Not too early is it? 2008 Presidential fun

[scaeagles]

A lot of announcements have come out already on the Dem side, but I'm starting a thread to dicuss all nominees.

Hillary - too polarizing, I think. If the dems want to be sure of a huge republican turnout, then they should nominate her. I think she has problems with the far left as well.

Obama - Don't know much about him, except that he was educated in a Madras for four years. Will America vote for someone who was? This will surely become an issue in the dem primaries.

Edwards - This man makes my stomach turn. He is so smarmy, so fake, I literally can't stand to hear one word from his mouth.

Richardson - Don't know too much about him, but he wasn't a bad governor of New Mexico.

Rudy - Not quite conservative enough for me, but he gets it (when I say gets it, I mean he and I agree on a lot of it) on foreign policy and terrorism.

McCain - Would be hard for me to vote for him, but if he were the nominee, he would definitely be the lesser of two evils. Like Rudy, I think he gets it.

Most important issues to me are tax policy, border policy, and how they will handle the war on terror.

Your thoughts?

[LSPoorEeyorick]

If you want to learn more about Obama, you should listen to his speech from the last Dem convention. I'm not sure if it's his time yet, but I want him to be president someday.

[tracilicious]

If you want to learn more about Obama, you should listen to his speech from the last Dem convention. I'm not sure if it's his time yet, but I want him to be president someday.


I agree. I quite like him. It may not be time for him to be pres yet. He may have to cook for four more years.

Honestly, I don't know much about the others. I'd like Hillary to be president solely because it would make me happy to have a woman president. I don't care too much who gets elected. I'm pretty sure none of these people will be half as bad as the current guy.

[Alex]

Obama - Don't know much about him, except that he was educated in a Madras for four years. Will America vote for someone who was? This will surely become an issue in the dem primaries.

I don't think it will, and anybody who tries to make a big deal out of it will come off looking like a dickhead. He also spent 7 years at one of the top schools in the country (Punohou, meaning he has lost the vote of the Kamehameha High block; but could provide the country with a connection for really good malasadas).

I am very intrigued by Obama. I need to know more about him on various positions, but it would be nice to have a serious candidate that both isn't a retard and inspires people (Dean, in my opinion, failed on one of those counts).

So far, of the accounced and likely candidates he is the only one I have much interest in.

[Snowflake]

A lot of announcements have come out already on the Dem side, but I'm starting a thread to dicuss all nominees.

Your thoughts?


I agree, Hillary is way too polarizing. While I think there is much to admire about her and I fell she does have some chops, the thougt of all the mudslinging to come is already making my stomach turn. A woman president, yes, it's about time, will it be Hillary, I can't honestly say.

Obama has such charisma and is clearly can be a polarizing force, someone to rally behind. But I personally think he needs another term to get his feet wet.

Edwards, I don't know about him. He was the more appealing of the two on the Kerry ticket, but is this a reason for him to run now? I still don't know what his record is, frankly it's more because I've just not paid attention.

Richardson, not a clue about him.

Giuliani, McCain? Not for me, although I think McCain would be preferable.

I'm generalizing here and probably showing more about my ignorance than anything else, but I think whoever gets the White House in the next election is screwed before they even take the oath. There is so much mess to clean up, so much to try and fix, it's a no-win situation and whoever it is will be a single term election and get nothing but **** for whatever they do manage to accomplish.

Okay enough politics for me, time to consider the Oscar nominees ;)

[Scrooge McSam]

Obama - Don't know much about him, except that he was educated in a Madras for four years. Will America vote for someone who was? This will surely become an issue in the dem primaries.

I think you mean "madrassa".

If you do, that rumor, started by Insight Magazine, an organ of the same crazy bunch that runs the Washington Times, was debunked. That will not stop the republicans from trying to make it an issue in the dem primaries, so you are at least partially right.

If you're talking about the fabric, carry on.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I get all my political knowledge from SNL. ;)

They absolutely ripped apart Hillary last weekend. Seeing New York liberals say she has no principles of her own, and that she only does what polls tell her, was very intriguing indeed. I'd never vote for her anyway, but it's beginning to sound like the dems won't even try it.

After watching the sketch I realized that we are now in for nearly 2 years of campaigning. Ugh. I swear, it's like Xmas, getting longer and longer each time. There should be laws...

[Alex]

Hillary is actually one of the few prominent Democrats to stand by her position on Iraq. I respect her for that quite a bit.

Nobody seems to be bringing it up. But remember when people questioned Bill Clinton about whether the first lady was too involved in policy? It seems to me that issue is only magnified 1000x if the "first lady" is a former president. I also wonder if those on the left who criticized Bush simply for being a "dynasty presidency" will have similar qualms about Hillary (and if the the people on the right who didn't care about a dynasty presidency will resist having issue issue with it now).

I'm not really bothered by Obama's lack of experience. I don't think it is a job that really has much in the way of "ramp up" training (except maybe being a governor) and being a senator certainly doesn't provide any training except in the realm of political gamesmanship.

As far as whatever connection he has with Islam, the simple response to that is "I am not a Muslim, but with our current global situation doesn't it seem like a positive to have a president that knows something about it?"

I respect Guiliani but think he'd be a horrible president. I don't respect McCain but he might be decent at it (though I am unlikely to vote for him).

[3894]

Hillary - too polarizing. Well said, scaeagles. She's also from the Northeast and the last two Dem presidential candidates from the Northeast didn't do well.

Edwards plays well in the Midwest. An Edwards/Obama ticket would be intriguing.

[Not Afraid]

Obama is the most intriguing of them all, but I don't think he's got the experience and trust to win it. I actually can't choose one of the Dems to be a strong candidate - stong enough to win an election - and that is the most troubling aspect of the current crop. I do find myself actually liking what Hillary has to say. She's gotten a lot of air time over the past 2 weeks and she's been spot on about a lot of things. Still, I think she's got some big hurdles to overcome.

[Strangler Lewis]

Americans vote for the tone they like. Back in 1995 I predicted that Bush, Jr. would be the Republican nominee in 2000 because he was kind of a hot governor and people sort of missed Bush I. The Republican nominee in 2000 will be Mike Huckabee, a thoughtful sounding evangelical. Barring some new attack at home, people will be sick of big stick wielders and foreign policy in general and the nagging suspicion that Bush II and his ilk wanted to commit America to a decades long war to capture the middle east and its oil.

If Huckabee runs, I think he beats Hillary because she's hard to listen to, but I think she beats the adulterer Giuliani, the cruel Brownback, the Mormon Romney and the ancient cancer victim McCain, none of whom are terribly compelling speakers.

If it looks like Huckabee is going to run, Obama probably would be the better candidate. The interesting thing from the Democrat side is whether Gore is waiting in the wings to see if Hillary self destructs. He'd have some explaining to do about 2000, but you can't say he's not experienced.

[Alex]

but I think whoever gets the White House in the next election is screwed before they even take the oath. There is so much mess to clean up, so much to try and fix, it's a no-win situation and whoever it is will be a single term election and get nothing but **** for whatever they do manage to accomplish.


I actually see it the other way around. If whoever next gets the job is somewhat adroit at handling the Iraq/Afghanistan/Al Qaeda issue then they are in for an easy landing, particularly if they are a Democrat.

Domestically, things are actually pretty good and don't show any signs of looking horrible. National coverage of the economy tends to lag reality by a few years so by then everybody will be buying into the current good news. Yes, there are bad spots and troubled industries, but there are always bad spots and troubled industries.

The so-called "culture war" will rage, but I think that is, for most people a battle between the fringes.

The thing to keep in mind is that a president who sees 10% economic growth (that would have been 20% but for his interference) will be viewed as a genius while a president who sees 10% economic decline (that would have been 20% but for his interference) will be viewed as a failure.

When it is no longer necessary for the press to filter all economic news through its worst filter, suddenly things will seem rosy again and people will credit (wrongly, 95% of the time) whoever is in office.

[Moonliner]

He'd have some explaining to do about 2000.

You mean like how he'd change the voting system so that in the future the winner of the election would actually get the job?

[wendybeth]

Hillary is actually one of the few prominent Democrats to stand by her position on Iraq. I respect her for that quite a bit.

Nobody seems to be bringing it up. But remember when people questioned Bill Clinton about whether the first lady was too involved in policy? It seems to me that issue is only magnified 1000x if the "first lady" is a former president. I also wonder if those on the left who criticized Bush simply for being a "dynasty presidency" will have similar qualms about Hillary (and if the the people on the right who didn't care about a dynasty presidency will resist having issue issue with it now).

I'm not really bothered by Obama's lack of experience. I don't think it is a job that really has much in the way of "ramp up" training (except maybe being a governor) and being a senator certainly doesn't provide any training except in the realm of political gamesmanship.

As far as whatever connection he has with Islam, the simple response to that is "I am not a Muslim, but with our current global situation doesn't it seem like a positive to have a president that knows something about it?"

I respect Guiliani but think he'd be a horrible president. I don't respect McCain but he might be decent at it (though I am unlikely to vote for him).

Nail on the head with this post, all the way around. Thus far, I like Obama. His relative inexperience actually makes me want to vote for him- he's not entrenched, doesn't see this as his rightful due (or 'turn', as with the Bush family) and he has unique life experiences that are very relevant in today's world. Hillary would be fun, if only to let Scaeagles know how I felt when Dubya was elected, but I'm not willing to vote for her merely because I know it would piss Scaeagles off.;)

[Nephythys]

You mean like how he'd change the voting system so that in the future the winner of the election would actually get the job?

In a nutshell everything that is wrong with the left-

They lose- and claim it was stolen.

Then they spend years going on about it.

We need forward thinkers- who understand why we have an electoral college and laws.

[Not Afraid]

We need forward thinkers- who understand why we have an electoral college and laws.

We seem to be fresh out of that brand here in the US.

[CoasterMatt]

We need forward thinkers- who understand why we have an electoral college and laws.

Too bad nobody like that is in government at the moment :(

[Nephythys]

uh huh- whatever guys.

As long as dems keep whinging on about 2000- and 2004 as if they were stolen (which they weren't) and refuse to look forward to the future- well, they continue to be laughable.

I am looking forward to 2008 because it is going to be something NEW- no incumbents. I am sad to see either party trot out old options.

Nothing exciting yet- but it's early.

[Moonliner]

In a nutshell everything that is wrong with the left-

They lose- and claim it was stolen.

Then they spend years going on about it.

We need forward thinkers- who understand why we have an electoral college and laws.

Now that you bring it up... The electoral college is a bit of an anachronism. Don't you think we would be better off without it?

[tracilicious]

I'd love to see the electoral college ditched and have the actual winner of the majority of votes hold office.

[Nephythys]

No- it's there for a good reason.

Of course- do the people who want to get rid of it really want to gut the middle of the country from representation? The elections would be held on the west and east coast and to hell with everyone else.

Sorry- with all due respect but I think people who want to abolish it don't really understand it or why we have it.

[Alex]

Now that you bring it up... The electoral college is a bit of an anachronism. Don't you think we would be better off without it?

No, I don't.

So long as we still have the idea of federalism then it isn't an anachronism. If you're also willing to abolish states then the electoral college will become an anachronism.

That said, the proportionality of the electoral college is out of whack but there is a very easy solution to that.

[Nephythys]

Succinct.

[€uroMeinke]

I'd like to see Hillary just to have the Husband Wife combination as a future trivia question interspersed with a father son combination. Thank god we don't have any monarchies in this country.

Obama's name is just to funny - most people won't believe he's American.

Edwards is a lovable lumberjack, so people will think he's Canadian.

Gulliani made the subways run on time or something like that, Time Square and Disney - that bodes good for national leaders.

Mc Cains' house is decorated with too much Americana - he's trying to hard, I'd rather a president with simpler lines.

[Isaac]

I'm voting for Hillary, if for no other reason, to see Bill Clinton become the first lady.

[wendybeth]

Think he'll bake cookies?

[innerSpaceman]

Perhaps it's a little too early ... but Hillary is miles ahead of any of her dem competitors for the presidency. She may be polarizing ... but she's got name recognition up the wahzoo. Many democrats like her, and plenty of republican women will vote for her as a woman. Don't count out the number of people who already look back at the Clinton years with wistful longing. Bush has seen to that. A vote for Hillary in the White House is a vote for Bill in the White House ... a fact not to be underestimated.


I don't particularly like her ... but she'd have to completely self-destruct for me not to vote for the first women candidate I could stand. For a person who thinks all presidents pretty much suck, the chance to make an historic mark weighs more importantly than mere issues. (And, heheh, the first First Lady to become President and the first President to become the first First Gentleman, all in one fell swoop, is a nifty historical presidential precedent, too.)

[Alex]

Perhaps it's a little too early ...


As I read somewhere recently, at this point in the 2004 cycle, the lead polling Democrat was Joe Lieberman (John Kerry was fourth). For 1992 (http://blogs.usatoday.com/gallup/2007/01/an_early_start_.html), at this point Bill Clinton was 11th behind Mario Cuomo, Jesse Jackson, Richard Gephardt, George McGovern, Lloyd Bentsen, Al Gore, Sam Nunn, Jay Rockefeller, Bill Bradley, and George Mitchell.

Obama (or some other person out of left field, like Howard Dean in 2003) has plenty of time to get the name recognition up.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Hillary is actually one of the few prominent Democrats to stand by her position on Iraq. I respect her for that quite a bit.
My source being SNL means I have no idea if this is true or not, but they made it seem like Hillary visited Iraq just when Obama said he's running, so that she could come back and say "since I've been there, I've changed my mind on Iraq. We need to get out". The idea being that since Obama is running she has to up her game.

[Alex]

I can't say that I have heard much of what she's had to say over the last couple weeks. So I'll just say that until recently she has held her line much more than most of the prominent Dems who voted for the war.

[sleepyjeff]

Now that you bring it up... The electoral college is a bit of an anachronism. Don't you think we would be better off without it?

The only way it will be gotten rid of is if the very States it protects(the small ones) all of the sudden decide they don't need that protection anymore.


Back in 2002 there was a bit of a push to start the process, thru State iniatives, to weaken the electoral system with the end goal eventual elimination. Most Dems, reeling from Florida 2000, and many Republicans from the bigger states were for its elimination.

Democrat Bill Richardson((the only Dem running that I would happily cast my vote for)) fought against it......and won.

Richardson, using the formula of cutting taxes to ballance the budget has done just that in New Mexico.

I won't have a say in who becomes the Democrats eventual nominee.....but I can tell you one thing; Fiscal Conservative Republicans are pretty fed up with their leadership right now and would love to come over to the dark side and vote for this guy.....Dems would Win back the White House if they nominated him.

[Not Afraid]

Kerry bows out. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_el_pr/kerry2008_5)

[sleepyjeff]

Kerry bows out. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_el_pr/kerry2008_5)


From NA's link


The Republican field has a similar number with Bush constitutionally barred from seeking a third term.



I think that's a blessing for everyone including the President himself:rolleyes:

[Nephythys]

I think you mean "madrassa".

If you do, that rumor, started by Insight Magazine, an organ of the same crazy bunch that runs the Washington Times, was debunked. That will not stop the republicans from trying to make it an issue in the dem primaries, so you are at least partially right.

If you're talking about the fabric, carry on.


According to Insight it was the Clinton campaign who dug up the info- so WHO is making an issue of it?

Yeah- not the republicans.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

According to Insight it was the Clinton campaign who dug up the info- so WHO is making an issue of it?

Yeah- not the republicans.

Even if that were true, and I highly doubt it is, why did Insight not do any fact checking before running with this false story? Is that the type of journalistic integrity we should always expect from them?

Then again, we are talking about a publication in which the owner considers himself to be the messiah.

Oh, and yes the republicans are making an issue of it. The right wing Fox News and their pundits ran with the story without doing any fact checking of their own. Wasn't this the same complaint that the right had with the CBS story about Bush's military service? Is it only wrong if CBS does it?

[Nephythys]

Here ya go-

Fox News picked up the Insight charge on two of its programs, playing up an angle involving Hillary Clinton. The magazine, citing only unnamed sources, said that researchers "connected" to the New York senator were allegedly spreading the information about her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/01/22/BL2007012200260.html)

Of course I am well aware- having read it- that the Clinton campaign denies it.

And everyone knows they never lie.

Right?

I am also aware that any conversation of which media sources we trust- or who we consider truthful is a total waste of time.

[sleepyjeff]

Is it only wrong if CBS does it?

If CBS does it....

Only wrong....no.

Probably wrong....yes;)

[BarTopDancer]

OK, I must be missing something huge here because I cannot see how getting rid of the electoral college and allowing the true majority winner to win is a bad thing.

All it means is that if people want x person to be president they need to go out and vote. How is that a bad thing? How will that equate to only the east and the west really getting a say? If every single person in this country [of voting age] has their vote counted then how is that a bad thing?

Alex?

[Nephythys]

Because the majority is centered in certain regions- and the people in the less populated states would be railroaded.

Alex will certainly answer it better- but there is a REASON we are a representative republic and NOT a democracy. It protects people's interest.

Funny how the founders seemed to know what we needed.

[Nephythys]

republic: "a form of government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."
Websters Unabridged Dictionary
democracy: "a government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude towards property is communistic-negative property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. It results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

U.S. Army Training Manual

Our Republic was founded upon the principles of Liberty (the right to do whatever one wishes so long as those actions do not infringe upon the equal rights of others) and limited government, not democracy. In fact, seldom if ever will one see reference to democracy in the founding documents of our nation, at least in a positive context. Peculiar, don't you think if we are suppose to live in a democracy as our politicians tell us?

Chapter 3 of The Unseen Hand by A. Ralph Epperson:
"It is generally conceded that even a monarchy or a dictatorship is an oligarchy, or a government run by a small, ruling minority."
"Such is also the case with a democracy, for this form of government is traditionally controlled at the top by a small ruling oligarchy. The people in a democracy are conditioned to believe that they are indeed the decision-making power of government, but in truth there is almost always a small circle at the top making the decisions for the entirety."

In the Republican form of government, the power rests in a written Constitution, wherein the powers of our government is limited so that the people retain the maximum amount of power themselves. In addition to limiting the power of government, care is also taken to limit the power of the people to restrict the rights of both the majority and the minority.

Alexander Hamilton was aware of this tendency of a democratic form of government to be torn apart by itself, and he has been quoted as writing:
"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

James Madison who wrote:
"In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger!"


Another was John Adams who wrote:
"Unbridled passions produce the same effects, whether in a king, nobility, or a mob. The experience of all mankind has proved the prevalence of a disposition to use power wantonly. It is therefore as necessary to defend an individual against the majority (in a democracy) as against the king in a monarchy."

a British professor named Alexander Fraser Tyler wrote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess (defined as a liberal gift) out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship."

Fisher Ames stated: 'Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it
ever ended in anything better than despotism.'

Samuel Adams stated: 'Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes itself,
exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not
commit suicide.'

As Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall in Philadelphia, he was
asked by an onlooker what form of government he and his countrymen had created
during the first and to date, only constitutional convention. His answer: 'A
Republic, if you can keep it.'


Links-
Link (http://www.w3f.com/patriots/democracy.html)
Link (http://www.w3f.com/patriots/demorep.html)

It seems ironic that those who protest what they preceive as a loss of rights (which has not happened) seem all too happy to strip people of their right to representation because a couple elections don't turn out how they want them to.

[Strangler Lewis]

I basically agree. However, it strikes me that the right is usually first to criticize elected representatives for not following the will of the mob. Didn't Newt Gingrich have some goofy idea about having regular plebiscites giving people buttons to push to vote in on hot topics, on the assumption that the politicians would have to follow or be castigated?

[Alex]

Alex?

I wouldn't say that going to a straight popular vote for president would necessarily be a bad thing, I just don't think it would be a good idea. The nation wouldn't be left in ruins if it happened.

If ever there is one, I think this is definitely an issue on which reasonable people can disagree without considering the other side stupid, immoral, evil, or some other bad thing.

The electoral college is, and always has been, a political compromise. The reasons that make that compromise attractive have not gone away, and, to my view, in some ways have been exacerbated by the modern political machine.

Part of the problem is that we are huge country. Huge in many ways. Huge ethnically. Huge geographically. Huge in raw population.

I personally do not think that the last one there is the only one that matters. And that is why congressman and senators are not elected at the national level. If all that mattered for our leadership was raw ability to get the most people to vote for you, then we each just get a ballot and vote for our preferred 100 candidates for senator and our preferred 435 candidates for Congress (though if done this way it wouldn't really make sense to have so many of either).

Why is this a bad idea? Because then regional and ethnic concerns probably will not be addressed at the national level. In such a system you wouldn't end up with 60 "urban" senators and 40 "rural" senators (or whatever the current split is) but more likely 90 "urban" senator and 10 "rural" senators. Why? Because so long as the "urban" people voted in anything like a block, they'd dominate every choice of the "rural." Same with race.

So we break it up into regions. No matter what, the people of Wyoming are guaranteed to have one person looking out for them in Congress.

Same in the senate, where they are guaranteed two. Now, I support the argument that balance of power is overly tilted to the low-population states in the senate, but unless we turn it into the House in its structure that is inherent, though I could probably support something that would alleviate it to some degree (say top 25 states by population get three senators, bottom 25 get 2).

So, that all works hunky dory for Congress and for the most part people are happy with it. Everybody supports pure majority rule unless they're in the minority and then people want the power of the majority diluted.

But it doesn't work with the presidency. In the end you end up with just one president. So the idea that population trumps all is certainly reasonable. But think about how much complaint there was about Bush's perceived (and quite likely real) slights to the blue states that didn't vote for him. Will this be worse if the president is essentially elected by eight metropolitan areas (New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Bay Area, Baltimore, ...). Such a president most closely beholden to the people who specifically elected him. What incentive is there to even pause for consideration when taking sides in a water rights conflict between Los Angeles and Arizona, or whether to propose energy legislation that is good for New York City but bad for the rural midwest, whether to instituted regulations that will force populous regions to subsidize the extension of telecommunications into all areas of the United States.

So, basically it comes down to the fact that I want our president to be forced to at least pause to think about issues from the national level and large regions that maybe don't support him or his party.

But the opposing view is certainly reasonable.

All that said, the electoral college is thoroughly out of whack and gives way too much deference to non-population weightings. The reason for this is that the House of Representatives has come to view its current size as as constant and it shouldn't be.

Currently, in the electoral college Wyoming gets 3 votes while California gets 55. In other words California has 18 times the vote but 68 times the population. That is too skewed in my opinion. But rather than call for abolishment of the electoral college (which skews it too far back the other way) I'd implement a couple reforms.

1. Rather than a fixed sized House of Representatives go with a fixed ratio House of Representatives (this is how it was done for about the first 50 years of the country's existence). Give up the fixed limit of 435 congressman. When the decennial census is done take the lowest population state's tally and divide it by two. That's how many each congressman will represent (today this would be about 350,000 people per congressman, 75% more than when the country was founded). This would mean that Wyoming's electoral representation would increase to 4 and California's to about 138. Now California has 68 times the population and 34 times the voting power. A balance that I think is more in line with what is appropriate. Congress would be much larger than it currently is, but there is nothing magical about the number 435 and too small a body for the population served is perverting in its own way. This is a change that can only happen at the federal level.

2. Electoral districts. A couple states already do this and I think it is a very good idea. Rather than casting the entire state electoral state to the overall winner of the state either assign them proportionally (not so preferable) or assign them to the winners of the districts (more preferable). This makes winning a district in Iowa equal to winning a district in the Bay Area. This will strengthen fringe and regional parties (they'll both be able to actually win a few votes and aren't necessarily a "spoiler" candidate). This can be done at the state level and several have.

So, that is my thoughts on it. Hopefully it was appropriately thoughtful. This is not at all a rancorous issue for me and as I said, many different conclusions are reasonable. That said, the electoral college is not an anachronism. The reasons it was created in the first place still exist today.

And it is worth pointing out that while the electoral college brought defeat to those opposed to Bush in 2000 it is the only reason that he was a whisker away from losing in 2004. An unintended side benefit of the electoral college is also that it localizes controversy. It is worth remembering that at the national level the popular vote in 2000 was well within the margin of error for most voting systems. Can you imagine if the debacle of Florida had been played out nationally. I didn't mention this above because I don't think it is, in itself, a justification for the electoral college.

[Alex]

Alex will certainly answer it better- but there is a REASON we are a representative republic and NOT a democracy. It protects people's interest.

Yes, we are a republic, but that has nothing to do with the existence of the electoral college. There is nothing inherent in Republicanism that requires an electoral college. The purpose of the electoral college it carry federalism over into the selection of the president. France is a republic, for example, but does not use an electoral college to elect the president (that is done by direct straight popular election). Though a form of an electoral college is used to elect the Senate (but not the National Assembly). There are many republics in the world and very few use an electoral college of any type.

[innerSpaceman]

Chew, then swallow it.

[JWBear]

Because the majority is centered in certain regions- and the people in the less populated states would be railroaded.

Alex will certainly answer it better- but there is a REASON we are a representative republic and NOT a democracy. It protects people's interest.

Funny how the founders seemed to know what we needed.

Are you still spouting that tired old line? We had this discussion before; America is both a republic and a democracy. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

You seem to hate Democrats and all things democratic so fervently that you even try to denigrate even the word “democracy”. That kind of hate isn’t healthy, Nephy.

[Nephythys]

Yes, we are a republic, but that has nothing to do with the existence of the electoral college. There is nothing inherent in Republicanism that requires an electoral college. The purpose of the electoral college it carry federalism over into the selection of the president. France is a republic, for example, but does not use an electoral college to elect the president (that is done by direct straight popular election). Though a form of an electoral college is used to elect the Senate (but not the National Assembly). There are many republics in the world and very few use an electoral college of any type.

I said you would do a better job- ;)

My posts were more to point out why we are not a democracy that follows the "majority".

[Nephythys]

Are you still spouting that tired old line? We had this discussion before; America is both a republic and a democracy. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

You seem to hate Democrats and all things democratic so fervently that you even try to denigrate even the word “democracy”. That kind of hate isn’t healthy, Nephy.

Uh huh....:rolleyes: didja get that psych degree in a cracker jack box?

I don't spend my time hating anyone- that's something you keep trying to project on me. Kindly desist.

And I think the quotes I provided and links explain why we are a Republic- so argue with the Founding Fathers if you like.

[BarTopDancer]

Huge visible mojo for Alex. I knew I could count on you for a well stated un-biased educational post.


But it doesn't work with the presidency. In the end you end up with just one president. So the idea that population trumps all is certainly reasonable. But think about how much complaint there was about Bush's perceived (and quite likely real) slights to the blue states that didn't vote for him. Will this be worse if the president is essentially elected by eight metropolitan areas (New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Bay Area, Baltimore, ...). Such a president most closely beholden to the people who specifically elected him. What incentive is there to even pause for consideration when taking sides in a water rights conflict between Los Angeles and Arizona, or whether to propose energy legislation that is good for New York City but bad for the rural midwest, whether to instituted regulations that will force populous regions to subsidize the extension of telecommunications into all areas of the United States.

So, basically it comes down to the fact that I want our president to be forced to at least pause to think about issues from the national level and large regions that maybe don't support him or his party.

This helped me see the other side. I haven't changed my mind but I can see the other side now and I *get it*.

[innerSpaceman]

Also, it's total bullsh!t that mid-America is red while coastal America is blue. That's the way the map looks after results are in, with our winner-takes-all system of how each state voted.

But if you look at a map of county-by-county results, the entire nation turns purple, with a stunningly perfect mix of dems and 'pubs absolutely everywhere.

[JWBear]

...
I don't spend my time hating anyone- that's something you keep trying to project on me. Kindly desist.

Really? How about the following comments you have made regarding Democrats and Liberals?

Now they won- let's see them do something other than be fools and idiots with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

The hate and loathing for Bush is virulent here and other places- I have the same feeling for the dems.

It's not about silence in general -it's about the fact that the dems are hypocritical idiots who don't even seem to know what the other hand is doing-

Loathesome bunch- gak!

Imagine- asking a Dem to keep their word.

I know I would not trust the left with protecting this country.

It's not about wanting a change- it's about trust. It's about a party that shows disdain or open hostility for the military, America, Christians.....

To use your favorite emoticon... :rolleyes:

[Alex]

The problem with democracy vs. republic is that different spheres use the words in different ways and the meanings have varied over time as well.

And this is part of the reason that over time the United States has tended to more away from republicanism towards democracy (and thus illuminates the some of the philosophical distinctions that lead to our nation's earliest political parties: the pull between democracy and republicanism has been with us for as long as the battle between federalism and centrism). As the words were used by our Founding Fathers republicanism and democracy were essentially mutually exlusive.

You also have to keep in mind that as originally established only 1/5th of the federal government was directly elected and even that 1/5 was republican in nature (though chosen by democratic methods). In our country the people are never given direct voice in the actions of our federal government. We never vote on what the government will do, we only ever vote on who will get to decide what the government will do.

The House of Representives was directly elected. The Senate, originally, was one layer removed from direct election (people directly elected the people whe selected the senators) and the president is the same. The judiciary is removed from direct election by two layers (we vote for people who vote for the people who will select the judges).

To the extent that demoracy means direct rule by citizens we are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic. However, over the centuries "democracy" has come to be used on almost any system where voting by citizens is involved and this tendency bleeds into the our political discourse.

So far the only major move towards democracy was the senate, getting converted to direct election in 1913. But we seem to hear increasingly of serious proposals to move farther. Elimination of the electoral college, term limitations for judges, national initiative and referenda proposals, restructuring of the senate into a population ratio body.

So you're both right. As we generally use the words today, our form of republicanism is a subset of democracy. As the words were used 250 years ago they were very distinct things.

[scaeagles]

Politics is a dirty game. Any dirt the Republicans might think they have on a dem isn't going to come out until that person wins the nomination. Any dirt coming out right now is party on party. I have no doubt that anyone making up Obama stories isn't in the republican camp. If he wins the nomination, sure they'll be digging and even making up dirt. But why do it now? No reason when the dem candidates are going to rip each other apart trying to get it for themselves.

And the same goes with the republicans. No reason for dems to spread dirt at present. They'll start soon enough ripping each other apart.

[€uroMeinke]

Maybe it's time Larry Agran give it another go - he was another big city mayor after all

[Not Afraid]

Maybe it's time Larry Agran give it another go - he was another big city mayor after all

WHOA! Time warp!

[innerSpaceman]

In our country the people are never given direct voice in the actions of our federal government. We never vote on what the government will do, we only ever vote on who will get to decide what the government will do.
Though you alluded to it elsewhere in your post, I wanted to point out the distinction with California and other states that have a referendum system. I seem to remember, Alex, you were against such a system ... but I am whole-heartedly in favor of it. I'm perfectly comfortable with constitutionality being the balwark against mob tyranny, and I find direct action by the electorate to pass laws to be the only workable solution to grid-locked government and insufficient progress for civilization.

The California referendum system is far from perfect. I'd like to see proposed laws vetted for constitutionality before they're allowed on the ballot. It seems every law passed directly by the electorate is tied up in court challenges for decades .... leaving us right back with the insufficient progress that the system aims to remedy.

[Alex]

Yes, I am geneally opposed to initiatives and referenda on principal except on very local levels (like socialism, direct democracy is a form of government I think only works well in very small units).

I would support prescreening of propositions and referenda for basic constitutionality but many of the problems they cause is that they are generally poorly thought out in their implications, inappropriately handcuff the proper working of our representative government, and conflict with existing law.

[BarTopDancer]

I would just like to point out that of right this moment Alex and iSm have a mere 100 posts difference in their post count.

Carry on.

[Alex]

Fine, I'll shut up.

[Strangler Lewis]

The initiative process contributes to the gridlock. I believe California's initiative system was supposed to be the populist exception to alleviate ills caused by a government that was too responsible to moneyed interests. Now, powerful interests on both sides of any issue dominate the initiative process, which lessens the "burden" on our elected officials.

[BarTopDancer]

Shall we add you to the no sense of humor list?

I need you around. I have another logic class coming my way.






removed smilies to not offend Alex any more.

[Nephythys]

Visible Mojo to Alex- for the most thoughtful reponses on LoT-especially in the Grind.

You make a good grown up- great role model for others.

[Scrooge McSam]

I have no doubt that anyone making up Obama stories isn't in the republican camp. If he wins the nomination, sure they'll be digging and even making up dirt. But why do it now? No reason when the dem candidates are going to rip each other apart trying to get it for themselves.

Just for grins, what do you have to base that on?

My best guess is that you were very young during the Watergate era, the very apex of republican trickery, but I'm sure you've done at least some reading on the subject.

Every heard of Donald Segretti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Segretti)?

Ever heard of the Canuck Letter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canuck_Letter)?

Still "have no doubt"?

Ready... Set... Spin!

[Motorboat Cruiser]

The problem I am having here is that, if the theory is that the Clinton Camp was behind this, why on earth would they leak something like this to what amounts to a right-wing political tabloid that no democrat is ever going to believe in the first place. How does that help their cause? With this inept strategy, the only people who are going to believe these unsubstantiated rumors are people who were never going to vote for either of these candidates anyway.

[Nephythys]

The problem I am having here is that, if the theory is that the Clinton Camp was behind this, why on earth would they leak something like this to what amounts to a right-wing political tabloid that no democrat is ever going to believe in the first place. How does that help their cause? With this inept strategy, the only people who are going to believe these unsubstantiated rumors are people who were never going to vote for either of these candidates anyway.

Regardless- I gave you the story and the link to the claim made by the magazine.

ahh- this is going to be a fun couple of years.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Regardless- I gave you the story and the link to the claim made by the magazine.


Indeed, you did. It's just that their side of the story makes very little sense and seems far from credible, especially given the background of their publication. Even the Washington Times editor (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070123-121624-9376r.htm) made sure to distance his publication from theirs:

"Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?" asked Insight, the Internet magazine. "This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama."
Wicked stuff, but was it true? Insight, which is owned by the owners of The Washington Times but is absolutely, positively and entirely separate from the newspaper, was denounced by the handlers of both Hillary and Obama. "Trash," said a spokesman for Obama. "A right-wing hit job," said a spokesman for Hillary.
Neither this newspaper nor most others took up the story, which cited no named sources.

[BarTopDancer]

Wait wait wait. I thought that religion of the President wasn't supposed to matter. So who cares what religion Obama is? Or is it not supposed to matter only if the President is Christian?

[Nephythys]

Have you really missed all the attacks on Bush for his faith?

It's been around since 2000- nothing new. So sorry- I don't think you're on to something there.

[BarTopDancer]

My point was that who cares if he is not being upfront about it?

Bush tried to implement his faith into the entire country. If he had been quietly religious no one would have cared. How many presidents before Bush were attacked for being Christian?

[Strangler Lewis]

A president's religion is relevant the same way his stock holdings are relevant. You have to wonder if the level of his commitment would lead him to favor certain policies that might not be good for the country as a whole. Romney's Mormonism is relevant because the Mormon Church is an economic power, plus they have their weird polygamy strand that could play into certain debates about government interference in personal affairs. Lieberman's Judaism and love of Israel are relevant to the extent they fuel his views on war in the middle east. If a Moslem candidate ran, you'd want to know where his head was at as well. We know where Bush's head is.

[Nephythys]

My point was that who cares if he is not being upfront about it?

Bush tried to implement his faith into the entire country. If he had been quietly religious no one would have cared. How many presidents before Bush were attacked for being Christian?

That is untrue.

He has made his faith public but he has never forced it into the entire country.

I see- so if a person is quiet about their faith it's ok- but if not they are trying to force it on someone?

That's baseless, untrue and ridiculous.

[Moonliner]

I'm less concerned about who dug up the mud than how well it sticks.

I would expect a leader of the free world be able to dodge any amount of mud tossed in their direction no matter who it came from. If they can't then perhaps this is not the job for them.

For this round of mud slinging I give one point to Obama house because I don't see anything sticking at this point.

And take one point from slytherin Hillary house for at the very least attracting suspicion.

[BarTopDancer]

ooo mud fights!!!!!!

[Alex]

Actually, this seems like a good time to presettle an issue (at least among us here):

Query: If it were to turn out to be true that when living in Indonesia as a young child*, Barak Obama attended an Islamic school, what relevance or impact to his candidacy do you feel this should have?




*A bit of a reality check on the madrassa issue. First, Barak Obama does admit he attended madrassas while living in Indonesia. On pages 30-31 of his 1995 book Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance he wrote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_Obama#_note-7):

"In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school, two years at a Catholic school..and on page 271:

Our family was not well off in those early years [...] Without the money to attend the international schools that most expatriate children attended, I went to local Indonesian schools...Now the key here, as so often these days it seems, is different people using the same words in different ways.

In Arabic, the word "madrassa" simply means "school." When Obama attended a Catholic school in Indonesia, he was, in the local language, attending a madrassa. If you went to Indonesia and wrote a report on your life and had it translated into Arabic, you might say that you attended madrassa for 12 years.

There is no inherent religious meaning to the word - in Arabic. That said, Indonesia is a Muslim nation and the public schools are not secular. So if you live in Indonesia and go to public school, there will be Islamic influences. Just like American public schools 50 years ago were heavily influenced by Christianity (and still are to some degree) even though they were not schools of religion.

As the word madrassa has been adopted by American English, it has a much more limited meaning of specifically being a school for advanced Islamic study.

So, yes, Barak Obama attended madrassa for his entire childhood on into adulthood (Indonesian public school, followed by Indonesian Catholic school, followed by Punohou in Honolulu, followed by Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School), but at no point did he attend what most of us probably think of when we hear the word "madrassa." But that is our mistake, not his.

[Not Afraid]

\Query: If it were to turn out to be true that when living in Indonesia as a young child*, Barak Obama attended an Islamic school, what relevance or impact to his candidacy do you feel this should have?



Personally, I think his experience makes him a much more interesting candidate and one that may have a bit more understanding of Islamic culture because of it. This certainly can't hurt if you end up being President at this time of Islamic strife.

[Alex]

Off topic but if elected I really do expect Obama to hook the nation up with fresh malasadas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malasada) from the Punohou School Carnival (which is next weekend now that I think about it; anybody willing to hop over and bring back some for all of us?).

I wonder if Michelle Wie and Steve Case are annoyed at Obama for passing them as the most prominent alumni.

[innerSpaceman]

That is untrue. He has made his faith public but he has never forced it into the entire country.
um, Stem Cell Research Prohibition ... just to name one off the top of my head.

[innerSpaceman]

... but at no point did he attend what most of us probably think of when we hear the word "madrassa." But that is our mistake, not his.

Ah, it's his mistake if he doesn't clear that up as quickly, succinctly and well as Alex just did.

[Nephythys]

um, Stem Cell Research Prohibition ... just to name one off the top of my head.

He did not prohibit it- that is another untruth. First President to federally fund it- he just would not authorize the CREATION of more lines.

That does not force his faith on the country.

[Alex]

Sure it did. Presumably there were people who wanted to create more lines and people who though federal funding of that would be appropriate. Because of his person moral views, views that he recognized are not nearly universal, he prohibited it.

In my view, a president, when in such a situation has only one reasonable option: punt it to congress.

"Because of my religious and moral views I can not endorse federal funding of that nature. However, this is an issue still very much up for debate and reasonable people can disagree. Therefore, I ask Congress to tackle this issue and try to find the will of the people. While I personally stand on one side of this issue, I will accept their answer for that is their role."

Considering that second sentence is pretty much how Bush started the address to the nation where he announced the prohibition, the next two sentences seem very reasonable to me.

[Nephythys]

I fail to see how that forces his faith on the country.

He did force anyone to convert.
He did not force anyone to agree.

He made a decision- which of course would not be agreed upon by everyone.

Is someone actually trying to sell the BS that Bush is the only President to ever make a choice based on his faith and moral beliefs?

Spare me.

[Alex]

I'm not selling that BS. But I don't think "everybody does it" is a very good justification.

To the extent that our government forces religious morality on the population of our country, that is the role of Congress (where it can be debated, minority voices can be more prominently heard, and the sentiment of constituencies are more directly felt) and not the president.

I by no means claim that government should not be making moral decisions. That is pretty much all government does. But as much as possible those moral decisions don't belong in the executive branch of government.

[Not Afraid]

I think I have a crush on Alex. ;)

[Nephythys]

I'm not selling that BS. But I don't think "everybody does it" is a very good justification.

To the extent that our government forces religious morality on the population of our country, that is the role of Congress (where it can be debated, minority voices can be more prominently heard, and the sentiment of constituencies are more directly felt) and not the president.

I by no means claim that government should not be making moral decisions. That is pretty much all government does. But as much as possible those moral decisions don't belong in the executive branch of government.

I never said everyone does it- but for anyone (not you in particular) to act as if his choices are somehow outrageous because of his faith is IMO ridiculous.

[BarTopDancer]

Things that are having a hard[er] time in this country because of the the President's beliefs:

Stem cell research
A Woman's right to choose
Equal rights for gays

[wendybeth]

There's also that pesky messianic complex he has.

[sleepyjeff]

Things that are having a hard[er] time in this country because of the the President's beliefs:

Stem cell research
A Woman's right to choose
Equal rights for gays


This may be true...but if he didn't believe the way he does would he have been elected President to begin with....wouldn't those who put him in office have voted for someone else who had those beliefs?

Kind of a chicken/egg question I suppose.

[wendybeth]

This may be true...but if he didn't believe the way he does would he have been elected President to begin with....wouldn't those who put him in office have voted for someone else who had those beliefs?

Kind of a chicken/egg question I suppose.

I notice you kept my observation out of that equation.;)

[CoasterMatt]

Forward, backward, inward, outward
Come and join the chase!
Nothing could be drier
Than a jolly caucus-race.
Backward, forward, outward, inward
Bottom to the top,
Never a beginning There can never be a stop
To skipping, hopping, tripping
Fancy free and gay,
I started it tomorrow and will finish yesterday.
Round and round and round we go
And dance for evermore,
Once we were behind
But now we find we are
Forward, backward, inward, outward,
Come and join the chase!
Nothing could be drier than a jolly caucus-race. :D

[sleepyjeff]

I notice you kept my observation out of that equation.;)


Still trying to wrap my brain around it:D

[wendybeth]

Still trying to wrap my brain around it:D
Welcome to my world.:p

[scaeagles]

Things that are having a hard[er] time in this country because of the the President's beliefs:

Stem cell research
A Woman's right to choose
Equal rights for gays

????
What has Bush done to stop stem cell research? No other President had provided federal funds for it. It hasn't been outlawed. Private companies can do whatever.

What specifically has been done on abortion? Any new laws? I suppose you could point to Supreme Court appointees, but nothing has changed at all (yet, if ever).

Equal rights for gays? Are you speaking of same sex marriage? What has he done? If anything, his failed attempt at a marriage amendment only strengthened the position of same sex marriage, and it was his predecessor who passed the defense of marriage act.

There are plenty of things that Bush hasn't done well. I am puzzled as to why those are things you've listed uless you are just reciting the party line.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, perhaps Bush Junior did not sign (m)any laws in that regard (or the even more pertinent and imperial Signing Statements), but he did succeed in prohibiting federal funding of viable stem cell research, and he's campaigned while in office against gay marriage rights and women's reproductive rights. And I think he should, if he can't stomach rights for Americans, stay out of it.

As is often the case around here, Alex said it best:
In my view, a president, when in such a situation has only one reasonable option: punt it to congress.

"Because of my religious and moral views I can not endorse federal funding of that nature. However, this is an issue still very much up for debate and reasonable people can disagree. Therefore, I ask Congress to tackle this issue and try to find the will of the people. While I personally stand on one side of this issue, I will accept their answer for that is their role."

To the extent that our government forces religious morality on the population of our country, that is the role of Congress (where it can be debated, minority voices can be more prominently heard, and the sentiment of constituencies are more directly felt) and not the president.

But no, Bush works actively to deny rights to gay AMERICANS, to deny rights to female AMERICANS and to dampen treatment potential for seriously ill AMERICANS.

In the above cases, granting those rights and treatments would harm fetal AMERICANS (re abortion), zygote AMERICANS (re stem cells), and absolutely no AMERICANS (re gay marriage).

So if a man is President of the Unted States and his moral convictions come down on the side against Americans (but purportedly for his jealous hate-filled God) .... yes, he should stay the fvck out of it, and leave the matters to the deliberations of Congress.

[mousepod]

I just watched Mike Huckabee on Meet the Press. This is the third time I've seen him interviewed recently. While I bristle whenever his religion is brought up (only to the degree to which his Fundamentalism will shape his ideas), I find him to be thoughtful and intelligent. I'm sure that I couldn't vote for him because of our basic difference of opinion on gay rights and the women's right to choose, I'd like to see him nominated - I think it would make for a saner and healthier debate for the end run of the presidential race than we've seen in recent years.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, that's funny. I had to turn him off when I simply could not stand how he changed the subject from "does the fact that you would outlaw all abortion mean you would jail doctors and women performing and seeking" to "our terrorist enemies have a culture of death."

Gak. I can't listen to someone that smarmy this early in the morning.



.

[scaeagles]

It's funny how different people do that to us. I really liked Huckabee when I watched it this morning. I have the same smarmy reaction to Edwards.

[Alex]

So if a man is President of the Unted States and his moral convictions come down on the side against Americans (but purportedly for his jealous hate-filled God) .... yes, he should stay the fvck out of it, and leave the matters to the deliberations of Congress.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying he should stay out of it. If he has a position, he is certainly free to campaign in support of his views. And as president his voice will have immense impact on the debate.

I'm saying he shouldn't impose his views on such matters but rather allow congress to make the ultimate decision.

[scaeagles]

I guess this will slide into the whole moral conviction thing again. It is a moral conviction of some that we should be taxed to provide health coverage to everyone (regardless of unintended consequences). Why should those moral convictions be any more valid than those of a Huckabee or whomever? For most, it simply comes down to whose moral convictions are more in line with your own. Don't like someone because of those moral convictions? Fine. Don't vote for them. But don't expect anyone to keep them out of how the choose to govern or vote on an issue because that is part of who they are.

[BarTopDancer]

But why should abortion be outlawed, stemcell research be curtailed/banned, gay rights denied because someones moral convictions say it is wrong?

No one will be forced to get an abortion if we leave R v W alone. No one would be forced to get an abortion, give up their embryos or partake in stem cell treatment if stem cell reserach is allowed to continue. No one would be forced into a gay marriage and it will not weaken straight marriages.

My moral convictions say allow the choice to have an abortion, to allow stem cell research to continue and to allow gay couples to marry. Those convictions aren't harming anyone, nor are they denying anyone anything.

Those whose moral convictions say to outlaw abortion, ban stem cell research and prohibit gay couples to marry is [taken from iSm because he said it so well] denying rights to gay AMERICANS, to deny rights to female AMERICANS and to dampen treatment potential for seriously ill AMERICANS.

[Alex]

Why should murder be illegal just because your moral convictions say it is wrong? Why is animal cruelty a crime just because a bunch of people have decided it is wrong? Why is selling crack cocaine across the street from an elementary school worse than selling 2,000 feet to the left?

All laws are a moral decision and if moral decisions are put outside the purview of law then there will be none.

[innerSpaceman]

taken from iSm because he said it so well...
With the proviso that fetal and zygote Americans aren't Americans at all .... because, when last I checked, you had to be alive to be an American.

As scaeagles points out, everyone's free to vote for the person whose moral convictions they agree with ... but the way I see it, the only moral convictions appropriate to the President of the United States are to defend the Constitution and protect the American people.

Sometimes it's a trade off. Do you take money from some healthy Americans to provide health care to sick ones? But in my examples, there were only benefits to Americans and no harm to any. So those kind of so-called "Christian" morals, I submit, are inappropriate to anyone who takes the presidential oath of office. That oath holds a man to a new morality, if he didn't have it before. Defend the Constitution and protect Americans. Uber freaking alis.



.

[Alex]

But in my examples, there were only benefits to Americans and no harm to any. So those kind of so-called "Christian" morals, I submit, are inappropriate to anyone who takes the presidential oath of office.

The belief that life in the womb is deserving of protection isn't necessarily a Christian one (it is common to many religions and I know several pro-life atheists), and to a large swath of people by allowing abortion you are forcing your morality on a human being (the aborted). The distinction between life worthy of protection and life not worthy of protection is a subjective moral one.

That's why it is a decision best left to our nation's deliberative body and neither the president nor the courts.

Torturing prisoners at Guantanamo also does no harm to any Americans.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, I picked a label. But I don't care which religion ... NO religion gets to choose who is an American. That is determined by the Constitution, and the Constitution ALONE.

And I believe the requirements are either being naturalized or being BORN in the United States of America. I could give two craps when Religion A or B or G for God says life starts ... the Constitution says you're not an American until you are BORN.

The oath the President takes is one to value the protection of Americans -- over non-Americans, if need be. Even if the President decides zygotes and fetusi are alive, he does not get to decide they are Americans. And so, by the morality I deem he is oathbound to, he must protect Americans' rights and lives and pursuits of happiness over those of Russians, Tasmanians, and embryos.



Is anyone here going to argue that fetusus can be Americans, or does the plain language of BORN state quite clearly what the requirement is? (I don't suppose a fetus can take any solemn oath, so there's no chance for one to become naturalized either, I'm afraid).



That takes care of stem cell research and reproductive rights.

But what about homosexuals? I believe the Constitution declares them Americans if they are born here or become naturalized, regardless of their sexual orientation or preference or hellbound horny desire. Since harm to any other single solitary American cannot be demonstrated in the face of gay marriage allowance .... it's the oathbound President's office-holding morality to protect their rights and not seek to deny them.


Is someone going to argue against the President's over-riding duty being to uphold his oath of office? Does that oath trump religious convictions and previous morals, or doesn't it?



.

[Alex]

So far as I know, it is illegal for me to murder a Canadian in the United States.

So far as I know, it is illegal for me to hang my dog by its tail and treat it like a pinata.

Why are their rights places above mine. I'm the American. They're not protected by our Constitution.

[Strangler Lewis]

The U.S. Constitution guarantees due process of law to persons. (Persons, it was understood at the time of the 14th amendment would include corporations.) In Roe, the U.S. Supreme Court held that fetuses are not "persons" and therefore have no life or liberty interest that the government should protect (even assuming that abortion could be deemed state action in some respect). Roe has nothing to do with citizenship or who is an American.

Dogs also are not people. Therefore, they are not protected under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. This is not to say that states or localities cannot hold their own dog courts before deciding whether or not a dog should be put down.

As far as the "leave it to Congress" view, I'm not at all sure that Congress really has the power under the Constitution to pass laws prohibiting some or all abortions, private homosexual conduct, etc.

[Alex]

Of course Congress doesn't have that power because the Supreme Court enforced a moral decision that was in the process of being debated in this country. But if the Supreme Court changes their mind (which is why it is stupid that this was settled by the Supreme Court in the first place) then Congress will have the power and the SC won't have begun forcing a morality on us they'll have just changed which morality they want to force on us.

I don't really have a problem with the decision they made (I think life begins at conception and life gains protections at puberty), I have a problem with the fact that they made it.

There are many federal laws that protect "non persons" (I can't shoot my pet bald eagle by federal law) and it is a big push among segments of those "smart" progressives to extend due process to all kinds of entities that do not traditionally warrant it. And as the scope of due process increases it becomes increasingly awkward to exclude a fetus.

What I am arguing against is that somehow congress or the president could make any decision that is not forcing a morality on the nation.

My view is that, except in his capacity as commander-in-chief, the president should almost never be the one making such decisions. I am very much a proponent of a weak executive.

[BarTopDancer]

With the proviso that fetal and zygote Americans aren't Americans at all .... because, when last I checked, you had to be alive to be an American.

Yes. I'm sorry I did not add that proviso and I caught that too late to edit. If you would like to add it since it is your quote I pulled kinda out of context feel free.

[innerSpaceman]

It's funny how different people do that to us. I really liked Huckabee when I watched it this morning.
Sorry I missed this earlier.

Did you admire Huckabee, then, when he refused to answer a point blank question about whether he would jail doctors providing abortions or women seeking them? Did you admire his manliness when - instead of saying whether he would or wouldn't - he ventured to opine what terrorists would do to all doctors and all women and Tim Russert for that matter?

Oh yes, quite likeable. ;)



Yes, I know Huckabee had to declare his candidacy far earlier than he would have liked. Heheh, the last ex-governor of Arkansas to run for President didn't throw his hat into the ring till 4 months before the Iowa Caucuses. But this time out, the field is getting more crowded by the minute ... and if one wants to snap up some campaign talent and, of course, a successul share of donation money ... one has no time to waste.

But it would have been well before throwing himself on Meet the Press for Huckabee to have been prepared to back up his more controversial political positions ... or at the very least, to be able to duck a direct question with the minimal adroitness appropriate to even the least of politicians, much less a candidate for President.


Bah.

.

[Nephythys]

With the proviso that fetal and zygote Americans aren't Americans at all .... because, when last I checked, you had to be alive to be an American.



I did not realize a unborn baby in the womb was dead.

How simple. Removes all the problems with abortions.

It breathes, it eats (albiet through the mother), it moves, grows and functions-

Gosh- I guess that's not life.

Oxygen- the great equalizer.:rolleyes:

I did not realize that air and a 5-6 inch smoosh down the birth canal magically made you human and alive.

[Strangler Lewis]

There are many federal laws that protect "non persons" (I can't shoot my pet bald eagle by federal law)

Sure, but those could all be repealed tomorrow, and if the government decided to massacre all the eagles, not the due process clause or anything else in the U.S. Constitution could stop them. Perhaps it could be argued that the law was not rationally related to a legitimate government interest, but I'm not sure who would have standing to make that claim. Maybe the Lorax.

[innerSpaceman]

I did not realize a unborn baby in the womb was dead.
I did not ask if a fetus was dead, Nephythys. I asked if it had been born.

Can you answer that simple question with a yes or no, or are you going to duck the question as inartfully as Mike Huckabee?

:rolleyes:

[Nephythys]

I did not ask if a fetus was dead, Nephythys. I asked if it had been born.

Can you answer that simple question with a yes or no, or are you going to duck the question as inartfully as Mike Huckabee?

:rolleyes:

Hardly-

You are ducking your own comment. Read your own quote-feel free to edit or clarify.

You said -"With the proviso that fetal and zygote Americans aren't Americans at all .... because, when last I checked, you had to be alive to be an American."

If it is not alive- it must be dead.

Freel free to roll your eyes- I am doing the same.

[innerSpaceman]

yes, you have to be alive to be an American. As Alex pointed out, Canadians are alive and dogs are alive, but neither are Americans. Being alive is not the only requirement.

The quote of mine you cherry-picked was a clarification of my earlier statement that - and I'll repeat this for your benefit, Neph - you must either be born in the United States or naturalized as a citizen to be an American.

Once more, then. Yes or No ... no Huckabees allowed ... is a fetus born or not?

Even if a fetus is alive (which, of course, we can argue about till the cows jump over the moon), can a fetus be an American?




.

[Alex]

My version of those answers: yes and yes. To expand, in my view a fetus is alive but does not yet possess the same legal protections of other levels of human development. And yes, a fetus can be an American if we were to decide so but as things currently stand they are not.

And now no Huckabeeing from you: Yes or no, are only American lives deserving of legal protection?

If no, then the second half of your question (can fetuses be citizens) is thoroughly irrelevant and we're back to arguing simply when life attaches legal protection (which is a moral question and regardless of how answered forces one morality on the dissenters). If yes, then I want to be able to kill Canadians.

Strangler Lewis, as you say, the government can change its determination on ESA laws or whatever at its will. However, it is increasingly common to see due process claims trying to stop any effort to loosen them (the claim is not that a tree has a due process right but that there is some sort societal due process that wasn't performed). I don't know that they've been particularly successful with this course but I didn't say they were, just that it was a widening avenue of approach and that it has implications on the abortion debate as it becomes more successful.

Also, the Supreme Court could decide tomorrow to repeal its legislation that fetuses are deserving of no legal protection and there's nothing the pro-choice crowd could do about it, in fact even less than if tomorrow Congress decided to exterminate all non-human mammals larger than ferrets.

[Nephythys]

No a fetus is not born.

Yes it is alive- which is not arguable. In every way it is clearly alive- otherwise abortion would be a non-issue. To pretend it is not alive is a logical and mental fallacy that takes super human feat to complete- scientifically it is clearly alive. DNA would show it's human- the REAL issue is that you and others like you think the will of the mother trumps all- and she can decide to TERMINATE (which you don't need to do if it is not alive) that life whenever she feels like it- for any reason.

It's not life at issue- it's personhood. Something I think some of you only bestow on people once they breathe air and vote democrat.

:p

(and I don't have a frelling clue who Huckabee is- and I don't care)

[Motorboat Cruiser]

(and I don't have a frelling clue who Huckabee is- and I don't care)

Mike Huckabee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee) is the Governor of Arkansas. He is pro-life and recently announced his intention to run for the presidency in 2008.

[Strangler Lewis]

What Roe and subsequent cases recognized correctly as a matter of common sense (if not necessarily constitutional law) is that the stakes change as the fetus becomes viable. The "icky" factor to abortion increases. Early on, the icky factor will be less in part because the woman's body is just as likely to terminate the pregnancy on its own and in part because the fetus, little miniatures notwithstanding, looks more like a parasite than a real baby.

Later on, when the fetus/baby approaches viability, the "icky" factor increases, both because the baby is more like a baby and because this is a delicate area where we expect the decision makers (i.e., women) to act quickly and responsibly.

Law school exam question: in a world where abortion was illegal and women who had them were viewed as babykillers, would a woman who willed her body to deliver a non-viable baby because she wanted to hold it and take care of it 15 weeks sooner be guilty of a crime? We'll even call her a Christian Scientist or some other religious fanatic who believed that God would keep her baby alive.

[Alex]

The reason iSm invoked him as he did (and I responded in kind) is Steve's feeling that Huckabee clumsily evaded very direct questions about his views while making appearances on the Sunday gabfests yesterday.

[innerSpaceman]

And so, to non-Huckabeeably answer Alex's earlier question ... No, Americans are not the only persons deserving legal protections in America.

Sorry if I've thwarted your Canadian killing spree.



And now ... I challenge someone to come up with some presidential candidate issue that's neither abortion or Iraq (I'm a little tired of both subjects).

[wendybeth]

I just like saying 'Barack Obama'. I really don't care what his stance is on these issues, so long as he doesn't change his name. I mean, can you imagine- after 200 plus years of Johnson, Jacksons and Bushes......an Obama?

That will really piss off the good ol' boys.:D

[Not Afraid]

I like the way the first names sound as well:
Richard
Gerald
Jimmy
Ronald
George
Bill
George
Barack

[BarTopDancer]

And now ... I challenge someone to come up with some presidential candidate issue that's neither abortion or Iraq (I'm a little tired of both subjects).

Economey
homelessness
health care
social security
welfare
pollution

[JWBear]

Economey
homelessness
health care
social security
welfare
pollution

Gay marriage.... :evil:

[sleepyjeff]

Economey
homelessness
health care
social security
welfare
pollution

Gay marriage.... :evil:


Amtrak....:D

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I'm just a bill on Captiol Hill... Someone get a guitar...

[Alex]

An interesting article (http://www.slate.com/id/2158493/) at Slate on a Bush concession in his State of the Union that progressives have called requested for two decades and is gettin goverlooked.

It would be interesting if the next two years sees push successfully pushing some of his more moderate positions that wouldn't have survived a Republican congress.

Also could give the Republican candidates some wiggle room for 2008.

[innerSpaceman]

I think that proposal with a kernel of merit got lost in the feeling that his particular SotU laundry list was just a waste of air, i.e., stuff that seemed (for Bush) to come out of nowhere - with zero commitment on his part for any of it. At least that's how it appeared to me.

There were a couple of other ideas in there that seemed decent, but it all seemed so throw-away. The one big issue that, going in, Bush seemed to have in common with a Democratic Congress was immigration reform. Was there any mention of that? I tuned out halfway through.

[Alex]

Yes, there was. Of course, unlike on energy policy, the Democrat (and George Bush) approach to immigration reform is one with which I strongly disagree.

But now all congress has to do it pass CAFE reform and Bush is pretty much committed to signing it.

[innerSpaceman]

testing, one, two, testing ....


Not only do women have the right to control everything within the confines of their bodies, a fetus is no more alive than is fire.











:evil:

[sleepyjeff]

Of course, by the time this election for the next President rolls around Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince will be on its' way to theaters:)

I was going somewhere with this but my brain just froze:blush:

[BarTopDancer]

testing, one, two, testing ....


Not only do women have the right to control everything within the confines of their bodies, a fetus is no more alive than is fire.

How dare you sir! How dare you imply that fire is not alive! Fire is alive. It dances, it glows, it moves. How dare you!


























:evil: :p