to snuff it out --- again action, and no responsibility.

Will outlawing abortions make them go away? Would you buy the same argument that says banning guns will make gun crime go away? When was the last time prohibition worked?

Freedom to excess is not freedom the way the a sustainable society can survive on.

Tell that to the Congress and the President who can't seem to find fiscal responsibility if their life depended on it before you go telling me that liberals are the only ones deserving of scorn for their excesses.

This is why we have laws... laws are basically "moral" judgments. Whether derived from God or secular morality is entirely up to the moral conscience of that society, and ours is for the most part Christian.

At one point a small minority believed slavery was wrong. The Christian majority made laws keeping the slaves down. If it had been left up to the Christian majority of this country we would still own slaves today. Women would not be allowed to vote still if the Christian moral system were the law of the land. Moral my ass....

UnixMac

Nov 18, 2004, 09:00 PM

I am getting weary of this discussion as it's clear to me the internet computer forums are not filled with anyone I'm going to convince... however I will just say this.

Regarding your quote...

"Modern conservatives (are there any other kind, or are we time-porting 'ancient' conservatives to the modern era?) want to use activist judges to re-write the constitution as well. Look at Judge Roy Moore. Is he a liberal? He sure was an activist judge. If the GOP had it's way, Roe v. Wade would be overturned. That would qualify as judicial activism, no? Quit seeing only one side of the issue. Both parties seek favorable judgements from the judiciary."

Activist judges are by definition liberal... the term liberal judge or liberal means "to taking liberty with".. or loose constructionist if you want to use legal jargon. Roe v. Wade made abortion a right, prior to roe v wade it was left up to the states to legislate laws, and in many cases localities. Prior to Roe v Wade it was still legal to get an abortion in many states and those were also the states were more atheists lived and therefore it suited their moral views.

The problem with Roe v. Wade is that it dug up a heretofore non existent right (not listed in the bill of rights, nor the body of the Constitution) and that is to abort a baby based on the newly legislated fact that this is not a baby (even if it looks like one, and is viable as in 5 and 6 month) until it parts ways with its' mother.

This is activism, not when a conservative judge doesn't find anything in the constitution to support a liberal cause.

You see, one is the absence of the judiciary, while the other is the tyranny of the judiciary.

Roy Moore stated what was fact... if the supreme court building can have the 10 commandments, why can't his? But I can agree with the removal of the commandments form the public view of any court. I have a problem with their removal from a private office however which was the case in another state.

stubeeef

Nov 18, 2004, 09:20 PM

OK, evrybody take 10!

Smoke'm if ya got'em.

As for as this discussion, and the likelyhood of either getting the other............

Horse power is how hard you hit the wall. Torque is how far you drag it behind you.

Alternate Physics

UnixMac

Nov 18, 2004, 09:53 PM

OK, evrybody take 10!

Smoke'm if ya got'em.

Amen... I'm smok'n a pack, downing a liter of single malt.. and throwing in the towel on this thread.

stubeeef

Nov 18, 2004, 10:04 PM

UnixMac

Nov 18, 2004, 10:13 PM

Becareful, you said "amen".

You might be seen as forcing your religious beliefs on the easily offended.

Might I suggest a shot of 25yr old MACALLAN, only watch getting the flames from the smokes too close.

a 14 year old Oban is all that's in the liquor cabinet alas.. however I can pretend it's a 25!

stubeeef

Nov 18, 2004, 10:22 PM

I might also suggest Scapa.

My Cuz lives in Scottland, found it there, can't find it here. Man is it good, I give it 10 pepcid ac's out of 10. :cool:

Ugg

Nov 18, 2004, 10:24 PM

Freedom to excess is not freedom the way the a sustainable society can survive on.

I've never excessed before, ya wanna give me some hints on how to do that, and maybe whiile you're at it, explain what the verb excess means?

Your sustainable society comment sounds awful derned commie pinko to me. Shouldn't societies and countries for that matter be allowed to sink or swim like individuals?

UnixMac

Nov 18, 2004, 10:35 PM

I might also suggest Scapia.

My Cuz lives in Scottland, found it there, can't find it here. Man is it good, I give it 10 pepcid ac's out of 10. :cool:

10 Pepcid! I like that! :D

blackfox

Nov 18, 2004, 11:23 PM

Stu, Unix,

At least we can come together in the love and appreciation of fine whisky.
It's a start...

UnixMac

Nov 18, 2004, 11:25 PM

Stu, Unix,

At least we can come together in the love and appreciation of fine whisky.
It's a start...

Nothing like a good argument over a fine scotch and a pack of cheap smokes!

pseudobrit

Nov 19, 2004, 09:24 AM

Bushmills Triple Wood and a Cohiba for me, thanks.

skunk

Nov 19, 2004, 10:01 AM

I'll stick with the Jamesons...

UnixMac

Nov 19, 2004, 12:16 PM

Bushmills Triple Wood and a Cohiba for me, thanks.

Irish Whisky.. hmm... no wonder we disagree so much. :D

skunk

Nov 19, 2004, 12:50 PM

That's "whiskey"... ;)

Rower_CPU

Nov 19, 2004, 11:06 PM

...Cohiba...

Them's is commie ceegars! :eek: ;)

<rabidly off topic>
Ever actually had a Cuban? I've yet to, and am curious if they're worth the premium.
</rabidly off topic>

UnixMac

Nov 19, 2004, 11:41 PM

Them's is commie ceegars! :eek: ;)

<rabidly off topic>
Ever actually had a Cuban? I've yet to, and am curious if they're worth the premium.
</rabidly off topic>

I have, and yes... they are worth it.. however the high end Dominican stuff is just as good, but nearly as expensive.

mactastic

Nov 19, 2004, 11:45 PM

Activist judges are NOT by definition, liberal. Activist judges are judges who insert their personal views into their decisions period. They come from both sides of the aisle.

skunk

Nov 20, 2004, 05:34 AM

<rabidly off topic>
Ever actually had a Cuban? I've yet to, and am curious if they're worth the premium.
</rabidly off topic>
Ah, those Latina girls! They sure are! :D

IJ Reilly

Nov 20, 2004, 10:56 AM

Ah, those Latina girls!

A redundancy -- a "Latina" is female by definition. ;)

UnixMac

Nov 20, 2004, 11:11 AM

Activist judges are NOT by definition, liberal. Activist judges are judges who insert their personal views into their decisions period. They come from both sides of the aisle.

you see blue, I see green, I say tomato you say tomahto... etc..

we're spinning our wheels.

Out.

skunk

Nov 20, 2004, 11:24 AM

A redundancy -- a "Latina" is female by definition. ;)
Touché

stubeeef

Nov 20, 2004, 11:38 AM

UnixMac

Nov 20, 2004, 12:00 PM

So, to get back on topic,

Democrats positions NOT outside the mainstream...

A good single malt, cigars/smokes, latin girls.... :p

Here are my 2 favorite democratic positions inside the mainstream..

Damn.. I wish I still had my Glen Rothes to show off (but, burp.. I finished it last month.. need to order some more).

BTW.. great place for prices here..

http://www.internetwines.com/spirits-single-malt-30.html

but you gotta be a rich Republican (or at least a Limousine Liberal) to afford it. :D

stubeeef

Nov 20, 2004, 12:34 PM

And because man/nor woman can live by scotch alone...

I think that both Dems and Repubs believe in diverstiy...

Nothing to be bragging about, but it is a start, and has reds and whites.

pseudobrit

Nov 20, 2004, 02:04 PM

Ever actually had a Cuban?

Several.

I've yet to, and am curious if they're worth the premium.

**** yeah. Hits you like a six-pack. I've had a plently of expensive cigars, but nothing legally imported tastes as good or nails your ass as hard a Cuban.

There is no premium for a Cuban over any other similar quality unless you're paying some shady importer. I think they're about $15 a pop in a free market.

pseudobrit

Nov 20, 2004, 02:07 PM

Irish Whisky.. hmm... no wonder we disagree so much. :D

Who said we disagree? I asked you a bunch of questions and you responded by calling me a "Pinko Kommie."

Thanks for buttressing the irony quotient of my avatar, though.

UnixMac

Nov 20, 2004, 04:33 PM

Who said we disagree? I asked you a bunch of questions and you responded by calling me a "Pinko Kommie."

Thanks for buttressing the irony quotient of my avatar, though.

That's what it was... your avitar... Plus, I like calling people Komie Pinko... makes me file John Wayne like. :cool:

UnixMac

Nov 20, 2004, 04:40 PM

because man/nor woman can live by scotch alone...

I think that both Dems and Repubs believe in diverstiy...

Nothing to be bragging about, but it is a start, and has reds and whites.

I'm jealous... I need to get me a good wine / bottle rack. But having just spend the budget of a 3rd world country on my new mac, I doubt I'll be able to convince my wife of the necessity.

BTW... The Repubs may indeed believe in diversity and PC.. but a good old fashioned caveman conservative like me draws the line at including women in his scotch drinking rituals.. man's world. (yes, I know, sexist, pig, caveman... if the shoe fits!)
:o

zimv20

Nov 20, 2004, 05:02 PM

a modest collection, but some good stuff. my uncle is nuts for this stuff; last i checked, he had over 500 bottles.

skunk

Nov 20, 2004, 07:09 PM

(yes, I know, sexist, pig, caveman... if the shoe fits!)
:o
Neither pigs nor cavemen wear shoes.

UnixMac

Nov 20, 2004, 08:46 PM

a modest collection, but some good stuff. my uncle is nuts for this stuff; last i checked, he had over 500 bottles.

That MacCallan is a 12? I've had the 12 before, but I understand the 25 goes down like water...

zimv20

Nov 20, 2004, 09:13 PM

That MacCallan is a 12? I've had the 12 before, but I understand the 25 goes down like water...
it's an 18 year. i've had the 25 year, yes, it's very yummy. your "water" comment also describes how my money flows when i'm at a bar w/ good whiskey :-)

stubeeef

Nov 21, 2004, 12:14 AM

Just finished a 7 hr trip, could use a belt of single malt.

I have had a couple of bottles of 25yr, runs just over $230 bottle, depending where ya get it.

The last one I shared with a buddy from Navy Flt training at the funeral of our other buddy. We drank the 25 yr old, then started the 12 yr old around 5am. The buddy that died gave me a bottle of 25yr old at my bachelor party 10 yrs earlier. Haven't drank like that since, and hope I never do. The 25 yr old is not for a bender but for enjoyment, sipping after supper and such.

I am happy as hell to find some common ground here, this and assault weapons are the only 2 subjects I have agreed on here in 4 months. :p

Well, I'm in DE till Wed....yuk. Going to the new apple store Monday though.

mactastic

Nov 23, 2004, 06:49 PM

you see blue, I see green, I say tomato you say tomahto... etc..

we're spinning our wheels.

Out.

No, tomato vs. tomatoh are refering to the same item. You are claiming tomatoh can't be tomato. You simply won't admit that conservatives ever legislate from the bench.

But whatever, we're getting nowhere.

In.

blackfox

Nov 23, 2004, 06:57 PM

To help explain Mac's point (and some of the rest of us)here is a Wash Post op-ed. I hope it helps.

Talking Sense On Court Choices

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, November 23, 2004; Page A29

Justice Stephen Breyer performed an enormous service for our country last week. He clarified what is at stake in the coming fights over judicial nominations. He made clear why it is important to raise our national argument over court appointments above the level of slogans and campaign speeches.

Breyer, in a series of lectures at Harvard University, offered a bold challenge to conservative judicial activism. While he was respectful of his colleagues, Breyer put forward an alternative to the theories of conservative jurists such as Justice Antonin Scalia.

Conservative politicians, including President Bush, say that they oppose judges who "legislate from the bench" and that they hope to fill the judiciary with "strict constructionists." That sounds good, because we want democratically elected politicians, not judges, making the crucial decisions. Yet, at this moment in our history, it is conservative judges who want to restrict the people's right to govern themselves.

That may sound sweeping, but the current trend among conservatives is to read the Constitution as sharply limiting the ability of Congress and the states to make laws protecting the environment, guaranteeing the rights of the disabled and regulating commerce in the public interest.

This new conservatism is actually a very old conservatism. It marks a return to the time before the mid-1930s when judges struck down all sorts of decent laws -- for example, regulating the number of hours people had to work without overtime pay -- reasoning that such statutes violated contract and property rights. Such rulings denied legislators the ability to resolve social problems and make our society more just. The pre-New Deal judiciary that many conservatives are now trying to restore was the truly "imperial judiciary."

The new conservative judicial activism is a greater threat to our democracy than the prospect of some future court striking down the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion. If Roe is lost (and I doubt it will be), states will still be free to pass liberal abortion laws. But if extreme conservative judges limit the authority of Congress and state legislatures to pass environmental, civil rights, labor and consumer laws, our democracy will be less robust, less effective and less just.

Breyer's worries about the new trends are rooted in his criticisms of the courts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He argues that they "underemphasized the constitutional importance of participation by black citizens in our representative democracy and overemphasized the importance of constitutional protections of property."

Later courts -- the New Deal and the Warren courts -- "emphasized the Constitution's protection of the citizen's freedom to participate in government" and thereby expanded "the scope of democratic self-government."

Breyer's master concept is "active liberty." He argues that the point of our Constitution is democracy -- to guarantee "the principle of participatory self-government" that gives the people "room to decide and leeway to make mistakes."

He suggests that justices who focus primarily on the Constitution's text and "the Framers' original expectations narrowly conceived" miss the Founders' basic intention. Their purpose, Breyer says, was "to create a framework for democratic government -- a government that, while protecting basic individual liberties, permits citizens to govern themselves, and to govern themselves effectively."

Breyer's argument leads not to judicial activism but to judicial humility. He insists that courts take care to figure out what the people's representatives intended when they passed laws. You might say that justices should not behave like imperious English professors who insist they can interpret the true meaning of words better than those who actually wrote them.

The power of Breyer's idea of "active liberty" is that it links freedom to democracy. The point of our system of self-government is not simply to protect us from the wrongs government can commit but to give all of us the opportunity to shape what government does.

Breyer's lectures, which discuss key cases in detail, deserve broad attention because they lay down an intellectually coherent marker in the critical debates we are about to have over the president's judicial choices. Almost all of the journalism about judicial nominations focuses on filibusters, personal conflicts and partisan advantage. But this battle is so much more important than that.

Will judges invoke their own narrow, ideological readings of the Constitution to void progressive legislation? Or will they join Breyer in viewing the Constitution as a framework that "foresees democratically determined solutions, protective of the individual's basic liberties"? The fight over judges is not about politics, narrowly conceived. It is a struggle over what kind of democracy we will have. Breyer has helped us understand that.

Agree or not, I found this to be an interesting article. The idea of "Active Liberty" is a good one. I hope this clears up some misconceptions about how many of us view the Judiciary and it's appropriate place in Government.