Hillary + Obama = 08

See daniel, this is a great indicator of how far you are from reality in this respect. Yes daniel, far more people than you can probably imagine, would not vote for him because they don't like his middle name. Likewise because they simply don't like the "way he looks", or gives them a "bad vide", or for anyone one of a million other "irrational" reasons, not excluding simply walking into a voting booth and RANDOMLY picking candidates.

I don't think the vast majority of Americans have the time, interest, or motovation, to spare researching Presidential candidates. We're too busy getting on with the business of making a living to really care THAT much (just look at voter turnout numbers), and no offense daniel, but I think that's a perspective you don't really have a great grasp of.

 

I'm still holding out for anybody for prez (Obama, Boxer, or to appease the right-wingers...Feinstein) with Clinton for Vice. 8 years. Then Clinton runs for Prez, wins for 8 years giving the Clintons 24 years in the White House. Imagine the devastation that would bring the neocons who hate intelligent, open minded people so much. I can't think of a better payback for Junior. Also, it's not payback which drives my fantasy, as much as a white house containing some intelligence and compassion. Hopefully after 16 more years of Clintons the unwashed masses would see the advantage of learning to think for themselves and they would drift away from lock step politics. By the end of my fantasy it would be time for another party, but the masses would use their new-found ability to think to elect someone smart, intelligent, compassionate and fiscally responsible. Or are fantasy's soon to be outlawed as part of 'national security'?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Dec 31 2006, 11:38 AM) [snapback]368938[/snapback]</div>

Feinstein right wing? Perhaps in relation to Boxer, but who's not? But as to your west wing fantasy: Do you really think that after 16 years of Democratic rule they wouldn't succumb to the corruption that comes with such power? Acton and I don't think so. West Va could become the richest state in the union should Byrd live that long!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Dec 31 2006, 11:38 AM) [snapback]368938[/snapback]</div>

See, I was thinking Edwards/Obama for 8 years. Then Obama for president, another 8 years. Maybe Hillary can be his VP. I think that's as close as she's going to get.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Dec 30 2006, 11:41 PM) [snapback]368876[/snapback]</div>

Many of the people didn't know FDR was "crippled", so that one doesn't count. But you could be right ... I feel better about Bob Dole not beating Bill Clinton!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 1 2007, 01:09 AM) [snapback]369182[/snapback]</div>

Yes, it does.
It's what I said. FDR wasn't campaigning on Television. No one today would elect a "cripple" president. We are too visual. As far as elections go, television has made us shallow.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Dec 31 2006, 11:10 PM) [snapback]369191[/snapback]</div>

OK, I thought your point was that we elect on superficial reasons now, and that's a change from the past. I don't think its a change, really.

The main change is that our move from a true party-sponsored candidate to a primary system has made it more of a beauty contest. When the party "back room" chose the candidate, political experts were choosing the candidate they thought best for the times. When we made the change to primaries that have, essentially, taken away the role of the convention delegates as the "deciders", we moved to a more direct election of the candidates for each party.

The unintended effect of that is that a few people in Iowa and New Hampshire have much more clout in deciding who runs than they should have. We keep playing with the primary schedule to try and mitigate those effects, but in the last few elections, things were really decided by the time the third primary in South Carolina came around. So IA, NH and SC choose our candidates. Somehow, I don't think that really reflects the American people.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 31 2006, 10:33 AM) [snapback]368914[/snapback]</div>

Daniel, What is a lurker? What in your own words is an extremist? How do they differ?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Walker1 @ Jan 1 2007, 05:12 PM) [snapback]369323[/snapback]</div>

I don't know what he considers to be an extremist (for me, personally, it's "anyone to the right of Michael Moore", but that's just me). But as for the first question, Wikipedia is your friend.

 

A lurker is a person who reads a chat board without posting. Someone who is intersted in what is being said, but does not care to participate. My point being that our audience is larger than the members who post in a thread.

An extremist is a person who takes an extreme position, often based on the rantings of a demagogue, or who himself is a demagogue, distorting facts or lying, in order to manipulate public opinion by playing on people's fears. Rush Limbaugh is an example of a demogogue, and people who adhere to his line of racist xenophobia are extremists. Another example of extremism would be people who assert that we did the Iraqis a favor by getting rid of Saddam, and since they don't seem to appreciate it we should nuke what remains of their country. For that matter, any time we lose a war, people who advocate using nuclear weapons on the country that defeated us, are extremists. (There were such voices after the Vietnam war.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 1 2007, 11:42 PM) [snapback]369357[/snapback]</div>

"extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, ... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue" - Goldwater

the Daisy ad - Johnson campaign

Who's the extremist?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RonH @ Jan 2 2007, 01:04 AM) [snapback]369396[/snapback]</div>

"This paraphrase of Cicero was included at the suggestion of Harry V. Jaffa, though the speech was primarily written by Karl Hess."

"Goldwater was an unwavering supporter of Wisconsin's Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy to the end (one of only 22 Senators who voted against McCarthy's censure)."

"In December 1961, Goldwater told a news conference that "sometimes I think this country would be better off if we could just saw off the Eastern Seaboard and let it float out to sea."" (I'm sure if he were alive today, he'd all get rid of the West Coast.)

"Goldwater's own rhetoric on nuclear war was viewed by many as quite uncompromising, a view buttressed by off-hand comments such as, "Let's lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin.""

Good thing Goldwater was never elected President.

"He was viewed by many traditional Republicans as being too far on the right wing of the Republican spectrum to appeal to the mainstream majority necessary to win a national election. "

I'd say Goldwater was an extremist. But if he were alive today, compared to what we have now, he would be more of a moderate. "Goldwater viewed abortion as a matter of personal choice, not intended for government intervention. In fact, his own daughter Joanne chose to have an abortion before her first marriage at the age of 20, and he supported her decision. He was also not against homosexuals in the military. As a passionate defender of personal liberty, he saw the religious right's views as an encroachment on personal privacy and individual liberties."

Says something about the conservative right of the current Republican Party, doesn't it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RonH @ Jan 1 2007, 10:04 PM) [snapback]369396[/snapback]</div>

I disagree with Goldwater's quote. On the contrary, you cannot "defend" liberty by denying liberty to others. In the context in which it was uttered (refering to Senator Joe McCarthy) the anti-communist witch-hunters claimed to be defending "liberty" but in fact they were subverting the Constitution of the U.S. and were denying liberty, not only to members of a 100% legal political party, but also to people who they imagined to be sympathizers with those people.

In other words, you would be denied your liberty, and often blacklisted and denied opportunity to work, if you had sympathy for people who expressed ideas the extremists disapproved of.

In the modern context, the U.S. claims to be fighting for "freedom" in Iraq, when it clearly is fighting for control over Iraq's oil. Most people who claim their extremism is intended for noble ends, have very different real objectives, not for public display.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 2 2007, 10:37 AM) [snapback]369557[/snapback]</div>

And yet Patrick Henry didn't say, "give me liberty, you know, the kind in which everybody's liberty is expanded not the kind which limits that of some at the expense of others, especially through such underhanded methods as private blacklists, or give me death".

I'm pretty sure Goldwater understood the difference. In fact, if you read the speech, you'll see that the immediate context was to rally the party after a divisive primary with the Rockefeller and Lodge wing, possibly what he was referring to in the "saw off the Eastern seaboard" quote.

But the point I was trying to make was your definition of extremism as "An extremist is a person who takes an extreme position, often based on the rantings of a demagogue, or who himself is a demagogue, distorting facts or lying, in order to manipulate public opinion by playing on people's fears. ", which pretty much describes the Johnson campaign as exemplified by the Daisy ad. Here's the cliff notes version:

Yeah we screwed up the Bay of Pigs and this Viet Nam thing might be getting a little sticky, but Goldwater wants to nuke little girls picking flowers if the Rooskies come!

By the by, that election was the first I was mature enough to pay attention to and form my own opinion about. I definitely remember the "who's an extremist?" context but perhaps not yet broadly read enough to understand the McCarthy background. I also was impressed with how direct and plain spoken Goldwater was. You didn't have to wonder how he stood on something or interpolate mealy, weasely campaign rhetoric. Something I've missed since, and probably explains a great deal of my cynicism.

Happy New Year.

 

He did have those cool bumper stickers, though:

"AuH20"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jan 2 2007, 10:44 AM) [snapback]369634[/snapback]</div>

If opposing the killing of anybody, and supporting civil rights for everybody, and rejecting a two-thousand-year-old book as a way of understanding physics and geology, and believing instead the evidence of scientific inquiry, if all that is extremism, then I am guilty as charged.

On the other hand, if extremism is claiming that your narrow interpretation of the above-mentioned book is the Only True Religion ™, and insisting that everybody be bound by your narrow moral interpretations of said book so that people cannot be married unless they meet your definition of what a family "should" be, and insisting that people who don't like our army occupying their country are all evil and should be killed, if these things are extremism, then the extremists are others, and not me.

 

Daniel, you ARE an extremest! Extremely reliable in the quality of your posts, extremely realistic in your thought process, extremely level headed, extremely above average in your politics, extremely able to spend the time debunking right-wing myths. OWN IT BABY! (disclaimer: Daniel and I have never met, spoken or pm'd, so no, I'm not defending a (close) 'friend'.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 2 2007, 02:56 PM) [snapback]369680[/snapback]</div>

Eerily similar to Goldwater's argument in form if not content! And for completeness: Wildkow's next post will have a picture of a little girl reading the good book while a caricature of Darwin as Aqualung leers in the background.

Man, I've got to update my metaphors.

 

I don't see why extremism is bad.

Most Americans were against interracial marriage
Most Americans were pro slavery
Most Americans were pro segregation

Saying the status quo, or what's 'normal' is somehow right is, quite simply, a logical fallacy.