NationStates Jolt Archive

Did anyone else watch the Warren "debate" on MSNBC? I personally thought it was very interesting, especially considering that the evangelical vote is so close (2 points). Obama seemed a little too...flip-floppy. He didn't take as hard of a stand as McCain did on a lot of issues, and he simply avoided questions altogether by drowning them out in intellectual banter.

McCain, on the other hand, seemed very strong on a lot of issues and really blew me away with his scope on some of the main issues, especially the Georgian situation. I wasn't really sure who I supported before this, but I'm fairly certain that I'm a McCain man afterward.

Did anyone else watch this, and if so, what were your thoughts? It wasn't a real "debate" per se because they didn't face each other directly, but in my opinion McCain was the victor here.

mccain was stronger on the issues because they are all conservative issues with a conservatve audience. so he could say something as abysmally stupid as "human rights should start at conception" and get a good response.

its a great format. i think they should do it again some time.

to me, mccain is a typical old man who tells the same stories from 40+ years ago over and over again. they are good stories but who hasnt already heard them a few times?

I didn't watch, but it's bullshit. A religious test for the presidency that presumably has a separation of church and fucking state. Remember that?

The only answer to any question on religion that a candidate should have or need is, "That's up to you as an individual. The government has no say in how you worship so long as it doesn't infringe on others."

True. It seemed to me like McCain was talking about what was going to work, and what had worked in the past, while Obama was just preaching his philosophy. I was very disappointed in him--I normally am quite fond of his speaking.

I didn't watch, but it's bullshit. A religious test for the presidency that presumably has a separation of church and fucking state. Remember that?

The only answer to any question on religion that a candidate should have or need is, "That's up to you as an individual. The government has no say in how you worship so long as it doesn't infringe on others."
yeah it wasnt as much about faith as i thought it would be. there was some religion questions and the rest were conservative issues questions

Yeah, not a lot of faith questions. Still, the questions seemed more moderate than I would have thought--they were more personal and "what are you going to do" questions.

the moderator did a good job asking the questions and being even handed in how he did it.

I didn't have a way to watch it.

I did read a little bit on it, though. I find it interesting that, when asked what Supreme Court justices they wouldn't have nominated, McCain's choice was all 4 justices considered "liberal" because ZOMG LEGISLATION FROM THE BENCH, while Obama actually gave a reasonable response.

I didn't have a way to watch it.

I did read a little bit on it, though. I find it interesting that, when asked what Supreme Court justices they wouldn't have nominated, McCain's choice was all 4 justices considered "liberal" because ZOMG LEGISLATION FROM THE BENCH, while Obama actually gave a reasonable response.
obama gave all thoughtful responses.

mccain focused on pandering and stories from his past.

cnn thought that mccain was dynomite.

Didn't watch it as couldn't get it over here. But read several articles that have appeared on it. Looks like Obama acquitted himself relatively well in front of what one wouldn't normally consider his 'natural' audience.

Didn't watch it as couldn't get it over here. But read several articles that have appeared on it. Looks like Obama acquitted himself relatively well in front of what one wouldn't normally consider his 'natural' audience.
as did mccain whose job was to make evangelical christians feel that he is their boy.

he made sure that he said that he would never have nominated the liberal supreme court justice --even though he voted for every one of them-- and that he LOOOOOVES the conservative ones.

obama gave all thoughtful responses.

mccain focused on pandering and stories from his past.

cnn thought that mccain was dynomite.

Sad, isn't it? Reasoned, thoughtful answers are generally deemed as "wishy-washy". All too often, people don't want reasonable answers. They want solid-sounding answers. They want "the Decider". As long as you strongly take a stance and never even consider the possibility that you might be wrong, it must be right. Or something.

obama gave all thoughtful responses.

mccain focused on pandering and stories from his past.

cnn thought that mccain was dynomite.

I thought Obama's answer on the gay marriage thing was worded quite well.

I would consider myself quite moderate, and I would say that Obama was playing it safe, while McCain concentrated on his core issues, whether or not people on TV would like his answers. It's that sort of thing that get's the votes of we independents.

I thought Obama's answer on the gay marriage thing was worded quite well.
me too. if you cant bring yourself to (destroy yourself politically) support gay marriage at least you can say that you dont support an ammendment against it.

....

i was playing online poker... did he say he supports civil unions?

I would consider myself quite moderate, and I would say that Obama was playing it safe, while McCain concentrated on his core issues, whether or not people on TV would like his answers. It's that sort of thing that get's the votes of we independents.
even when his responses are firm but stupid like "we will defeat evil" and "human rights start at conception?"

me too. if you cant bring yourself to (destroy yourself politically) support gay marriage at least you can say that you dont support an ammendment against it.

....

i was playing online poker... did he say he supports civil unions?

According to CNN, he did:

Obama added that he does support same-sex civil unions, saying, "I can afford those civil rights to others even if I don't have ... that view."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/16/warren.forum/index.html

even when his responses are firm but stupid like "we will defeat evil" and "human rights start at conception?"

Firm is the important thing. You don't have to be right as long as you leave no room for argument.

This is why Bush is so awesome. Even when he's a dumbass, he's still "the decider". Clearly, that's more important.

According to CNN, he did:

Obama added that he does support same-sex civil unions, saying, "I can afford those civil rights to others even if I don't have ... that view."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/16/warren.forum/index.html
i thought he probably did since i heard him talking about gay couples and hospital visitation rights.

Hey, the "evil question" was moronic in the first place and caught both candidates off-guard. About the conception thing, I'm still undecided. I support stem cell research, but about abortion so that the parents won't have "too much of a burden"...well, I just don't know. I have a lot of adopted family members who could just have easily been aborted and killed.

Hey, the "evil question" was moronic in the first place and caught both candidates off-guard. About the conception thing, I'm still undecided. I support stem cell research, but about abortion so that the parents won't have "too much of a burden"...well, I just don't know. I have a lot of adopted family members who could just have easily been aborted and killed.
human rights starting at conception opens up a huge can of worms that should be carefully considered before endorsing.


it takes the birth control pill from birthcontrol to potential murder, for example.

it's on faux news right now in my time zone.......so maybe I can watch it.... I'm easily distracted tonight.

Yeah, but with birth control, its preventing a life which could be rather than ending a life which will be. Still, if our abortion levels rise, our infant mortality rates will lower and our life expectancy will rise in the eyes of the WHO. Maybe Moore will shut up then...

Yeah, but with birth control, its preventing a life which could be rather than ending a life which will be.

Even abortion is preventing a life that could have been. Many pregnancies end in miscarriage, after all. But that's another discussion.

I think Ash was referring to the fact that some methods of birth control keep a blastocyst from implanting. If life begins at fertilization, as many would claim, many forms of birth control could be seen as "abortions".

Yeah, but with birth control, its preventing a life which could be rather than ending a life which will be. Still, if our abortion levels rise, our infant mortality rates will lower and our life expectancy will rise in the eyes of the WHO. Maybe Moore will shut up then...
hahahaha

now THATS an argument for abortion that ive never considered before!

Even abortion is preventing a life that could have been. Many pregnancies end in miscarriage, after all. But that's another discussion.

I think Ash was referring to the fact that some methods of birth control keep a blastocyst from implanting. If life begins at fertilization, as many would claim, many forms of birth control could be seen as "abortions".
aye

plus all sorts of other considerations

like if you took a dangerous drug before you knew you were pregnant and it caused a "miscarriage" (because spontaneous abortion can be misleading) you could be facing negligent homicide charges.

So, when will Obama and Mc. Cain have a debate with other religion as an audience? I'd like to see them have a debate with a Pagan audience. *nod*

I call you on improper use of the *nod.*

...*nod*

So, when will Obama and Mc. Cain have a debate with other religion as an audience? I'd like to see them have a debate with a Pagan audience. *nod*

Fun! They should totally do that.

So, when will Obama and Mc. Cain have a debate with other religion as an audience? I'd like to see them have a debate with a Pagan audience. *nod*
it would be sooooo cool if they had a similar discussion with a buddhist leader of some kind.

i would watch it.

I'm looking forward even more to the fall debates (the official ones) after this whole thing. McCain did far better than Bush ever did, but I'm curious as to how Obama will react after he outlines his nuclear energy plan.

Did anyone else watch the Warren "debate" on MSNBC? I personally thought it was very interesting, especially considering that the evangelical vote is so close (2 points). Obama seemed a little too...flip-floppy. He didn't take as hard of a stand as McCain did on a lot of issues, and he simply avoided questions altogether by drowning them out in intellectual banter.

McCain, on the other hand, seemed very strong on a lot of issues and really blew me away with his scope on some of the main issues, especially the Georgian situation. I wasn't really sure who I supported before this, but I'm fairly certain that I'm a McCain man afterward.

Did anyone else watch this, and if so, what were your thoughts? It wasn't a real "debate" per se because they didn't face each other directly, but in my opinion McCain was the victor here.

Intellectualism, ie, being informed, educated, and intelligent, is a bad thing in a President? Well, if Republicans can play the buzz word game, so can I. You know who else was against intellectuals? Communists. You're not a dirty Commi, are you? Vote Obama!

Oh, and for the record, its not flip-flopping if you give subtle, nuanced answers when discussing a complex situation. Now I didn't see the Obama part of the debate, so perhaps these acusations are founded in factuality. But your rhetoric is familiar, and it sounds like what you want is a continuation of the same level of leadership that gave us "you're either with us or the terrorists." It's sad that some people still think "simple-minded and inflexible" equals "strong and principled."

Now, maybe Obama did dodge questions, and if so, that's bad. But by the sound of it his main crime, in your eyes, was to dare to talk to the voters like educated and informed adults instead of a crowd of gibbering morons. I guess that makes him the elietist instead of the guys who talk down to the voters in black and white terms as if to a bunch of simpletons or children. hell, I probably wouldn't have fallen for it when I was a child.

Of course, the last thing you want to do when trying to win over evangelicals is to introduce them to a more complex and realistic world view. You're better off playing to their prejudices and fanaticism. So I'll agree that Obama may have made a tactical error if his main objective was to win evangelicals. On the other hand, a lot of other people were watching that "debate", and he may have won some over to him.

Fun! They should totally do that.

it would be sooooo cool if they had a similar discussion with a buddhist leader of some kind.

i would watch it.

Yea, I'm just tired of seeing politicans sucking the cock of Evangelical Christians.

There are other religions, and other denominations of Christianity you morons! How about sucking our cock?!

I'm looking forward even more to the fall debates (the official ones) after this whole thing. McCain did far better than Bush ever did, but I'm curious as to how Obama will react after he outlines his nuclear energy plan.
have you seen any polling data on nuclear energy? has the US public changed its mind?

Yea, I'm just tired of seeing politicans sucking the cock of Evangelical Christians.

There are other religions, and other denominations of Christianity you morons! How about sucking our cock?!

Admit it Wilgrove, you're just trying to get some nookie.

Although, presidential candidates vs. Wiccans might be interesting

"Mr. McCain, tell us how you plan to do no harm"
"um......war with Iran?"
"wrong answer" *casts spell*

Yea, I'm just tired of seeing politicans sucking the cock of Evangelical Christians.

There are other religions, and other denominations of Christianity you morons! How about sucking our cock?!

Lemme make sure I get this straight. You don't think you're paid enough attention to because you're a different kind of christian?

Yea, I'm just tired of seeing politicans sucking the cock of Evangelical Christians.

There are other religions, and other denominations of Christianity you morons! How about sucking our cock?!
not that it would help get US off but it would be fun to have them face a catholic bishop since there are far more catholics than evangelicals in the US.

I'm looking forward even more to the fall debates (the official ones) after this whole thing. McCain did far better than Bush ever did, but I'm curious as to how Obama will react after he outlines his nuclear energy plan.

Obama has support from the Nuclear industry, and he knows America needs alternative energy quickly, so I doubt he'll oppose nuclear power outright. However, enthusiastic support is dangerous for him. McCain, after all, will probably have few environmentalists to lose.

Of course, the last thing you want to do when trying to win over evangelicals is to introduce them to a more complex and realistic world view. You're better off playing to their prejudices and fanaticism. So I'll agree that Obama may have made a tactical error if his main objective was to win evangelicals. On the other hand, a lot of other people were watching that "debate", and he may have won some over to him.

I don't think Obama is really trying to "win over" that sort of evangelical. He's talking about his faith largely to do away with the idea that Democrats are anti-religion. He's talking more to moderate people of faith than to the hard-line right-wingers who aren't going to vote for anyone who aren't in favor of banning abortion and legislating religion.

(Of course, those people are usually opposed to embryonic stem cell research as well, and IIRC McCain is for it. So maybe those people will all stay home instead of voting).

Intellectualism, ie, being informed, educated, and intelligent, is a bad thing in a President? Well, if Republicans can play the buzz word game, so can I. You know who else was against intellectuals? Communists. You're not a dirty Commi, are you? Vote Obama!

Oh, and for the record, its not flip-flopping if you give subtle, nuanced answers when discussing a complex situation. Now I didn't see the Obama part of the debate, so perhaps these acusations are founded in factuality. But your rhetoric is familiar, and it sounds like what you want is a continuation of the same level of leadership that gave us "you're either with us or the terrorists." It's sad that some people still think "simple-minded and inflexible" equals "strong and principled."

Now, maybe Obama did dodge questions, and if so, that's bad. But by the sound of it his main crime, in your eyes, was to dare to talk to the voters like educated and informed adults instead of a crowd of gibbering morons. I guess that makes him the elietist instead of the guys who talk down to the voters in black and white terms as if to a bunch of simpletons or children. hell, I probably wouldn't have fallen for it when I was a child.

Of course, the last thing you want to do when trying to win over evangelicals is to introduce them to a more complex and realistic world view. You're better off playing to their prejudices and fanaticism. So I'll agree that Obama may have made a tactical error if his main objective was to win evangelicals. On the other hand, a lot of other people were watching that "debate", and he may have won some over to him.

That was one of the best responses I've ever gotten. I actually feel smarter after reading it.

As to your point, I must ask if you actually watched the debate. McCain's answers weren't what I would call radical, nor were Obama's always as well-thought out as I've come to expect from him. Overall though, the whole experience was interesting.

Although, presidential candidates vs. Wiccans might be interesting

"Mr. McCain, tell us how you plan to do no harm"
"um......war with Iran?"
"wrong answer" *casts spell*

What spells would they cast if they can do no harm?

Admit it Wilgrove, you're just trying to get some nookie.

Aren't we all, human basically do nothing but eat, piss, shit, and fuck.

Although, presidential candidates vs. Wiccans might be interesting

"Mr. McCain, tell us how you plan to do no harm"
"um......war with Iran?"
"wrong answer" *casts spell*

LOL, I wonder what it'd be like with Presidential Candidates vs. Satanist!

Lemme make sure I get this straight. You don't think you're paid enough attention to because you're a different kind of christian?

Roman Catholic =/= Evangelical Christians

not that it would help get US off but it would be fun to have them face a catholic bishop since there are far more catholics than evangelicals in the US.

Yea, it would be fun.

Roman Catholic =/= Evangelical Christians

So I guess the answer to my question is....yes?

I'm always amused when christians in this country complain that they're not paid enough attention to in the political community. Especially since that two major issues in the evangelical community, namely gay marriage and abortion, are pretty big nonos under catholic dogma too. So I'm really confused as to the basis of your argument complaining that politicians focus too much on evangelicals and not roman catholics, because I'm struggling to think of one major political hot button issues for evangelicals that's not actually shared by hardline catholics.

So if you really want to complain about being disenfranchised by the political process, try being actually, you know, not christian.

What spells would they cast if they can do no harm?

make him smarter?

I didn't even know there was a "debate" on tonight.

So if you really want to complain about being disenfranchised by the political process, try being actually, you know, not christian.

What about Christians who aren't in favor of banning abortion and stem cell research and who think the LGBT community is entitled to full and complete equal rights? What about those of us who actually think there should be separation of church and state?

We don't get enough attention!!! :mad:

*throws tantrum*

Of course, we're right there with the non-Christians who feel the same way. :D

it was on msnbc, cnn and fox. take a look at your tv listings. they may repeat it yet again tonight.

That was one of the best responses I've ever gotten. I actually feel smarter after reading it.

As to your point, I must ask if you actually watched the debate. McCain's answers weren't what I would call radical, nor were Obama's always as well-thought out as I've come to expect from him. Overall though, the whole experience was interesting.

I caught quite a lot of the McCain part, but I missed just about all of the Obama part. I stated my lack of knowledge about the Obama segment in my response. My post was partly a general response to certain cliche arguments in American politics these days, which, while sometimes accurate, are exaggerated far beyond reality. A lot of the flip flop accusations especially rub me the wrong way, as they confer a negative stigma upon any leader who shows a complex possisstion or changes their stance based on changing information or circumstances.

I will acknowledge one major act by Obama which probably qualifies as a flip-flop: his vote to grant immunity for wire tapping. That pissed me off.

Incidentally though, I never said McCain was radical. I think he's more boring than radical. And I actually though he spoke much better than usual. I was refering mainly to your criticisms of Obama, which are connected to the prevailing attitudes of recent political discussion.

it was on msnbc, cnn and fox. take a look at your tv listings. they may repeat it yet again tonight.

Wha? I was told it was only going to be on CNN.

Maybe I actually could have watched it.

Bleh.

make him smarter?

That could backfire. He might convince the wiccans that a war with Iran actually does no harm.

I will acknowledge one major act by Obama which probably qualifies as a flip-flop: his vote to grant immunity for wire tapping. That pissed me off.

Wouldn't one have to change his actual position on something for it to be a flip-flop?

Obama voted for a compromise measure because he thought it was better to have *some* law on the books than none at all. He was clear throughout that he was opposed to the portion granting immunity.

So he didn't "flip-flop". He compromised. It happens in politics. It may be a compromise you think he shouldn't have made, but it was a compromise nonetheless.

What about Christians who aren't in favor of banning abortion and stem cell research and who think the LGBT community is entitled to full and complete equal rights? What about those of us who actually think there should be separation of church and state?

We don't get enough attention!!! :mad:

*throws tantrum*

My general point was, a claim that politicians pay too much attention to the interests of evangelicals and not other denominations of christianity is somewhat...silly, as I'm having a hard time figuring out what political goals of evangelicals differ from other hardline christian ideologies. It's not JUST the evangelicals that are anti gay marriage, anti abortion, anti stem cell research, it's pretty much every conservative christian religion. So it's not pandering to just christian ideals.

Although it was pointed out to me a distinction, namely conservative catholics tend to be more against the death penalty than evangelicals.

Of course, we're right there with the non-Christians who feel the same way. :D

Yes, quite

Wouldn't one have to change his actual position on something for it to be a flip-flop?

Obama voted for a compromise measure because he thought it was better to have *some* law on the books than none at all. He was clear throughout that he was opposed to the portion granting immunity.

So he didn't "flip-flop". He compromised. It happens in politics. It may be a compromise you think he shouldn't have made, but it was a compromise nonetheless.

Fair point. Which is another problem with the flip-flopping allegation being used, well, flippantly;). Because of the nature of how Congress operates, a bill may include many different sections, only some of which may be supported by a candidate. So they may compromise based on what seems most important, but then be accused of flip-flopping.

Of course, its up to Obama to refute those attacks, and he has not been doing enough, unless media coverage is even more biased than I thought.

I caught quite a lot of the McCain part, but I missed just about all of the Obama part. I stated my lack of knowledge about the Obama segment in my response. My post was partly a general response to certain cliche arguments in American politics these days, which, while sometimes accurate, are exaggerated far beyond reality. A lot of the flip flop accusations especially rub me the wrong way, as they confer a negative stigma upon any leader who shows a complex possisstion or changes their stance based on changing information or circumstances.

I will acknowledge one major act by Obama which probably qualifies as a flip-flop: his vote to grant immunity for wire tapping. That pissed me off.
I was booing when mccain used OFFSHORE DRILLING as his change of heart from 10 years ago.

its so...on message rather than a thoughtful answer.

I'm hoping they put it up online. They tend to do that with either the full video or transcripts with other types of debates. So why not this one?

I was booing when mccain used OFFSHORE DRILLING as his change of heart from 10 years ago.

its so...on message rather than a thoughtful answer.

He apparently gave torture as an example of where he voted against the party, ignoring his pro-water boarding vote:headbang:.

I didn't have a way to watch it.

I did read a little bit on it, though. I find it interesting that, when asked what Supreme Court justices they wouldn't have nominated, McCain's choice was all 4 justices considered "liberal" because ZOMG LEGISLATION FROM THE BENCH, while Obama actually gave a reasonable response.

Obama would have nominated all 4 liberal justices. For those who wish to vote for a liberal no problem.

I couldn't bring myself to watch it. My vote is already decided, so what's the point? Anyway, from what you all are saying it sounds like just what I thought it would be: Obama giving thoughtful answers that the moron-media totally didn't understand so they instead focused on how he "seemed," which is not macho enough to their idiotic eyes, and on the other side, McCain reciting his rehearsed talking points and the moron-media talking about how little he drooled this time (I mean that figuratively; if anyone acts like McCain is too old to be running for president, it's the media).

Obama would have nominated all 4 liberal justices. For those who wish to vote for a liberal no problem.
ya but mccain VOTED TO CONFIRM all 4 of those justices.

ya but mccain VOTED TO CONFIRM all 4 of those justices.

Obviously it was Obama disguised as McCain.

Obama would have nominated all 4 liberal justices. For those who wish to vote for a liberal no problem.

My problem with the answer is that it shows a complete lack of thought. Obama named a specific justice and had legal reasons for his choice. McCain just pandered to the crowd by naming every justice thought of as "liberal" and using the buzzphrase "legislating from the bench" (which is basically used to mean "making a decision I don't like").

In other words, Obama's answer was based in legal considerations - as the choice of a supreme court justice should be. McCain's was straight-up ideological differences.

And, if what others have pointed out is correct, McCain voted for the confirmation of some or all of those justices. But now he wants to act like he's patently opposed?

oh yeah, that debate thingy that CNN was advertising. I was gonna watch but I started watching Gundam Wing instead...

My problem with the answer is that it shows a complete lack of thought. Obama named a specific justice and had legal reasons for his choice. McCain just pandered to the crowd by naming every justice thought of as "liberal" and using the buzzphrase "legislating from the bench" (which is basically used to mean "making a decision I don't like").

In other words, Obama's answer was based in legal considerations - as the choice of a supreme court justice should be. McCain's was straight-up ideological differences.

And, if what others have pointed out is correct, McCain voted for the confirmation of some or all of those justices. But now he wants to act like he's patently opposed?

Like Obama is some kind of saint. lol

Like Obama is some kind of saint. lol

C- for effort.

Like Obama is some kind of saint. lol

In other words, you have no reasoned response, so you're going to throw out a useless comment.

In other words, you have no reasoned response, so you're going to throw out a useless comment.

Obama is no saint, has done his share of everything you acuse McCain of doing. Good day.

Like Obama is some kind of saint. lol

of course not.

He has to be dead for like 50 years before the pope can bestow Sainthood on Obama.

of course not.

He has to be dead for like 50 years before the pope can bestow Sainthood on Obama.
he should probably convert too.

he should probably convert too.

probably a plus on the whole application.

Obama is no saint, has done his share of everything you acuse McCain of doing. Good day.

this, on the other hand, is a solid "D"

I will agree to disagree with your grades, lol.

I will agree to disagree with your grades, lol.

I'm thinking... T.

For Troll.

I will agree to disagree with your grades, lol.
he was being lenient.

I will agree to disagree with your grades,

You, of course, would. But frankly, I'm being generous. Namely because ending a post like this:

lol.

Deserves an automatic F

Obama is no saint, has done his share of everything you acuse McCain of doing. Good day.

I'm talking about a specific question. Since Obama answered with a reasoned response, you can't say he gave an answer like McCain's.

Unless you can demonstrate another point at which the same question was asked and Obama answered with "ZOMG ALL THE CONSERVATIVE JUDGES" and an equivalent buzzphrase?

I'm talking about a specific question. Since Obama answered with a reasoned response, you can't say he gave an answer like McCain's.

Unless you can demonstrate another point at which the same question was asked and Obama answered with "ZOMG ALL THE CONSERVATIVE JUDGES" and an equivalent buzzphrase?

Fair enough Demipublicents1: I admit I have not answered a direct question. Sorry Neo Art, no one grades each others posts, agree or disagree thats another matter.

Fair enough Demipublicents1: I admit I have not answered a direct question. Sorry Neo Art, no one grades each others posts, agree or disagree thats another matter.

I give this post a Z-.

Like Obama is some kind of saint. lol

It is a great understatement to say that Obama need not be any kind of saint to be far, far better than John McCain.

I have not found any evidence yet that McCain voted for any Liberal justices. I have been to a few different sites and cant find any site that says McCain voted for liberal justices.

Source: People For the American Way.

February 25, 2008
The Right’s Continuing Outrage Over the “Gang of 14”
It has been nearly three years since fourteen senators - seven Democrats and seven Republicans – hammered out a deal that preserved the use of the filibuster on judicial nominees and, judging by an article in the New York Times, the Right still hasn’t gotten over it:

Back in 2005, Senator John McCain of Arizona and fellow members of the so-called Gang of 14 were hailed as heroes in some quarters when they fashioned an unusual pact that averted a Senate vote on banning filibusters against judicial nominees.

Now Mr. McCain’s central role in that effort, which cleared the way for confirmation of some conservative jurists, is cited as one reason for lingering distrust of him among many conservatives. The power to appoint federal judges is seen as one of the most crucial presidential roles by many on the right, and some continue to believe the agreement undermined the Republican leadership at the precise moment the party was about to eliminate the ability to use procedural tactics to block judges.

James C. Dobson, an influential conservative leader, noted Mr. McCain’s role in the bipartisan Gang of 14 in his announcement that he could not support the lawmaker as the Republican nominee under any circumstances. Other conservatives still resent it as well.

“When people hear he was part of the Gang of 14, it leaves a bad taste in their mouths,” said Phil Burress, president of the Citizens for Community Values, based in Ohio.

Considering that, thanks to the deal, President Bush managed to seat right-wing ideologues such as William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Priscilla Owen on the federal bench – not to mention John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court – a lot of people have been wondering just what the Right is so upset about and why they insist on holding McCain’s participation against him.

In short, they were outraged, and seemingly continue to be outraged, that Senate Republicans failed to take advantage of an opportunity to jettison tradition in order to squash Democrats beneath their feet.

The “nuclear option” -- as the proposed attempt to do away with the filibuster was known despite Republican attempts to rechristen it the “constitutional option” -- was first floated back in 2003 in response to filibusters against Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen. Immediately, the Right rallied behind the idea, with groups like Committee for Justice, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Center for Reclaiming America, Concerned Women for America, and the American Center for Law and Justice all serving as vocal advocates.

When, two years later, their attempts to destroy the filibuster and squash the Democrats were seemingly thwarted by the "Gang of 14," the Right was apoplectic, as we chronicled in the days that followed the announcement:

When the agreement was announced, [Jan] LaRue belittled the Republicans who had agreed to it as “seven dwarves [who] have handed the filibuster key to the Supreme Court Castle with [sic] the Democrats.”

In keeping with his recent tirades about what the filibuster battle means to the right wing, Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James Dobson, blasted the arrangement as a "complete betrayal.” "This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats," he said as he warned that “voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust.”

Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition said the agreement was akin to forfeiting “the World Series … for some dumb reason" and berated the Republicans for failing to “have the backbone and the fortitude to stand up for the fact that we are the majority."

…

Rick Scarborough, Chairman of the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration, likewise voiced his outrage over this “betrayal of democracy, decency and fairness” and called the deal a “complete capitulation.” Scarborough pledged that the JCCCR will “re-double our efforts to eliminate the permanent filibuster – now and in the future.”

In an e-mail update sent to supporters later in the day, Scarborough declared that “I have rarely been more sickened than I am at this moment.” He went on to state that “this devil's bargain must not be allowed to stand and I give you my word we are expressing our outrage” and urged his supports to “let Senators know that you deplore this move and are determined to see the filibuster ended now or latter [sic].”

…

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins likewise blasted the “ignoble judicial compromise” and likened the seven Republican Senators who signed the deal to Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister known mainly for appeasing Adolf Hitler. Later in the evening, when Perkins appeared on “Hardball,” he made it clear that he considered Sen. John McCain to have “betrayed the majority leader and I think he betrayed the conservatives that gave the Senate expanded majorities.” He went on to complain that the seven Republicans who had agreed to the deal “stole defeat out of the mouth of victory.”

Pat Buchanan echoed the World War II surrender theme, though it was unclear who among the US Senators Pat Buchanan was comparing to Hitler and/or Mussolini when he characterized the agreement to table the nuclear option as “a Munich; a Munich of the Republican Party” on Don Imus’ “Imus in the Morning” show the day after the agreement had been reached.

…

On Dr. James Dobson’s Monday morning radio program, before the agreement was announced, Dobson and his guests made it clear that they would not support any sort of compromise because this was a must-win battle for the Right. Dobson said that the fight over the filibuster was “the most important issue that has come before the Senate since World War II.” He saw it as “a battle royal [about] everything we care about, and I think a collision between right and wrong and good and evil is all wrapped up in the outcome of this particular issue.”

One of Dobson’s guests, American Values’ Gary Bauer, likewise opposed any potential compromise on the issue, warning that “any effort to have a so-called ‘compromise’ would undercut our attempt to get this country’s culture back on the right road.” Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family’s VP of Government and Public Policy, echoed the “no compromise” theme: [T]here really is no compromise that is acceptable. You either preserve the filibuster for use against good Supreme Court nominees … or you end this unconscionable, unprecedented use of the filibuster that the Democrats have been employing.”

The Right was fully invested in seeing the Senate Republicans’ go through with the “nuclear option,” as evidenced by Paul Weyrich’s exhortation to carry it out:


[Senate Republicans will hear] screams of anguish from the minority, echoed by the national media. But who cares? [They need to] stop the whining about how powerless they are and at last use their power for the good of this country.

For the Right, the “nuclear option” was less about its real long-term impact and more about exploitation of power and sticking it to the Democrats – and they’ve never forgiven McCain and other members of the “Gang of 14” for denying them the thrill of that power play.

Posted by Kyle at 3:55 PM

Originally Posted by Miami Shores
Like Obama is some kind of saint. lol

It is a great understatement to say that Obama need not be any kind of saint to be far, far better than John McCain.

My NS friend we can at least agree to disagree.

Fair enough Demipublicents1: I admit I have not answered a direct question. Sorry Neo Art, no one grades each others posts, agree or disagree thats another matter.
We can talk about the quality of your posts too. And when you fail to make an argument, it's legitimate to point out that you do, indeed, fail.

So yeah, you should have gotten an F. Since you fail.

I have not found any evidence yet that McCain voted for any Liberal justices. I have been to a few different sites and cant find any site that says McCain voted for liberal justices.

You haven't even bothered to google, have you... Or even check Wikipedia.

In 1993 and 1994, McCain voted to confirm President Clinton's nominees Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg whom he considered to be qualified for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain)

Noting that he [McCain] voted for President Clinton's two Supreme Court nominees, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. "Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/06/_winstonsalem_ncforeshadowing.html

Intellectualism, ie, being informed, educated, and intelligent, is a bad thing in a President? Well, if Republicans can play the buzz word game, so can I. You know who else was against intellectuals? Communists. You're not a dirty Commi, are you? Vote Obama!

Oh, and for the record, its not flip-flopping if you give subtle, nuanced answers when discussing a complex situation. Now I didn't see the Obama part of the debate, so perhaps these acusations are founded in factuality. But your rhetoric is familiar, and it sounds like what you want is a continuation of the same level of leadership that gave us "you're either with us or the terrorists." It's sad that some people still think "simple-minded and inflexible" equals "strong and principled."

Now, maybe Obama did dodge questions, and if so, that's bad. But by the sound of it his main crime, in your eyes, was to dare to talk to the voters like educated and informed adults instead of a crowd of gibbering morons. I guess that makes him the elietist instead of the guys who talk down to the voters in black and white terms as if to a bunch of simpletons or children. hell, I probably wouldn't have fallen for it when I was a child.

Of course, the last thing you want to do when trying to win over evangelicals is to introduce them to a more complex and realistic world view. You're better off playing to their prejudices and fanaticism. So I'll agree that Obama may have made a tactical error if his main objective was to win evangelicals. On the other hand, a lot of other people were watching that "debate", and he may have won some over to him.

Well said. I thought much like this when I read the OP.

Firm is the important thing. You don't have to be right as long as you leave no room for argument.

This is why Bush is so awesome. Even when he's a dumbass, he's still "the decider". Clearly, that's more important.
That's one of the reasons he managed to be reelected!

Sadly :(

Ok I failed. I dont grade anyones posts.

Ok I failed. I dont grade anyones posts.

I'd give this post an OSTRICH.

http://blog.karmona.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/ostrich.jpg

Back on topic, can someone explain to me the significance of the "Liberal Justices" thing? I'm not quite sure I follow.

Damn, I assumed this was going to be about asking the candidates who they thought killed President Kennedy. Different Warren I suppose.

Damn, I assumed this was going to be about asking the candidates who they thought killed President Kennedy. Different Warren I suppose.

You think thats bad, when I saw "warren" I thought the candidates were going to be questioned by rabbits about their policies on overpopulation and the world myxomatosis crisis.

what's myxmatosis?

You think thats bad, when I saw "warren" I thought the candidates were going to be questioned by rabbits about their policies on overpopulation and the world myxomatosis crisis.

The world would be a better place if they were.

what's myxmatosis?

A particularly nasty disease that was used to try and curb the rabbit populations in Australia, and then illegally in an estate in France. It's killed 95% of the rabbit population in Europe, sez Wiki.

I would consider myself quite moderate, and I would say that Obama was playing it safe, while McCain concentrated on his core issues, whether or not people on TV would like his answers. It's that sort of thing that get's the votes of we independents.Further evidence that so-called "independents" are really, after all, the insipid sheep of politics.

First, you consider yourself "moderate"... but then you criticize Obama for "playing it safe" (i.e. taking the middle ground) while you praise McCain for answers you may not like, even suggesting that this will get your vote.

Once again, backing up decades of political science research, we find an "independent" who "judges the candidate" without giving a shit about the issues.

What really gets me laughing, though, is that you actually claim to speak on behalf of "we" independents. (It should be "us," by the way.)

Independents, generally, are not "moderate" so much as they lack any clear political judgment whatsoever. The candidates' views won't change very much, if at all, over the next several months. The parties will not alter their major platform positions. So what is it that the "independent" waits on to make a decision? Divine inspiration?

The absolute WORST thing about the roughly balanced two-party system that we have in this country is that it results in an electoral politics that panders to the so-called "independent" voter--hence a politics of the candidate rather than a politics of the issues. And a media that worries about which candidate is more "likable."

Ick.

human rights starting at conception opens up a huge can of worms that should be carefully considered before endorsing.


it takes the birth control pill from birthcontrol to potential murder, for example.No, it doesn't. Not since medical science changed the definition of conception from "fertilization" to "implantation" in the 50s... for exactly this reason.

If conception occurs at fertilization, then when the pill fails to prevent fertilization but does prevent implantation (which sometimes happens), the pill has caused an abortion.

Realizing that in the 1950s this would make the pill illegal in most states, the medical community used the best tool at their disposal to prevent a valuable new medical tool from being banned: they changed the definition of conception.

While I wholeheartedly support their action, this represents fairly clearly why I maintain that arguments are rarely won by appeals to definitions. Most arguments worth having are really about the definitions, anyway.

No, it doesn't. Not since medical science changed the definition of conception from "fertilization" to "implantation" in the 50s... for exactly this reason.

If conception occurs at fertilization, then when the pill fails to prevent fertilization but does prevent implantation (which sometimes happens), the pill has caused an abortion.

Realizing that in the 1950s this would make the pill illegal in most states, the medical community used the best tool at their disposal to prevent a valuable new medical tool from being banned: they changed the definition of conception.

While I wholeheartedly support their action, this represents fairly clearly why I maintain that arguments are rarely won by appeals to definitions. Most arguments worth having are really about the definitions, anyway.
yeah that closes THAT can of worms.

yeah that closes THAT can of worms.It doesn't, but only because the definition is still up for grabs--as is, perhaps more importantly, the political decision as to whether to let things rest with the medical definition.

I make my point only for the sake of accuracy. As long as the discussion sticks with "conception" it's decided by the medical community, the members of which are not at all likely to decide as a class that they no longer like birth control. The real political question, then, is whether or not "conception" as the medical community defines it (implantation) counts as "the beginning of life."

I didn't watch it and I'm not going to vote... Screw Obama AND McSame.

I didn't watch it and I'm not going to vote... Screw Obama AND McSame.
Apathy is unacceptable. If you like neither Obama nor McCain, then vote for one of the other candidates... Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Alan Keyes, Chuck Baldwin, Charles Jay, Gene Admondson, Gloria La Riva, Brian Moore, Roger Calero, or Ted Weill.

The first four are most likely to be counted as write-ins or even on your state's ballot. However, I insist that you have a duty to go out there and cast a ballot.

It doesn't, but only because the definition is still up for grabs--as is, perhaps more importantly, the political decision as to whether to let things rest with the medical definition.

I make my point only for the sake of accuracy. As long as the discussion sticks with "conception" it's decided by the medical community, the members of which are not at all likely to decide as a class that they no longer like birth control. The real political question, then, is whether or not "conception" as the medical community defines it (implantation) counts as "the beginning of life."
oh ok. point taken.

not that its not a definition that im aware of, i just assumed that its not what mccain meant. i could be wrong (but i dont think so)

Apathy is unacceptable. If you like neither Obama nor McCain, then vote for one of the other candidates... Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Alan Keyes, Chuck Baldwin, Charles Jay, Gene Admondson, Gloria La Riva, Brian Moore, Roger Calero, or Ted Weill.

The first four are most likely to be counted as write-ins or even on your state's ballot. However, I insist that you have a duty to go out there and cast a ballot.

Vote Ralph Wiggum! (http://www.thesimpsons.com/wiggum/)

Vote Ralph Wiggum! (http://www.thesimpsons.com/wiggum/)
Bad Wilgrove! *squirt with water bottle*

I'll put something to you: Eventually, one of our current major parties will break apart, or someone will get some freaking sense and switch us over to from plurality to something more sensible - say, approval voting.

When that time comes, you'll be happy if "third" parties you like are still around. In the mean time, supporting those candidates expresses both your support of a particular issue and your dissatisfaction with the major parties' political priorities, encouraging them to address that issue.

Voting is your duty is a citizen. It's just about the only duty essential to citizenship; taxes and military drafts are in comparison quite optional, only applied to those individuals with money, or males of certain age, physical condition, and sexual orientation in times of dire need.

You don't like Barr being on the Libertarian ticket, Wilgrove? Fine. Vote for the Constitution candidate. Or the Reform candidate. There's a very large selection of them.

human rights starting at conception opens up a huge can of worms that should be carefully considered before endorsing.


it takes the birth control pill from birthcontrol to potential murder, for example.

This has already been covered by AnarchyeL, but some 3 to 5 of every 10 fertilized eggs do not implant on the uterus and are flushed out during menstruation. The unreasonably religious would therefore have you believe, using their logic, that any woman who's had sex and more than one period is a potential serial killer.

Obama is no saint, has done his share of everything you acuse McCain of doing. Good day.

If you can show us that Obama has voted to confirm two Supreme Court justices because they're qualified but does not agree with ideologically and then later (in a debate) claimed to oppose those justices in a shallow attempt to gain favor with a partisan debate audience, your post will have merit.

Let me save you some time (not that you'd ever go looking) -- you can't. Simply parroting neo-con talk-radio phrases like pairing "Obama" and "saint" in any context is what makes your posts seem utterly worthless. You can't piss on our heads and try to tell us it's raining.

Further evidence that so-called "independents" are really, after all, the insipid sheep of politics.

First, you consider yourself "moderate"... but then you criticize Obama for "playing it safe" (i.e. taking the middle ground) while you praise McCain for answers you may not like, even suggesting that this will get your vote.

Once again, backing up decades of political science research, we find an "independent" who "judges the candidate" without giving a shit about the issues.

What really gets me laughing, though, is that you actually claim to speak on behalf of "we" independents. (It should be "us," by the way.)

Independents, generally, are not "moderate" so much as they lack any clear political judgment whatsoever. The candidates' views won't change very much, if at all, over the next several months. The parties will not alter their major platform positions. So what is it that the "independent" waits on to make a decision? Divine inspiration?

The absolute WORST thing about the roughly balanced two-party system that we have in this country is that it results in an electoral politics that panders to the so-called "independent" voter--hence a politics of the candidate rather than a politics of the issues. And a media that worries about which candidate is more "likable."

Ick.

AMEN TWICE.

Skyland Mt and Gravlen have also chimed in with excellent and reasoned posts. This makes me a happy panda.

This has already been covered by AnarchyeL, but some 3 to 5 of every 10 fertilized eggs do not implant on the uterus and are flushed out during menstruation. The unreasonably religious would therefore have you believe, using their logic, that any woman who's had sex and more than one period is a potential serial killer.


its such a huge can of worms that it is indeed insane to call for FULL HUMAN RIGHTS to unborn human life.

if fully legally human persons are being hidden inside women's bodies from conception until they are so large that the bulge is unmistakable we must find a way to MONITOR them. we must make sure that these human rights are fully protected even in people so tiny that it would require optical aids to see them. what about all those young sexually active women you see in bars every weekend? how many of them are engaging in reckless endangerment by having a beer before they know they are pregnant? it should be banned, they should be locked up.

its such a huge can of worms that it is indeed insane to call for FULL HUMAN RIGHTS to unborn human life.

if fully legally human persons are being hidden inside women's bodies from conception until they are so large that the bulge is unmistakable we must find a way to MONITOR them. we must make sure that these human rights are fully protected even in people so tiny that it would require optical aids to see them. what about all those young sexually active women you see in bars every weekend? how many of them are engaging in reckless endangerment by having a beer before they know they are pregnant? it should be banned, they should be locked up.

Exactly.

Apathy is unacceptable. If you like neither Obama nor McCain, then vote for one of the other candidates... Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Alan Keyes, Chuck Baldwin, Charles Jay, Gene Admondson, Gloria La Riva, Brian Moore, Roger Calero, or Ted Weill.

The first four are most likely to be counted as write-ins or even on your state's ballot. However, I insist that you have a duty to go out there and cast a ballot.

On the other hand, do we really want people who purposefully do not pay any attention to be voting?

Apathy is unacceptable.
Not voting is not the same as apathy.

One can be extremely interested in politics and yet not vote.

Not voting is not the same as apathy.

One can be extremely interested in politics and yet not vote.

Bingo.

And if you vote, you can't complain (people usually get that one backwards).

Bingo.

And if you vote, you can't complain (people usually get that one backwards).

If you vote *Blank ballot*, you can! :wink:

Further evidence that so-called "independents" are really, after all, the insipid sheep of politics.

First, you consider yourself "moderate"... but then you criticize Obama for "playing it safe" (i.e. taking the middle ground) while you praise McCain for answers you may not like, even suggesting that this will get your vote.

Once again, backing up decades of political science research, we find an "independent" who "judges the candidate" without giving a shit about the issues.

What really gets me laughing, though, is that you actually claim to speak on behalf of "we" independents. (It should be "us," by the way.)

Independents, generally, are not "moderate" so much as they lack any clear political judgment whatsoever. The candidates' views won't change very much, if at all, over the next several months. The parties will not alter their major platform positions. So what is it that the "independent" waits on to make a decision? Divine inspiration?

The absolute WORST thing about the roughly balanced two-party system that we have in this country is that it results in an electoral politics that panders to the so-called "independent" voter--hence a politics of the candidate rather than a politics of the issues. And a media that worries about which candidate is more "likable."

Ick.

"Independent" doesn't mean that one has no clear views on issues. It simply means that one is not tied to any particular party loyalty. I am not a member of any party, nor do I vote based on party affiliation. This makes me an "independent" voter. But it hardly means that I do not have clear political views. On the contrary, it means that I must actually form my own views, instead of just taking on whatever a party leader feeds me.


And if you vote, you can't complain (people usually get that one backwards).

So the people who get to complain are the ones who sit back and do nothing to change the source of their complaints?

The people who actually attempt to do something about it, on the other hand, aren't allowed to complain?

"Independent" doesn't mean that one has no clear views on issues.Statistically, it does. You may be an exception.

It simply means that one is not tied to any particular party loyalty.See, the question that crops up in the mind of a political scientist is, why not? The answer, for most independents, is political ignorance: they either do not have well-formed political positions, or they do not understand that one party represents those positions better than another.

I am not a member of any party, nor do I vote based on party affiliation.Okay. But the research shows that people who vote based on party affiliation make what political scientists term a "correct" vote--correct, that is, in the sense that they actually vote for the candidate who better represents the positions they take on their own. Voters who insist on "getting all the information" before they vote, rather than voting on cues such as party or endorsements, tend on the whole to suffer from a form of information overload which actually makes them more susceptible to media frames, advertising, and "intangible" variables such as charisma, looks, personality.

Again, you may be an exception. These are human statistics, not hard causal laws.

Again, you may be an exception. These are human statistics, not hard causal laws.

Any link for these statistics?

See, the question that crops up in the mind of a political scientist is, why not? The answer, for most independents, is political ignorance: they either do not have well-formed political positions, or they do not understand that one party represents those positions better than another.

Or perhaps they've noticed that even party-affiliated elected officials don't always vote "party lines" - that, in fact, there are variations even within a party.

And, if you don't agree completely with either party, there's a good chance that you might find candidates from any party that you have enough disagreements with that you don't want to vote for them and you might find candidates from any party that you can agree with enough to vote for them.

Of course, it forces one to actually look into the candidate beyond the letter next to their name, which some people aren't willing to do.

Okay. But the research shows that people who vote based on party affiliation make what political scientists term a "correct" vote--correct, that is, in the sense that they actually vote for the candidate who better represents the positions they take on their own.

Sounds like a chicken and egg problem to me. Are these the positions they take on their own? Or do they take the positions because the party does?

Voters who insist on "getting all the information" before they vote, rather than voting on cues such as party or endorsements, tend on the whole to suffer from a form of information overload which actually makes them more susceptible to media frames, advertising, and "intangible" variables such as charisma, looks, personality.

I'm sure that's a risk.

But I think it's something that can be dealt with in a better way than allowing a group of party leaders make those choices for you.

Again, you may be an exception. These are human statistics, not hard causal laws.

And the statistics may be skewed by perceptions of those gathering them.

Any link for these statistics?Unfortunately, most of the research is published in journals which, even when online, you would need a membership to read.

But here (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/33352/title/Simpleminded_Voters) is an article in "Science News" regarding some new experimental research on the subject.

Lau's and Redlawsk's book How Voters Decide, detailing the same research, won last year's Alexander George Award from the International Society for Political Psychology. I have to say I resisted the notion, at first... but the evidence is there.

Did anyone else watch the Warren "debate" on MSNBC? I personally thought it was very interesting, especially considering that the evangelical vote is so close (2 points). Obama seemed a little too...flip-floppy. He didn't take as hard of a stand as McCain did on a lot of issues, and he simply avoided questions altogether by drowning them out in intellectual banter.

McCain, on the other hand, seemed very strong on a lot of issues and really blew me away with his scope on some of the main issues, especially the Georgian situation. I wasn't really sure who I supported before this, but I'm fairly certain that I'm a McCain man afterward.

Did anyone else watch this, and if so, what were your thoughts? It wasn't a real "debate" per se because they didn't face each other directly, but in my opinion McCain was the victor here.
Never mind the fact that I can say for certain without having even seen the debate that all the issues McCain was "strong" on were issues he held completely opposing views on before he was running for president and trying to kiss the evangelicals' ass.

If you like watching a "Maverick" puppet with a neocon hand up its ass, sure, vote for McCain.

I watching this debate again, and, tbh, it feels like the family guy episode where Lois runs for mayor, and all she does is drop words like 9/11 and terrorists :rolleyes:

Or perhaps they've noticed that even party-affiliated elected officials don't always vote "party lines" - that, in fact, there are variations even within a party.Oh, naturally. Sometimes members of congress need to bow to popular pressure within their constituency. Sometimes (more rarely) they decide that their party is just plain wrong.

Doesn't change the fact that certain policy positions tend to cohere, and that coherence is the backbone of party politics. To lack a party affiliation (or, at the very least, a leaning to the Left or Right) is, generally, to lack coherence in one's political thought.

And, if you don't agree completely with either party, there's a good chance that you might find candidates from any party that you have enough disagreements with that you don't want to vote for them and you might find candidates from any party that you can agree with enough to vote for them.There's a difference, however, between lacking "complete" agreement with either party and having no orientation. Truth be told, I don't agree with much of anything that either major party has to say. But I still know my politics well enough to tell that the Democrats are certainly closer to me than the Republicans.

Of course, it forces one to actually look into the candidate beyond the letter next to their name, which some people aren't willing to do.I don't think anyone seriously advocates blind party-line voting. Party is one cue among many--and it happens to be a strong one. Other cues involve positions on issues of particular concern (which usually, but not always, reinforce my party choice), endorsements from groups I trust and who have far greater resources than I with which to evaluate a candidate's history--groups such as my union, my newspaper's editorial board, or advocacy groups to which I belong or whose positions interest me.

Sounds like a chicken and egg problem to me. Are these the positions they take on their own? Or do they take the positions because the party does?While it's true that party politics is much more top-down in these days (due, ironically enough, to the effects on party politics of primary elections), there is little evidence that individual voters are influenced by the policy positions of the party.

And the statistics may be skewed by perceptions of those gathering them.Indeed, interpreting data can be problematic. But as I've already noted, I went into this research as a strong skeptic--within the field, I initially argued very forcefully against these results. Eventually, however, I had to relent. The data are there. It would take a serious stretch of the imagination to interpret them otherwise.

it is kinda funny.

mccain tells stories about his past because he cant remember the details of today. obama has no stories to tell so he talks about hypotheticals.

and when mccain talks about his biggest failing being his first marriage and obama's being drugs and alcohol...they happened at the same time about 28 years ago! mccain was 44 and obama was 19.

If you vote *Blank ballot*, you can! :wink:

Which is different from not voting exactly how?

"Independent" doesn't mean that one has no clear views on issues. It simply means that one is not tied to any particular party loyalty. I am not a member of any party, nor do I vote based on party affiliation. This makes me an "independent" voter. But it hardly means that I do not have clear political views. On the contrary, it means that I must actually form my own views, instead of just taking on whatever a party leader feeds me.

I think that AnarchyeL is speaking of the typical, media-driven definition of "independent", which might be better characterized by the word "swing" or better yet, just "undecided". A true independent is more like you. A typical undecided is like AnarchyeL's description. So "ick" still applies.

So the people who get to complain are the ones who sit back and do nothing to change the source of their complaints?

The people who actually attempt to do something about it, on the other hand, aren't allowed to complain?

Of course, on both counts.

You people who voted actually put these miscreants into office. Those who didn't vote had no hand in electing those people who have turned every dirty trick in the book just to get on the ballot. Seems to me the person who has a right to complain is the one who refused to put either of two bad choices into office.

Making a pyrrhic choice is not "doing something about it". If the Good Lord had intended for us to vote, He'd have given us candidates. If you vote, you can't complain.

it is kinda funny.

mccain tells stories about his past because he cant remember the details of today. obama has no stories to tell so he talks about hypotheticals.

and when mccain talks about his biggest failing being his first marriage and obama's being drugs and alcohol...they happened at the same time about 28 years ago! mccain was 44 and obama was 19.
McCain talks in hypotheticals all the time because no one wants to hear his boring ass old-man stories and without those he hasn't done shit worth talking about. It's just that he states the hypotheticals as facts and then deflects any criticism with "I was a POW!"

Unfortunately, most of the research is published in journals which, even when online, you would need a membership to read.

But here (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/33352/title/Simpleminded_Voters) is an article in "Science News" regarding some new experimental research on the subject.

Lau's and Redlawsk's book How Voters Decide, detailing the same research, won last year's Alexander George Award from the International Society for Political Psychology. I have to say I resisted the notion, at first... but the evidence is there.

The article doesn't compare independent voters to party-line voters, though. The people who it lists as making decisions most aligned to their personal views are those who employ "shortcuts" rather than trying to muck through every possible piece of information. The "shortcuts" they actually spend the most time talking about are endorsements from organizations, rather than party affiliation.

In other words, someone who is informed in politics and who finds the issue of, for instance, abortion important can look at which organizations have endorsed the candidate and get a good idea of which better agrees with them, without digging through individual votes or relying on misleading campaign tactics.

Your article refers to voters who make efficient use of resources much more so than to the question of party affiliation vs. unaffiliated.

Doesn't change the fact that certain policy positions tend to cohere, and that coherence is the backbone of party politics. To lack a party affiliation (or, at the very least, a leaning to the Left or Right) is, generally, to lack coherence in one's political thought.

I disagree, largely because we aren't looking at a single issue or even a small set of issues. It is perfectly possible for someone to agree more generally with one party on one set of issues while leaning towards a different party on other issues. They could have very strong views on issues, but think that both parties are wrong on enough issues not to choose a specific affiliation.

As such, depending on how they prioritize those issues, the duties of the particular office up for grabs, and the particular place within the party that a given candidate falls, candidates from various parties may match up best with the person in question.

There's a difference, however, between lacking "complete" agreement with either party and having no orientation. Truth be told, I don't agree with much of anything that either major party has to say. But I still know my politics well enough to tell that the Democrats are certainly closer to me than the Republicans.

Every single Democrat and every single Republican?

No one is saying that Independents don't lean one way or another. They quite often do (hence the reason for polls categorizing left-leaning/right-leaning Independents). The idea is simply that they don't have a loyalty to the party. An Independent voter isn't a member of a party (unless they have to join up to vote in a given election) and isn't just going to go down the line marking all members of that party. They certainly might tend to vote for one party more than another, but it isn't out of loyalty to the party.

I don't think anyone seriously advocates blind party-line voting.

Not out loud, no. But it was only fairly recently that (in my state at least) they got rid of the option of just hitting one button to vote for everyone in a given party. And I've known plenty of people who vote based on party lines instead of bothering with issues.

Party is one cue among many--and it happens to be a strong one. Other cues involve positions on issues of particular concern (which usually, but not always, reinforce my party choice), endorsements from groups I trust and who have far greater resources than I with which to evaluate a candidate's history--groups such as my union, my newspaper's editorial board, or advocacy groups to which I belong or whose positions interest me.

And none of these cues are denied to the Independent voter. I don't trust groups implicitly, but I know that an endorsement or criticism from, say, HRC gives me a good iea of the candidate's stance on LGBT issues. If I want to look into that further, I can. And so on...

While it's true that party politics is much more top-down in these days (due, ironically enough, to the effects on party politics of primary elections), there is little evidence that individual voters are influenced by the policy positions of the party.

I disagree. Admittedly, I haven't done any high level studies on these things, but it seems to me that many people are profoundly influenced by the positions of their party. Usually it's on issues which most individuals have little information on (ie. stem cell research) - so they assume that their party must have made the right decision and simply adopt it, without doing their own research.

Indeed, interpreting data can be problematic. But as I've already noted, I went into this research as a strong skeptic--within the field, I initially argued very forcefully against these results. Eventually, however, I had to relent. The data are there. It would take a serious stretch of the imagination to interpret them otherwise.

Or, perhaps, just a definition of "independent" that doesn't cause you to interpret the results in a circular manner. If you a priori assume that "Independent" means that one does not take the "shortcuts" mentioned in the article, you're clearly going to read it as pertaining to Independent voters. What you don't seem to see is that Independent voters have just as much access to those shortcuts.

Both Independent and party-affiliated voters can be informed or uninformed. Either can take the "shortcuts" discussed in the article to try and determine how a candidate matches up with their own views. The difference is that the Independent voter doesn't start out with a party loyalty. They may be less likely to use party affiliation as a "shortcut", but it doesn't mean that they won't use any such strategies..

Which is different from not voting exactly how?

You get to waste the counters time.


I think that AnarchyeL is speaking of the typical, media-driven definition of "independent", which might be better characterized by the word "swing" or better yet, just "undecided". A true independent is more like you. A typical undecided is like AnarchyeL's description. So "ick" still applies.

The problem I have with independents and undecided is that I fail to see what they're waiting for; I mean, it's 2000 and freakin' 8, if you're too lazy to watch the debates you can log on and discover the positions each person has on various issues, it's literally that easy; What could you possibly be waiting for? Obama to change his mind on a single issue? Oh, wait, if he does that, suddenly he's a flipflopper.

The reason politics bores half the voter base isn't because they don't care, it's because we see these candidates restating over and over again the some positions on the same button issues, for months on end, while the media turns molehills into mountains and candidates throw shit at one another in a vain attempt to sway voters on things that don't really exist.

Take this whole celebrity Ad McCain produced about Obama; what the hell does being popular have to do with politics? is McCain suggesting that the people of the country you're being elected in shouldn't like the people they vote for?

Of course, on both counts.

You people who voted actually put these miscreants into office.

Only if the people we voted for actually got elected. For instance, I had no hand in giving Bush the presidency. I didn't vote for him.

Those who didn't vote had no hand in electing those people who have turned every dirty trick in the book just to get on the ballot.

And are also doing absolutely nothing to change the status quo. As such, they have no room to complain.

Seems to me the person who has a right to complain is the one who refused to put either of two bad choices into office.

Why? They didn't do anything to change it. Why should they have any more right to complain than someone who at least tried to do something, to have some hand in (hopefully) making things better?

If I never give to charity because a lot of charities misuse money, does that make me more entitled to sit back and complain about poverty than someone who actually does try and help those in poverty - even if it means using a flawed system?

Making a pyrrhic choice is not "doing something about it".

It's doing something more than sitting on your ass doing absolutely nothing but complaining is.

And, occasionally, there actually is a candidate worth voting for, rather than just voting against the worst.

The problem I have with independents and undecided is that I fail to see what they're waiting for; I mean, it's 2000 and freakin' 8, if you're too lazy to watch the debates you can log on and discover the positions each person has on various issues, it's literally that easy; What could you possibly be waiting for? Obama to change his mind on a single issue? Oh, wait, if he does that, suddenly he's a flipflopper.

Independent is not equivalent to undecided.

I'm an Independent voter who plans on voting for Obama. The fact that I'm voting for him doesn't make me a Democrat and it certainly doesn't mean that I'm affiliated with any other party. I may very well vote for a Republican or a Libertarian or an Independent in a different election held at the same time.

Only if the people we voted for actually got elected. For instance, I had no hand in giving Bush the presidency. I didn't vote for him.

Good for you. How does that qualify as "doing something"?

And are also doing absolutely nothing to change the status quo. As such, they have no room to complain.

How do you know that? What of those doing things to change the status quo without having anything to do with an election? Why must voting be the only thing one can do to "do something". Seeing as how you've failed to explain what "doing something" means, I'm forced to assume you equate ONLY voting with "doing something". I'd say that's a pretty narrow definition.

Why? They didn't do anything to change it. Why should they have any more right to complain than someone who at least tried to do something, to have some hand in (hopefully) making things better?

Because the person who chose not to vote is making just as much of a statement as those who "got off their asses" (does that apply to mail-ins?) to cast their ballot for narcissist criminal A or narcissist criminal B. If you think the puppet on the right shares your beliefs, vote for him. If you think the puppet on the left shares your beliefs, vote for her. Just don't forget to check out the ass-end of those puppets and the money that is the hands up both those holes.

If I never give to charity because a lot of charities misuse money, does that make me more entitled to sit back and complain about pverty than someone who actually does try and help those in poverty?

Is giving money to charities somehow more noble than giving time? D1, you're better than this. Refute my non-voting stance with something stronger than this wholly incomplete example.

It's doing something more than sitting on your ass doing absolutely nothing but complaining is.

When did I say the non-voter is "doing absolutely nothing"? You seem to equate voting to some kind of immense, world-changing act. You oughta know better than that.

Why on Earth should anyone cast a vote for the least-damaging candidate merely because they can? Not voting when there is no candidate that appeals to you IS "doing something" -- it's commenting on the quality of candidates. I supported a local candidate for state senate by acting as his treasurer in his 2005 campaign (WA Sen. Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens). When I discover a candidate that does more for me than make a slightly less slimy alternative to the opposition, I'll vote.

And, occasionally, there actually is a candidate worth voting for, rather than just voting against the worst.

When that has happened, I have voted, and voted with pride. When it hasn't, I've not voted, and not voted with exactly the same pride. Blind worship of the franchise lessens its value in my eyes. You are certainly free to disagree, and in fact you commonly do disagree with me. However, this time, you've got to do better than "voting is everything". It isn't.

You get to waste the counters time.

Excellent point.

The problem I have with independents and undecided is that I fail to see what they're waiting for; I mean, it's 2000 and freakin' 8, if you're too lazy to watch the debates you can log on and discover the positions each person has on various issues, it's literally that easy; What could you possibly be waiting for? Obama to change his mind on a single issue? Oh, wait, if he does that, suddenly he's a flipflopper.

The reason politics bores half the voter base isn't because they don't care, it's because we see these candidates restating over and over again the some positions on the same button issues, for months on end, while the media turns molehills into mountains and candidates throw shit at one another in a vain attempt to sway voters on things that don't really exist.

Take this whole celebrity Ad McCain produced about Obama; what the hell does being popular have to do with politics? is McCain suggesting that the people of the country you're being elected in shouldn't like the people they vote for?

Agreed.

Add to all of that the colossal amounts of money used to get these empty messages across, and apathy suddenly doesn't seem to come from nowhere.

You people who voted actually put these miscreants into office.

Uh, no, I didn't. I voted for the other guy.

I'm talking about a specific question. Since Obama answered with a reasoned response, you can't say he gave an answer like McCain's.

Unless you can demonstrate another point at which the same question was asked and Obama answered with "ZOMG ALL THE CONSERVATIVE JUDGES" and an equivalent buzzphrase?

I'm not sure if you've noticed MS's posting history on the subject, but it's basically:
"Obama is not a saint."
"Obama is a liberal. that's fine if you're liberal."
And, when confronted with a reasoned argument:
"We'll just have to agree to disagree."
Repeat ad infinitum.

Uh, no, I didn't. I voted for the other guy.

Who, had he won, might have been better, and might have been worse. Also, Congress is full of the same kind of megalomaniacal opportunists, so it's not just the President.

Good for you. How does that qualify as "doing something"?

You said that anyone who voted put the current officeholders there. I just demonstrated that this isn't true. Only those who voted for a particular office holder put that person there.

How do you know that? What of those doing things to change the status quo without having anything to do with an election? Why must voting be the only thing one can do to "do something". Seeing as how you've failed to explain what "doing something" means, I'm forced to assume you equate ONLY voting with "doing something". I'd say that's a pretty narrow definition.

Voting is the main way in which citizens can participate in the government. And that participation is necessary to change it.

Bitching and moaning isn't going to do anything unless you get people who will make the changes you want in government positions.

Because the person who chose not to vote is making just as much of a statement as those who "got off their asses" (does that apply to mail-ins?) to cast their ballot for narcissist criminal A or narcissist criminal B.

....except they aren't.

If we had a "none of the above option" (which I think we probably should), and they voted that option, it would be making just as much of a statement.

As it is, there is no definite statement. The person could be staying home because they're fed up or - just as likely - because they quite simply just don't care.

Is giving money to charities somehow more noble than giving time?

No, but giving time is still using the system that is in place.

D1, you're better than this. Refute my non-voting stance with something stronger than this wholly incomplete example.

Your stance is that people who don't vote somehow have more room to complain than people who do. But, in truth, their refusal to vote has no effect on the government. As such, it is not an attempt to change anything. Thus, if anything, they have less room to complain. By not participating, they are essentially acquiescing to whatever their peers decide.

When did I say the non-voter is "doing absolutely nothing"? You seem to equate voting to some kind of immense, world-changing act. You oughta know better than that.

The non-voter is not changing those who hold government positions, and is thus not changing the way the government works.

They may be working to change things in other arenas, but not in this one.

One way or another, the idea that someone who doesn't vote somehow has a better standpoint from which to complain is ridiculous.

Why on Earth should anyone cast a vote for the least-damaging candidate merely because they can?

Believe me, I'm often dissatisfied with the panel of candidates. It's why I'm quite happy to finally have a candidate in a national position I feel I can vote for.

But one could argue that one should vote for the least damaging candidate (in the case where there is no "good" candidate) because it would be a step to keep the most damaging candidate out. Sitting at home is allowing others to decide which level of damage is sustained.

I don't know if I really agree with that - I'm more a fan of the write-in vote if I feel that the best candidate isn't on the ballot.

Not voting when there is no candidate that appeals to you IS "doing something" -- it's commenting on the quality of candidates.

Commenting to who? Nobody else knows that you didn't refuse to vote simply because you were lazy or didn't care.

Like I said, it's the reason I would support a "none of the above" option on ballots. That would be a statement that all of the available candidates are unacceptable. A write-in vote can do the same thing.

Sitting at home suggests apathy just as strongly as dissatisfaction. And "making a statement" requires others to know what you're saying.

I supported a local candidate for state senate by acting as his treasurer in his 2005 campaign (WA Sen. Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens). When I discover a candidate that does more for me than make a slightly less slimy alternative to the opposition, I'll vote.

Ah, but by your own standards, that would remove your standing to complain! And, by your own standards, this is true whether that candidate wins or not!

By voting, you suddenly become responsible for all the sliminess!

When that has happened, I have voted, and voted with pride.

So you couldn't complain about your government until the next election cycle? Even if the person you voted for lost?

When it hasn't, I've not voted, and not voted with exactly the same pride.

And that was the only time you could complain?

Blind worship of the franchise lessens its value in my eyes. You are certainly free to disagree, and in fact you commonly do disagree with me. However, this time, you've got to do better than "voting is everything". It isn't.

I certainly don't disagree that "blind worship of the franchise" would be a bad thing. But I don't think choosing to vote is necessarily "blind worship" of anything. Uninformed voting, perhaps, but not voting in general.

Who, had he won, might have been better, and might have been worse. Also, Congress is full of the same kind of megalomaniacal opportunists, so it's not just the President.

The same could be said of those people who you said you "proudly" voted for.

it is kinda funny.

mccain tells stories about his past because he cant remember the details of today. obama has no stories to tell so he talks about hypotheticals.

and when mccain talks about his biggest failing being his first marriage and obama's being drugs and alcohol...they happened at the same time about 28 years ago! mccain was 44 and obama was 19.
Another reason not to vote for McCain. A 19-year-old doing stupid shit is one thing. A 44-year-old should know better than to fuck up his life.

Another reason not to vote for McCain. A 19-year-old doing stupid shit is one thing. A 44-year-old should know better than to fuck up his life.

And yet Bill Clinton was 52 when he lied under oath and was disbarred. Guess mistakes are made.

Agreed.

Why should the independents have to do more work than the partisans? Like any average Republican actually knows what McCain or Obamas positions really are.

Sorry, but I feel I should butt in.
Good for you. How does that qualify as "doing something"?

How do you know that? What of those doing things to change the status quo without having anything to do with an election? Why must voting be the only thing one can do to "do something". Seeing as how you've failed to explain what "doing something" means, I'm forced to assume you equate ONLY voting with "doing something". I'd say that's a pretty narrow definition.
Somehow, I doubt you're engaging in armed revolution here. If you picket and protest, good for you.
Because the person who chose not to vote is making just as much of a statement as those who "got off their asses" (does that apply to mail-ins?) to cast their ballot for narcissist criminal A or narcissist criminal B. If you think the puppet on the right shares your beliefs, vote for him. If you think the puppet on the left shares your beliefs, vote for her. Just don't forget to check out the ass-end of those puppets and the money that is the hands up both those holes.
No, the nonvoter does not make as much of a statement by not voting. Nonvotes are not counted, tabulated, or analyzed.

The voter who casts an otherwise complete ballot with the presidential ballot blank does not even make as much of a statement as one who votes for A or B. The voter who votes for obscure issues candidate C, however, is making, if anything, more of a statement than those who vote for A or B. Even the voter who votes for animated cartoon character D is making a statement read by those counting ballots, although its meaning is less clear.
Why on Earth should anyone cast a vote for the least-damaging candidate merely because they can?
Because it's the voting behavior that most contributes to improving the situation.
When that has happened, I have voted, and voted with pride. When it hasn't, I've not voted, and not voted with exactly the same pride. Blind worship of the franchise lessens its value in my eyes. You are certainly free to disagree, and in fact you commonly do disagree with me. However, this time, you've got to do better than "voting is everything". It isn't.
The habit of non-voting as a social group is a disenfranchising habit.

A single vote is a tiny fraction of winning an election. The impact of any individual voter is nearly small enough to escape measure. The most powerful thing you can do, then, is proudly vote, because peer pressure encourages those like unto you to vote in greater numbers instead of lesser numbers. The most damaging thing you can do is moan about how you're not going to vote and that it's not worth voting.

My great-grandmother once said that paying taxes is a privilege, but voting is a duty. Maximizing turnout insures that the social choice function of the ballot box behaves optimally within its parameters; in the case of a simple plurality election, yes, the mechanism of the social choice function is flawed to an avoidable degree. However, it is still improved by increases in turnout.

The article doesn't compare independent voters to party-line voters, though. The people who it lists as making decisions most aligned to their personal views are those who employ "shortcuts" rather than trying to muck through every possible piece of information. The "shortcuts" they actually spend the most time talking about are endorsements from organizations, rather than party affiliation.Like I said, this is just one Science News article that gives you an idea of the general thrust of the research: the "shortcut" voter (and I'd mentioned endorsements as well as party affiliation before) generally does better than the information-hungry voter.

In other words, someone who is informed in politics and who finds the issue of, for instance, abortion important can look at which organizations have endorsed the candidate and get a good idea of which better agrees with them, without digging through individual votes or relying on misleading campaign tactics.That's right.

Your article refers to voters who make efficient use of resources much more so than to the question of party affiliation vs. unaffiliated.I think we're getting to the point of splitting hairs, and I admitted long ago that you may not personally fall prey to the sort of information-overload that happens to many voters who refuse to see that a candidate's party says something about her/him.

But this does undermine your concern with people "letting" party leaders make their decisions for them, since you're willing to accept people's trust of other public organizations and their leadership. It's unclear why I should accept the endorsement of a union or political association, but not a party which I feel represents my interests.

They could have very strong views on issues, but think that both parties are wrong on enough issues not to choose a specific affiliation.Of course they can. That's an empirical statement: many people have such views. My contention as a political theorist is that to the extent that political parties are in fact coherent--their positions "hang together" in a reasonable (if not rational) way--we should find that people who cannot reconcile themselves to one party have significantly less coherent political judgments. This is probably due, in most cases, to a lack of critical examination or the establishment of core political principles with which to evaluate lower-order political judgments.

In other words, having "strong views on issues" does not make one politically astute. Having well considered views (regardless of how "strong") does, and well considered views tend to cohere rather than fly apart. Very frequently the "strongest" views are the least well considered.

Every single Democrat and every single Republican?Keep your straw men to yourself, thank you.

The idea is simply that they don't have a loyalty to the party.I don't have any "loyalty" either, nor have I advocated any such thing. I would never vote for a Democrat "because" she's a Democrat, and I feel that's where my "loyalty" lies. But unless I have a particularly strong reason for voting Republican (or for a third party), I'll prefer the Democrats--and if anyone were to ask me a year in advance of an election for whom I would vote, I'd say, "Probably the Democrat." But there's no "loyalty" there.

They certainly might tend to vote for one party more than another, but it isn't out of loyalty to the party.By any reasonable definition except the most positivist (formal membership), this is party voting. Even party members may vote for the other party.

But it was only fairly recently that (in my state at least) they got rid of the option of just hitting one button to vote for everyone in a given party. And I've known plenty of people who vote based on party lines instead of bothering with issues.I meant no serious political analyst. On the other hand, I still prefer a straight party-line vote (which represents, at least, a political judgment) to the "charisma and pretty face" vote that seems to characterize so much of the American middle.

Admittedly, I haven't done any high level studies on these things, but it seems to me that many people are profoundly influenced by the positions of their party. Usually it's on issues which most individuals have little information on (ie. stem cell research) - so they assume that their party must have made the right decision and simply adopt it, without doing their own research.Assuming they earnestly feel that their party represents the core principles they would emphasize in politics/ethics, and assuming they are well-informed enough to know whether their party is behaving as they'd like on issues they consider important, I see no particular problem with this.

I don't expect everyone to be fully informed on every issue, and the whole point here is that voters who claim to be tend to be the ones who fail in the task of voting their own preference. People should be informed about the issues they care about, and they should know how to get information if it happens that they do care.

If you a priori assume that "Independent" means that one does not take the "shortcuts" mentioned in the article, you're clearly going to read it as pertaining to Independent voters. What you don't seem to see is that Independent voters have just as much access to those shortcuts.I make no such assumption. But independents tell me straight out that one of the most obvious, most useful shortcuts is essentially meaningless--they can't judge a candidate by their party. And that's just delusional.

I think we're getting to the point of splitting hairs, and I admitted long ago that you may not personally fall prey to the sort of information-overload that happens to many voters who refuse to see that a candidate's party says something about her/him.

Now who is burning strawmen? There's a difference between noting that a candidate's party affiliation "says something about him" and relying on it as a major decision factor.

But this does undermine your concern with people "letting" party leaders make their decisions for them, since you're willing to accept people's trust of other public organizations and their leadership. It's unclear why I should accept the endorsement of a union or political association, but not a party which I feel represents my interests.

Again, there's a difference between factoring in an endorsement and having others essentially make the decision for you.

And endorsements from issue-based organizations are more trustworthy (on that issue, of course) than reliance on party affiliation - because those organizations are issue-based. NARAL, for instance, isn't going to give an endorsement to a candidate who has consistently voted anti-choice or has supported that stance. But that candidate may be Democrat or Republican. Sure, Democrats have a tendency over the entire party to be more pro-choice than Republicans. But that doesn't tell you anything about the person actually running for the particular office you're looking at.

Of course they can. That's an empirical statement: many people have such views. My contention as a political theorist is that to the extent that political parties are in fact coherent--their positions "hang together" in a reasonable (if not rational) way--we should find that people who cannot reconcile themselves to one party have significantly less coherent political judgments. This is probably due, in most cases, to a lack of critical examination or the establishment of core political principles with which to evaluate lower-order political judgments.

In other words, having "strong views on issues" does not make one politically astute. Having well considered views (regardless of how "strong") does, and well considered views tend to cohere rather than fly apart. Very frequently the "strongest" views are the least well considered.

Of course, this requires the assumption that the political parties are, in fact, coherent in their positions.

The idea that strongly held views are often the least well considered applies to political parties as a whole as much as it does to individuals.

I don't have any "loyalty" either, nor have I advocated any such thing.

Then you are an independent voter.

By any reasonable definition except the most positivist (formal membership), this is party voting. Even party members may vote for the other party.

Hardly. A tendency in a given direction is not the same thing as party voting. If one votes for one party 60% of the time and other parties 40% of the time, can you really call them a party voter?

If one doesn't really use party as much of an indicator, but still ends up voting for a single party most of the time, are they really a party voter?

I meant no serious political analyst. On the other hand, I still prefer a straight party-line vote (which represents, at least, a political judgment) to the "charisma and pretty face" vote that seems to characterize so much of the American middle.

A straight party-line vote doesn't necessarily represent a political decision, though. Often, it's a matter of "Everyone I know is a Democrat, so I must be" or "I think the Republicans probably agree with me on this one issue, so I'll always vote for them."

Of course, "charisma and a pretty face" isn't really a good way to vote either.

Assuming they earnestly feel that their party represents the core principles they would emphasize in politics/ethics, and assuming they are well-informed enough to know whether their party is behaving as they'd like on issues they consider important, I see no particular problem with this.

I do, mostly because politicians are also woefully uninformed on most of the kinds of issues people make such decisions on. So, not only is the person making a woefully uninformed decision, but it's a second-hand woefully uninformed decision.

Besides, if they are "well-informed enough to know whether their party is behaving as they'd like on issues they consider important", then they aren't taking their cues from the party. They're making their own decisions.

I don't expect everyone to be fully informed on every issue, and the whole point here is that voters who claim to be tend to be the ones who fail in the task of voting their own preference. People should be informed about the issues they care about, and they should know how to get information if it happens that they do care.

I don't expect everyone to be fully informed on every issue. I do expect them to be well-informed on any issue they use as a deciding factor. As you said above, strongly held opinions are often the least thought out and informed decisions. People feel very strongly about, say, stem cell research. They often get information from party leaders on that. But much of the information they get is blatantly false, because their party leaders don't know any more than they do. Yet these people often see it as a major campaign issue and take their cues from politicians on how they feel (and thus vote) about it.

I make no such assumption. But independents tell me straight out that one of the most obvious, most useful shortcuts is essentially meaningless--they can't judge a candidate by their party. And that's just delusional.

You can't judge a candidate very well by his party. You might get a very vague idea of what he might support, but that's about it.

Maybe you've never lived in the Southeast, where most of the Republicans used to be Democrats (and would switch back in a heartbeat if the political tide changed) and many of the Democrats vote like Republicans anyways.

My mother-in-law, who is rather upset about our choice to support Obama for president, likes to condescendingly tell my husband and I: "Your father-in-law and I used to vote Democrat when we were young, too..."

She doesn't seem to recognize that she's voting for the exact same people and most of the same policies. They just switched parties when it looked like the Republicans were gaining ground.

And yet Bill Clinton was 52 when he lied under oath and was disbarred. Guess mistakes are made.
I'm starting to think it's not just a couple of ugly women who carry Bill Clinton around in their pants, ready to whip him out for all occasions. Exactly what, pray tell, does Slick Willie have to do with either McCain or Obama?

do did y'all see that mccain was NOT kept in a "cone of silence" to keep him from hearing obama's questions and answered.

even though the HOST said he was.

he was in the car on the way over for the first half and in the "green room" for the 2nd half.

no wonder he had such quickly decisive answers.

do did y'all see that mccain was NOT kept in a "cone of silence" to keep him from hearing obama's questions and answered.

even though the HOST said he was.

he was in the car on the way over for the first half and in the "green room" for the 2nd half.

no wonder he had such quickly decisive answers.

but its ok, because surely a person who cheated on his wife would never cheat.

no, wait, i meant to say "a p.o.w. would never cheat" - damnit, how hard is this? a noun, a verb, p.o.w.

do did y'all see that mccain was NOT kept in a "cone of silence" to keep him from hearing obama's questions and answered.

even though the HOST said he was.

he was in the car on the way over for the first half and in the "green room" for the 2nd half.

no wonder he had such quickly decisive answers.
McCain denies hearing any of the questions or Obama's answers, whether he was in a "cone of silence" or his car and no one has offered any evidence to indicate he is lying about that.

On the other hand, on the question regarding orphans, Obama acknowledged he was aware the issue would be coming up and had researched his answer prior to his appearance.

McCain denies hearing any of the questions or Obama's answers, whether he was in a "cone of silence" or his car and no one has offered any evidence to indicate he is lying about that.

Other than the fact that when asked how he enjoyed the "cone of silence", he joked about trying to hear at the door?

On the other hand, on the question regarding orphans, Obama acknowledged he was aware the issue would be coming up and had researched his answer prior to his appearance.

Actually, he acknowledged that he had "cheated" a bit by looking into the proposal the pastor had already made public. He didn't know for certain that the question was coming up unless the pastor had made that particular question public ahead of time. At best, it was an educated guess - education McCain could have gained whether he went first or second.

Actually, he acknowledged that he had "cheated" a bit by looking into the proposal the pastor had already made public. He didn't know for certain that the question was coming up unless the pastor had made that particular question public ahead of time. At best, it was an educated guess - education McCain could have gained whether he went first or second.

Education only someone unfit for the presidency would have avoided in fact.

McCain denies hearing any of the questions or Obama's answers, whether he was in a "cone of silence" or his car and no one has offered any evidence to indicate he is lying about that.

On the other hand, on the question regarding orphans, Obama acknowledged he was aware the issue would be coming up and had researched his answer prior to his appearance.

oh i completely believe him that he did not HEAR any of obamas questions or answers.

i think that his staff told him what to expect and what answers to make after THEY heard and saw the obama questions and answers.

yeah. obama was aware of the orphan thing just like john mccain was. obama acknowledged it because it came from the host. go figure

and he STILL gave an actual answer instead of a heartwarming personal story (although mccain has an edge in personal stories whether they are true or not, his or not)

oh i completely believe him that he did not HEAR any of obamas questions or answers.

i think that his staff told him what to expect and what answers to make after THEY heard and saw the obama questions and answers.

yeah. obama was aware of the orphan thing just like john mccain was. obama acknowledged it because it came from the host. go figure

and he STILL gave an actual answer instead of a heartwarming personal story (although mccain has an edge in personal stories whether they are true or not, his or not)
That edge comes from the fact that his speaking voice sounds very vaguely like Burl Ives whispering. It subliminally plants a feeling of Christmas in many Americans' ... hmmm... I was going to say brains, but...

That edge comes from the fact that his speaking voice sounds very vaguely like Burl Ives whispering. It subliminally plants a feeling of Christmas in many Americans' ... hmmm... I was going to say brains, but...

Brain-like nerve clusters?



Nah, too generous. "Brain-like" indeed. :rolleyes:

do did y'all see that mccain was NOT kept in a "cone of silence" to keep him from hearing obama's questions and answered.

even though the HOST said he was.

he was in the car on the way over for the first half and in the "green room" for the 2nd half.

no wonder he had such quickly decisive answers.

Keep carrying that water. B. Hussien Obama got his ass handed to him. Tht guy is ajoke without a teleprompter. Stammering fool got eaten alive. Guess that is why he backing down on his promise to debate Mccain "anywhere, anytime."

"To any honest observer, the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama have been evident all along. What we saw last weekend was Obama's shallowness juxtaposed with McCain's depth, the product of his extraordinary life experience.

It may not have been a debate, but it was one of the most lopsided political contests in memory. No wonder Obama wants to keep debate formats boring and predictable. "

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=303952351194789

Investors Daily hit the nail on the head. Shallow, not "thoughtful and nuanced."

Keep carrying that water. B. Hussien Obama got his ass handed to him.
Oh yes. He totally got owned by the guy whose answers consisted of "*mumbling* bin Laden *mumbling* terrorism *mumbling* 9/11"

Tht guy is ajoke without a teleprompter. Stammering fool got eaten alive.
I assume you mean McCain.

What we saw last weekend was Obama's shallowness juxtaposed with McCain's depth, the product of his extraordinary life experience.
"John McCain was a POW. He obviously knows alot more than Obama, who wasn't a POW."

Investors Daily hit the nail on the head. Shallow, not "thoughtful and nuanced."
Apparently the neocons were watching a different debate - one where their heads are up Karl Rove's ass watching an edited video of the debate on a projector screen.

However. I will concede the point that McCain showed experience Obama didn't have. If Obama had experience, he would have realized that having a "debate" with a neocon in a televangelist's church who thinks we should have a religious litmus test for the presidency was something he couldn't possibly win and would have insisted that they have a debate in a neutral location not administered the current, most-important head of the religious right. I would bet my ass that you won't see McCain debating Obama administered by the heads of MoveOn.org because his people wouldn't let him do something that would just feed fuel to his opponent.

Keep carrying that water. B. Hussien Obama got his ass handed to him. Tht guy is ajoke without a teleprompter. Stammering fool got eaten alive. Guess that is why he backing down on his promise to debate Mccain "anywhere, anytime."


if you say so. i found that mccain didnt answer the questions and that by and large all he did was to repeat the things he says every day in his town hall meetings.

maybe saying the same thing over and over again no matter what the venue is winning to you, to me its not being able to address the questions you are actually being asked about.

The answer, for most independents, is political ignorance: they either do not have well-formed political positions, or they do not understand that one party represents those positions better than another.
Or: they DO understand, perfectly well, that neither party represents anything close to their positions. The duopoly of parties in the US has left a lot of political orphans. The "third parties" tend to be populated with cranks, since they have no chance at any share of power and are therefore avoided by anyone with actual political ambitions: the perception that it is completely useless to shop around among the third parties is quite well founded.