Swing and a miss, snapper. There is no equivalence on this as a matter of historical fact. And even if hypothetically there were, it would not rationalize the current-day far-right zealotry that continues to drive the GOP base ever-rightward.

Bull. Over the last 40 years the Democratic party has had the same "ideological purification" as the Republicans.

The unanimity on the left is every bit as strong around many issues: abortion, the need to accept any lifestyle as morally equal, kowtowing to public sector unions, trial lawyers and the environmentalist nutters, the view that any decrease in the rate of growth of non-military gov't spending is a "draconian cut" that will "starve widows and orphans", etc.

How soon we forget that Ted Kennedy was pro-life until the late-70's.

The Scoop Jackson Democrats are just as extinct as the Nelson Rockefeller Republicans.

Is an "act of terror" the same as an "act of violence"? If no, then the President did not label the Benghazi raid an act of terror -- he merely left that as a possibility as against some other act of violence.

You guys are priceless, absolutely priceless...

and by that I mean absolutely shameless

Speaking with one of the righties in my office- he rightly pointed out that "acts of terror" was kind of a lone throwaway line in a narrative that was largely: "bad video has made people riot"- but he also agreed with me that debating whether "acts of terror" = terrorism is monumentally stupid- the more it gets debated the more it looks like Romney's side is just playing semantical games...
On a personal note I think last night's debate left him depressed.

Over the last 40 years the Democratic party has had the same "ideological purification" as the Republicans.

Well, no. Just simply, factually, not the case. This betrays ignorance of basic US political history.

does anyone think that other than a few political junkies folks would sit through the 5 odd hours of a lincoln-douglas type debate?

Did the people in 1860 even sit through them? I understood these types of debates to be a huge community gathering, with lots of people moving about in and out of hearing distance of the candidates. I don't think that the audience sat on the edge of their seats for 5 straight hours listening to every word.

snapper

i consider myself a rockefeller republican

so yes, i will admit to being a dinosaur. but not extinct

not yet anyway

jd

folks would picnic and listen.

these were outside so folks would stand or sit on the grass.

and no, i wasn't actually there

And on name calling, I agree even louder. You could take every awful thing said by every newspaper and political candidate about Obama/Bush 2/Clinton and add it all together and it wouldn't match a good week's worth of personal invective directed at a presidential candidate from the 1880s. They were n-lovers and traitors and pimps and bastard children of Frenchmen, not in chat rooms but in newspaper coverage.

Or even the 1820s -- the legendary Adams/Jackson campaigns probably take the cake... Adams essentially calling Andy Jackson a polygamist and his wife a whore, while Team Jackson was accusing the Adams campaign of pimping out young American virgins to the Russian czar. Of course, the Jackson occasionally had at least a kernel of truth (Jackson did marry his wife before her divorce was final), while the Adams accusations were just nutty false.

Still, Jackson always blamed Adams allies for wife's death... and as we discussed in the Presidential cage match thread, Andrew Jackson is absolutely one man you did NOT want to have you on his enemies list...

EDIT: I would say, though -- some of the stuff that came out of the Arkansas project gin mill regarding Clinton -- I mean, we had actual accusations of murder coverups, probably hit the same level of debasery... I suppose it's just a matter of whether where you place that in terms of connections - do external, but allied groups count or not?

Well, no. Just simply, factually, not the case. This betrays ignorance of basic US political history.

Who was the last pro-life Democrat Presidential contender? Hell Giuliani could at least get a hearing from the Republican primary voters. Condi Rice got consideration as a VP pick.

Who was the last Democrat Presidential candidate to want to reduce the growth of Gov't spending? There are plenty of big-spending Republicans, including the last President.

snapper

i consider myself a rockefeller republican

so yes, i will admit to being a dinosaur. but not extinct

not yet anyway

I meant among elected officials. Those voters are still there, though not in the numbers they once were.

jd

you have to remember that other than the handouts by the partisans and partisan newspapers this would be the one chance for the citizen to hear directly from the candidate. folks would make a day of it. it was a big deal.

the folks who came were likely the equivalents of the political junkies coupled with committed citizens who are a minority subset today

the remainder voted based on what they read or were told by others.

or how they got paid to vote......

The unanimity on the left is every bit as strong around many issues: abortion, the need to accept any lifestyle as morally equal, kowtowing to public sector unions, trial lawyers and the environmentalist nutters, the view that any decrease in the rate of growth of non-military gov't spending is a "draconian cut" that will "starve widows and orphans", etc.

I doubt you could find more than 60% of Democrats on either side of any of those issues. The party is not that unified.

I guess, from an ethical standpoint, I would never vote for what I perceive to be the lesser of two evils, because I would never vote for evil. I'd rather not vote at all. It is abundantly clear that each party, in their current states, represent more evil than good.

you have to remember that other than the handouts by the partisans and partisan newspapers this would be the one chance for the citizen to hear directly from the candidate. folks would make a day of it. it was a big deal.

the folks who came were likely the equivalents of the political junkies coupled with committed citizens who are a minority subset today

the remainder voted based on what they read or were told by others.

or how they got paid to vote......

All true. We also have to remember how much more a role party discipline played back then. In many places you got your ballot from your party, and they watched you fill it out. Splitting a ticket was verboten. The newspapers were usually explicitly Democrat or Whig/Republican (you still see papers with "Democrat" in the name).

Who was the last Democrat Presidential candidate to want to reduce the growth of Gov't spending? There are plenty of big-spending Republicans, including the last President.

As a raw number or percent of GDP?

Both sides do it, yes -- but one thing that always annoys me about such discussions is how blithely people slide in between raw numbers and normalized numbers/percentages, depending on which point they want to make (and sure, I don't exclude myself either).

Who was the last pro-life Democrat Presidential contender?

Joe Biden.

Greg,

Good summary on your part, too, and the distinctions you made in your third and fourth paragraphs

People who vote for third parties because they say there's no difference between the two parties are just being silly. Of course there are differences. Voting for a third party believing that it absolves you of any culpability for the messiness of the world, though, is a pose, not a politics.

But people who vote for a third party because they judge the chance of eventual third-party success differently than I do, and are therefore willing to bear their share of the responsibility of electing their least-preferred major party (whichever that is), I have full respect for that. It isn't my judgment, but it's a judgment.

is an important one. What annoys me are the voters in swing states who say they voted for their third party candidate out of a sense of "principle" on one overriding issue, and then act all shocked, surprised and indignant when the candidate who got elected (thanks to people like themselves who refused to vote for their opponent) carries out policies that they both oppose and knew they were going to get if he got elected.

To take the obvious recent example, whenever I hear some ####### Florida Nader voter complain about Citizens United or the efforts to dismantle consumer protection laws, I have to wonder what the hell they ever expected from a corporate-controlled Republican? That he was going to appoint a liberal populist to the Supreme Court instead of someone like Roberts and Alito? It's the complete disconnect these "principled" characters have from basic political realities that's so ####### mindblowing.

I doubt you could find more than 60% of Democrats on either side of any of those issues. The party is not that unified.

But we're talking about candidates and elected officials. Republican voters aren't any more monolithic.

Who was the last Democrat Presidential candidate to want to reduce the growth of Gov't spending?

Barack Obama.

or how they got paid to vote......

Or who got them most liquored up -- many states still forbid alcohol sales on election day. I know Indiana didn't allow bars and restaurants to serve liquor on election day as recently as 12 years ago, the last time I was tending bar in Indiana...

cold

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

not voting could be construed as 'not doing something'

just saying

Who was the last pro-life Democrat Presidential contender?

Did Casey ever run?

Who was the last pro-life Democrat Presidential contender?

Joe Biden.

No. The "personally opposed but not going to do #### about it" is not pro-life.

Would you call a candidate anti-slavery who said, "I personally think slavery is wrong, but I won't impose that view on anyone else"?

you have to remember that other than the handouts by the partisans and partisan newspapers this would be the one chance for the citizen to hear directly from the candidate. folks would make a day of it. it was a big deal.

the folks who came were likely the equivalents of the political junkies coupled with committed citizens who are a minority subset today

the remainder voted based on what they read or were told by others.

or how they got paid to vote......

I loved the election scenes in Gangs of New York.

Would you call a candidate anti-slavery who said, "I personally think slavery is wrong, but I won't impose that view on anyone else"?

Ummmm.... That was pretty much the platform Lincoln ran on. I suppose you could wiggle with containment, but Lincoln tried to make very clear that he wasn't going to end slavery in the south. They didn't believe him, of course, and the rest is history -- but as Lincoln famously said, "If I could have saved the Union without freeing a single slave, I would have done so."

Who was the last Democrat Presidential candidate to want to reduce the growth of Gov't spending?

Barack Obama.

Then he's really bad at his job, b/c he hasn't done ####-all to make it happen.

Ummmm.... That was pretty much the platform Lincoln ran on. I suppose you could wiggle with containment, but Lincoln tried to make very clear that he wasn't going to end slavery in the south. They didn't believe him, of course, and the rest is history -- but as Lincoln famously said, "If I could have saved the Union without freeing a single slave, I would have done so."

Right. But Lincoln wasn't anti-slavery/abolitionist (though Southerners feared he was). Even in the Emancipation Proclamation, he exempted slaves in Union controlled areas.

Then he's really bad at his job, b/c he hasn't done ####-all to make it happen.

Well, except that if we had even average growth in public sector employees during his term -- rather than contraction -- we actually WOULD be looking at an employment rate under 7%

But we're talking about candidates and elected officials.

Nice backpedaling, but no, I wasn't limiting to that when I brought it up. I was talking about the degree to which the scorched-earth tactics that the far right has championed since the early 1990s has had an influence on GOP officeholders to seek to frustrate governance. There is no equivalent dynamic between the far left and the Democratic party, not today and certainly not in the 1970s, which you specified for no clear reason.

She was wrong for doing it, Andy. If the correction wasn't 2+2=4 not 5 she shouldn't have involved herself to side with her preferred candidate.

Did you read #2569, Ray? If not, you may find it educational.

I loved the election scenes in Gangs of New York.

If you only watch the historical bits and Daniel Day-Lewis scenes, that's a fun and highly rewatchable movie on DVD.

Who was the last Democrat Presidential candidate to want to reduce the growth of Gov't spending?

Barack Obama.

Yeah, as candidate he's claimed to want to do that.

Unfortunately, as President he didn't do that.

It's basically, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" at this point. I see Sam is going with "me."

Who was the last pro-life Democrat Presidential contender?

Joe Biden.



No. The "personally opposed but not going to do #### about it" is not pro-life.

Would you call a candidate anti-slavery who said, "I personally think slavery is wrong, but I won't impose that view on anyone else"?



Who was the last Democrat Presidential candidate to want to reduce the growth of Gov't spending?

Barack Obama.



Then he's really bad at his job, b/c he hasn't done ####-all to make it happen.

If only we had dictators instead of Presidents and Legislatures

And BTW, we have had 20 years of Republican presidents since Roe V Wade, some with republican majorities in both houses, and yet, Roe is still the law of the land. By your reasoning, there are no pro life elected officials in this country. Oh, sure, Todd Akin talks a good game, but last I checked, Abortions are still leagal in Missouri. He has done just as little as Biden.

cold

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

not voting could be construed as 'not doing something'

just saying

I call voting in the current system (which isn't even a issue for you guys, but I didn't vote in my own elections last year either) playing the game, and I'm not playing that game. Its funny you mention not doing anything. North Americans excel at that. We view protest of any kind as an act akin to terrorism, and always sit on our thumbs and say "Well, I guess there's nothing I can do until the election!" And then we vote, maybe or maybe not change the name card on the leader's desk, and nothing changes. Meanwhile, we've completely forgotten that the country would not even exist in the first place if it weren't for a violent overthrow of a tyrant. I'm not advocating violent revolution, but there is a wide spectrum of options available to the population between that and obediently voting every 4 years.

does anyone think that other than a few political junkies folks would sit through the 5 odd hours of a lincoln-douglas type debate?

Did the people in 1860 even sit through them? I understood these types of debates to be a huge community gathering, with lots of people moving about in and out of hearing distance of the candidates. I don't think that the audience sat on the edge of their seats for 5 straight hours listening to every word.

To add to Harvey's response, you need to consider the lack of alternative forms of available "entertainment" that people had then. Political speeches were seen as really big deal events for the small towns and whistle stops that they often took place in, and there were hyperpartisan newspapers galore to put their "correct" spin on the issues of the day and fire their readers up to even greater passions. Just imagine what the size of crowds might be like today if the "live" debate were the only way we could actually see the candidates in action.

One other point: Elocution was a big part of every candidate's repertory then, much more so than it is today, when even a moderately skilled speaker like Obama or a movie actor like Reagan is often viewed as something special. Candidates in the nineteenth century, before the advent of loudspeakers and microphones, had to develop the art of speaking both loudly and distinctly, and with liberal use of quotations from the Bible and other well-known literary works. They couldn't just rely on a few focus-group tested talking points and expect to get anywhere. They didn't just fall into those big and attentive crowds; they had to earn their attention.

Then he's really bad at his job, b/c he hasn't done ####-all to make it happen.

when was the last Republican President who made a sincere effort to reduce the growth of Gov't spending?

were you aware that Federal Governemnt spending as a percent of GDP has declined under Obama?

It was neutral under Bush2 but took a rolling ride to get there
it increased under Clinton and Bush1 AND Reagan
it declined under Carter
it declined under Nixon
it frist declineed then spiked upward under LBJ
it increased under JFK
it declined Ike's first term, then sharply climbed his last term

Rants, the ethical dilemma I see in non-participation is that it too is an action and therefore one that carries responsibility, right? If one frames the issue as soiling one's hands versus staying clean, then that's one perspective. But if staying clean entails increases, even marginally, the odds of one's least-preferred (or most-feared) major candidate winning, then the action of not voting carries some culpability for the actions that least-preferred candidate takes.

To me, no one's hands can ever be clean. Everyone is tinged with evil, unless you're talking about sitting in a corner while you let maggots chew your flesh. So it's important to me, at this point, not to fetishize the cleanness of my own hands, since they already are not clean. And it's important for me to recognize the responsibilities that the action of not voting entail. This hasn't always seemed clear to me. I voted protest and non-voted in the 90s. I can empathize with that viewpoint. But obviously 2000 changed a lot (not all) of people's views of this (though in that case I did vote for Gore despite pretty intense personal dislike of him.)

William Garrison is interesting for this. On the one hand he called the Constitution a covenant with death and refused to vote. On the other hand, he wrote throughout about the distinctions between candidates and did not often criticize his fellow abolitionists who did vote or even form political parties. He told them why they were wrong but it wasn't because they were impure; it was because he did not believe they could succeed. (He was tougher on Douglass who was his protege.) Other abolitionists of course decided to participate and some got horribly burned in awful compromises.

But in 1860 Garrison clearly stated why Lincoln was preferable to other candidates for people who voted, though he didn't himself vote. And he endorsed after 1862 many of Lincoln's actions.

So he wasn't anti-political per se. He believed control of the state mattered; he did not believe anti-slavery could control the state but weighed in to influence people who did believe that. That's an interesting position in the face of extreme discontent with government over an immensely important issue.

Even there, though, I have to say that for all his nuance, Garrison was wrong. Gerrit Smith and Chase and the others who got involved in the messiness of politics turned out to be right in that particular case. Dirtying their hands, engaging with evil, may have had a cost but came with a massive change in government. While I understand the impulse Garrison felt to keep his hands clean, I am grateful to the people who acknowledged their engagement with imperfection and even evil but created a different world. Maybe they soiled their souls, but is one's own soul worth more than improvements in the lives of millions of other people?

The narrower point is that saying both parties are evil is saying both parties exist in the human sphere, as will every other party that ever comes into being. Are there distinctions in the effect and kind of evil between these parties or between these parties and other parties that may come to be? Do those distinctions impact people's lives? If so, then I think the moral calculus changes.

Would you call a candidate anti-slavery who said, "I personally think slavery is wrong, but I won't impose that view on anyone else"?

isn't that the libertarian view on slavery? or is rand paul not a libertarian?

Then he's really bad at his job, b/c he hasn't done ####-all to make it happen.

And the cost savings in the Affordable Care Act don't count because?

If you watch some of the movies that cover the elections of 1968 and 1972 such of " the Making of the President" etc there is no way that you can compare the Democrat ideology then to what it is now. It was a time period where it seemed that the far-left had more of a voice compared to now. I would say that the country as a whole as moved more to right of center so the Democrats have moved more to the middle while the Republicans has moved farther to the right.

But what you seem to be at least tacitly approving is the neocon way -- harbor for any reason; you lack the will, ability, or whatever to deal with those you harbor -- and we're gonna invade and replace you with someone who will.

To me, that way lies madness...

Dealing with terrorism occupies a new space in between crime and war - and I do think the idea of limited engagement is tailored to a drone program run right (and do note, as I said, I DO have issues with the way the current program is run).

Wait, what? This is a complete misreading of what I said. I apologize if I was not clear, but I am in no way a neocon rodent.

What I was trying to say is drone war is bad. As a secondary point I did mention that if you believe the various invasions were done partly to "signal our resolve" and that is a good strategy (and I am not endorsing in this message either point) then we have already made that clear.

I think terrorism is best handled by a combination of diplomacy and "crime fighting". I don't think war is the right answer for terrorism. I really don't think drones are a good long term answer and for reasons I discussed earlier upthread (I can recap if desired, but it is sort of off topic).

Well, except that if we had even average growth in public sector employees during his term -- rather than contraction -- we actually WOULD be looking at an employment rate under 7%

Which is pretty much all state and local, not Federal.

Federal Employment is up 13% since Dec 2007, see here:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-31/federal-workforce-decline-growth/55318944/1

No. The "personally opposed but not going to do #### about it" is not pro-life.

You didn't ask "who was the last Democratic candidate who ran against his party's platform in order to line up perfectly with Snapper's conception of what 'pro-life' might mean." You asked for the last major Dem candidate for POTUS who is pro-life. The answer is Joe Biden. You see, in the Democratic Party it is possible for Joe Biden to be pro-life, but still be a successful politician, because contrary to what you seem to believe, being strictly pro-life is not a litmus test for candidacy. (That is to say, you're not going to get away with moving the goalposts now that you've been called out on the wrongness of your assumptions.)

Then he's really bad at his job, b/c he hasn't done ####-all to make it happen.

You didn't ask for a Democratic pol who believes in less government spending and also had a Congress with which he could fruitfully work toward advancing that goal in anything but spurts and stutters.

Candidates in the nineteenth century, before the advent of loudspeakers and microphones, had to develop the art of speaking both loudly and distinctly, and with liberal use of quotations from the Bible and other well-known literary works.

Except Presidential candidates didn't campaign, didn't debate, and rarely made speeches.

And the cost savings in the Affordable Care Act don't count because?

It's a fantasy.

Then he's really bad at his job, b/c he hasn't done ####-all to make it happen.

And the cost savings in the Affordable Care Act don't count because?

...there is none? Is this a trick question?

Another good post, GregD, not from UK.

If only we had dictators instead of Presidents and Legislatures

And BTW, we have had 20 years of Republican presidents since Roe V Wade, some with republican majorities in both houses, and yet, Roe is still the law of the land. By your reasoning, there are no pro life elected officials in this country. Oh, sure, Todd Akin talks a good game, but last I checked, Abortions are still leagal in Missouri. He has done just as little as Biden.

All Presidents can do is appoint SC justices, the Reps have appointed much better ones than the Dems.

On every bill to restrict abortion (partial birth, Federal funding, Obamacare, etc.) the vast majority of Republicans votes for more restrictions, and all but a tiny handful of Dems vote for more abortion.

the need to accept any lifestyle as morally equal

What, exactly, does that mean? Is it a shot at homosexuals? Because I'm pretty sure that Democrats don't view all possible lifestyles as moral (much less equivalent): bigamy, incest, etc.

Candidates in the nineteenth century, before the advent of loudspeakers and microphones, had to develop the art of speaking both loudly and distinctly, and with liberal use of quotations from the Bible and other well-known literary works.

Except Presidential candidates didn't campaign, didn't debate, and rarely made speeches.

You're absolutely right, and I should have pointed that out. Many people forget that the great Lincoln-Douglas debates took place during their Senate race of 1858.

And of course it makes perfect sense that this was the case, given the constraints of travel time due to transportation options and road conditions.

Which is pretty much all state and local, not Federal.

Current unemployment figures are pretty much all (GOP) state and local, not Federal. Good to have you admit that, Snap.

You didn't ask "who was the last Democratic candidate who ran against his party's platform in order to line up perfectly with Snapper's conception of what 'pro-life' might mean." You asked for the last major Dem candidate for POTUS who is pro-life. The answer is Joe Biden. You see, in the Democratic Party it is possible for Joe Biden to be pro-life, but still be a successful politician, because contrary to what you seem to believe, being strictly pro-life is not a litmus test for candidacy. (That is to say, you're not going to get away with moving the goalposts now that you've been called out on the wrongness of your assumptions.)

Again, he's not pro-Life.

In 2008 the Nat'l Right to Life Committee gave Biden a 0% rating. Ben Nelson got an 85%, so it's not impossible for Dems to score well.

On every bill to restrict abortion (partial birth, Federal funding, Obamacare, etc.) the vast majority of Republicans votes for more restrictions, and all but a tiny handful of Dems vote for more abortion.

The Democratic Party supports the rights of women over your religious conception of pre-birth "human rights." You don't like that. We get it. Nonetheless, there are numerous examples of Democratic politicians who are pro-life, contrary to your original assumption/rant.

Political parties are tribes with ideologies attached. Some folks don't want to be part of a tribe, either because the tribal system is bad or they are no joiners. Some folks want purity of ideology (to one degree or another) and object on those grounds.

But if you want to be an effective force for change your options are form/join a new and different tribe or join a tribe and change it from the inside. Sitting around talkaing about how terrible the system is, as an individual, is useless for causing change though there may be other benefits I guess.

andy

it was considered beneath the dignity of a candidate to do such things

And the cost savings in the Affordable Care Act don't count because?

It's a fantasy.

...there is none? Is this a trick question?

Someone should really alert the Congressional Budget Office, then, because they project substantial savings as a result of the law.

But we're talking about candidates and elected officials.

So am I. How well did card check, for example, fare under a Democratic Congress?

Again, he's not pro-Life.

Yes, he is. You don't get to tell another man what he believes.

In 2008 the Nat'l Right to Life Committee gave Biden a 0% rating. Ben Nelson got an 85%, so it's not impossible for Dems to score well.

Yet another example of the lack of a litmus test on "pro-life" issues within the Dem caucus.

What, exactly, does that mean? Is it a shot at homosexuals? Because I'm pretty sure that Democrats don't view all possible lifestyles as moral (much less equivalent): bigamy, incest, etc.

For one, it means trying to jam down our throats that homosexual unions are equivalent to marriage, and branding anyone who won't kowtow to that, a bigot.

It also means a general opposition to judging anyone based on the morality of their actions. Everyone who makes monumentally stupid decisions that ruin their life is a "victim" who deserves oodles of gov't aid.

Someone should really alert the Congressional Budget Office, then, because they project substantial savings as a result of the law.

You're not going to get anywhere with this, you know. In Snapper and Ray's world, it's a "government program," and "government programs" can *never* save money. They can only cost money. Any analysis that suggests otherwise will be dismissed as biased or somehow flawed, because it grinds against a fundamental article of faith.

For one, it means trying to jam down our throats that homosexual unions are equivalent to marriage, and branding anyone who won't kowtow to that, a bigot.

That is to say, Snapper is angry because his side is losing the hearts and minds of the population on continuing to stigmatize and oppress as second class citizens gays and lesbians.

So when did ideologivcal diversity become two (and only two) issues - Government Spending and Abortion Rights? Similarly when did Presidential candidate become a proxy for the whole party?

There are many other issues and of course presidential candidates are going to be more "pure" than a Rep or Senator.

Yes, he is. You don't get to tell another man what he believes.

If you say you believe one thing, and act in a completely opposite manner, I can say you don't really believe it. You can not believe that abortion is the termination of human life, and also that it should be perfectly legal. It's intellectually incoherent.

It's just like the Republican hypocrites who talk about the sanctity of marriage and the family, and then cheat on their wives.

I would say that the country as a whole as moved more to right of center so the Democrats have moved more to the middle while the Republicans has moved farther to the right.

On economic/labor issues the country has moved right, the Repubs have moved waaay right (and narrowed) and the Dems have moved a good bit right but are spread out more widely than the Repubs

on "social issues" the country has moved left, the Dems have moved left, and have narrowed, the Repubs have stayed with one end anchored at the right- but party as a whole exhibits a lot further spread on Social issues than the Dems do (in fact the Repub's left flank on social issues overlaps the Dems' position to a great degree) - but the left flank seems to be thinning out and the right flank is anchored pretty solidly.

For one, it means trying to jam down our throats that homosexual unions are equivalent to marriage, and branding anyone who won't kowtow to that, a bigot.

Anyone who doesn't accept that IS a bigot. What does it matter to you whether or not two homosexuals want to get married? You don't have to marry them, and neither does your church.

It also means a general opposition to judging anyone based on the morality of their actions.

Democrats aren't opposed to the idea of judging people on the morality of their actions. They just don't agree with you about the specific moral values of specific actions that you, personally, happen to find objectionable.

That is to say, Snapper is angry because his side is losing the hearts and minds of the population on continuing to stigmatize and oppress as second class citizens gays and lesbians.

Classic demonization tactics. Anyone who doesn't share your view is guilty of "stigmatizing" and "oppressing".

You can not believe that abortion is the termination of human life, and also that it should be perfectly legal. It's intellectually incoherent.

The death penalty involves the termination of human life, and it's perfectly legal. Is that also intellectually incoherent?

That is to say, Snapper is angry because his side is losing the hearts and minds of the population on continuing to stigmatize and oppress as second class citizens gays and lesbians.

The best part of this is that they'll get angrier every year as their side gets smaller and smaller on that side of the argument.
Eventually, in the future, they'll have the same cultural impact as flat-earthers and moon-landing-deniers.

Anyone who doesn't share your view is guilty of "stigmatizing" and "oppressing".

In this particular case, yes, that's exactly what's going on.

Anyone who doesn't share your view is guilty of "stigmatizing" and "oppressing".

Actually, anyone who stigmatizes and oppresses is guilty of stigmatizing and oppressing.

For one, it means trying to jam down our throats that homosexual unions are equivalent to marriage, and branding anyone who won't kowtow to that, a bigot.

I think they should be, but are not yet equivilent to marriage as defined by the government. Marriage as defined by individuals or the church I am not as concerned by. So following the Democratic process and getting the law changed is not ramming down ones throat, it is following the process by which these changes happen.

I don't think people who disagree with me are necessarily bigots. I think bigots feel that way, but non-bigots also feel that way. Trying to pick out one group from another is silly and wrong, there is no point.

Anyone who doesn't accept that IS a bigot. What does it matter to you whether or not two homosexuals want to get married? You don't have to marry them, and neither does your church.


Then you're a bigot. I, and the vast majority of the world's population believe homosexual acts are immoral, mostly based on religious grounds.

If you say that anyone who holds the beliefs of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Orthodox Judaism, Islam, etc. on homosexuality is a bigot, then you are a bigot against those religions.

And BTW, we have had 20 years of Republican presidents since Roe V Wade, some with republican majorities in both houses, and yet, Roe is still the law of the land.

The anti-abortion movement has never had a majority on the Court to reverse Roe, nor have they ever had enough support to pass a Constitutional amendment on the subject. They win a lot of elections because they're very well-organized and have a fair number of people willing to vote single-issue pro-life in elections at all levels.

Some of their leaders are sincere and some aren't. Sometimes I can't tell. (I'm suspicious of the ones who seem to care a lot of about government policy that concerns helping the fetus but view government policy designed to help children born to unfortunate circumstances is a waste of their hard-earned money, which at this particular point in our political history is most of them.)

I further suspect that the Republican Party has no interest in actually outlawing abortion. They would face a backlash from women (including some relatively conservative ones who assume they weren't serious about the abortion stuff) and you'd suddenly start seeing a lot more single-issue pro-choice voters than you do now. And one of biggest engines of support for a lot of other issues would lose a lot of steam.

Eventually, in the future, they'll have the same cultural impact as flat-earthers and moon-landing-deniers.

Oh, but would that day hurry up and arrive.

Someone should really alert the Congressional Budget Office, then, because they project substantial savings as a result of the law.

Someone should familiarize someone with what the CBO's role is and how it arrives at its projections. Both of those someones are you.

(And, no, I'm not talking about the CBO being biased.)

Calling a bigot a bigot makes me a bigot?

So following the Democratic process and getting the law changed is not ramming down ones throat, it is following the process by which these changes happen.

Except virtually everywhere that people have been allowed to vote, they've upheld the traditional definition of marriage. That hasn't stopped the left from trying to get judges to impose their view by fiat.

For one, it means trying to jam down our throats that homosexual unions are equivalent to marriage, and branding anyone who won't kowtow to that, a bigot.

You may call marriage - and define it - however you wish based on whatever drives your views. I will even go so far as make it an ironclad promise that the Catholic church will never be forced to perform and bless such things.

However, we live in a secular Republic, NOT a theocracy -- so your religious views on the matter in the larger context of our secular society mean precisely jackshit to me.

If you say you believe one thing, and act in a completely opposite manner, I can say you don't really believe it. You can not believe that abortion is the termination of human life, and also that it should be perfectly legal. It's intellectually incoherent.

Joe Biden says he is pro-life. He seems to be a devout Catholic in all other aspects of his life, and I have no reason to doubt him. He seems to have made a pragmatic calculation that his moral beliefs in other areas - care for the working class, equality for minorities, etc - outweigh his moral disagreement with the Democratic platform on the issue of abortion.

This is not intellectually incoherent. It's simply working in the real world, rather than in an ideologically rigid construct.

If you say that anyone who holds the beliefs of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Orthodox Judaism, Islam, etc. on homosexuality is a bigot, then you are a bigot against those religions.

Would you say that people who don't share your view on this are stigmatizing and oppressing you?

You can not believe that abortion is the termination of human life, and also that it should be perfectly legal. It's intellectually incoherent.

No. It might be morally incoherent, but it is not intellectually incoherent at all. The reason is of course the world is not a simple good versus bad, but various conflicting concerns. One can believe that abortion is termination of human life and wrong and also believe that forcing a woman to carry a baby to term against her desire is also wrong. Then they have to judge the relative wrongness.

In YOUR opinion (and others) the former far supercedes the latter on moral grounds. However that is a moral judgement and not an intellectual one. You can say Joe Biden is acting in a morally incorrect way (according to you), but he could easily (I don't know the details of his opinions on this subject I admit) have an intellectual and (to him) morally coherent argument.

Again, he's not pro-Life.

Yes, he is. You don't get to tell another man what he believes.

You can tell another man that you don't believe him when he says he believes "X"

I really don't think Joe Biden is "Pro Life" as that term is generally understood
I don't think Scott DesJarlais is "Pro life" either

political disclaimer

Except virtually everywhere that people have been allowed to vote, they've upheld the traditional definition of marriage.

In California 16 counties voted to reject Prop 8 and among non-black voters it was virtually a tie statewide.

Classic demonization tactics. Anyone who doesn't share your view is guilty of "stigmatizing" and "oppressing".

Well, I consider the idea of jailing someone because of the gender of person they love (which is not directly the issue here, but was the law of the land until very recently, as in BTF actually existed when it changed, in much of the USA) to be a pretty obvious instance of "oppression."

If you say you believe one thing, and act in a completely opposite manner, I can say you don't really believe it. You can not believe that abortion is the termination of human life, and also that it should be perfectly legal. It's intellectually incoherent.

Isn't sometimes not acting on your beliefs part of being a public servant? Your first priority should be to act in furtherance of what you think is the greater good, whether or not that specifically aligns with your personal beliefs.

When I was a clerk, I worked for a federal appellate judge who was staunchly anti-death penalty. But we were in Texas, and so executions came up through our court. On those days, she would work from home, as she couldn't stand to be at work knowing what was going on. But she ruled on each case fairly, considering the specific facts, and never once tipped the scales in favor of not executing when the various appeals came through unless the facts and the law supported such a conclusion.

We don't always believe in the things that are the best for society, and I think it's probably difficult at times to set aside your personal beliefs to act in the common good. It shouldn't be held up as some kind of personal shortcoming when someone is asked to do so.

Joe Biden says he is pro-life. He seems to be a devout Catholic in all other aspects of his life, and I have no reason to doubt him. He seems to have made a pragmatic calculation that his moral beliefs in other areas - care for the working class, equality for minorities, etc - outweigh his moral disagreement with the Democratic platform on the issue of abortion.

This is not intellectually incoherent. It's simply working in the real world, rather than in an ideologically rigid construct.

Or - it's simply an acknowledgment that he's elected to serve more than just @#@!#!@ Catholics...

Why is the idea that we're electing people to serve as officials and decision makers for all us in a secular government, NOT GD church deacons such a difficult thing?

The death penalty involves the termination of human life, and it's perfectly legal. Is that also intellectually incoherent?

Maybe, to be fair to the Catholic Church it is (unlike most protestant evangelical churches) against the death penalty as being anti-life- so it is in fact more consistently pro-life than rightwing bible thumping protestant evangelicals.

Except virtually everywhere that people have been allowed to vote, they've upheld the traditional definition of marriage. That hasn't stopped the left from trying to get judges to impose their view by fiat.

Yes, Arthur, and if the slave-holding south had held a popular vote upholding or downvoting slavery, guess what would have happened!

The US Constitution states, explicitly, that the government may not be religious in nature.

The US Constitution states, explicitly, that all citizens must be treated equally under the law.

Yet you want to impose a religious orthodoxy on a secular population, in order to deny a hated minority equal protection under the law.

You can't do that. Not unless you amend the Constitution. Have at that. But you probably want to get to work on it, because a generation from now your position will be as absurd to the majority of Americans as denying interracial marriage is to today's population.

Ridicule on the internet does not, without much more, constitute persecution. Nor does the refusal of a state to implement a theocracy based on your religious beliefs.

Except virtually everywhere that people have been allowed to vote, they've upheld the traditional definition of marriage. That hasn't stopped the left from trying to get judges to impose their view by fiat.

So judges are not part of how our society runs now? I am pretty sure the judicial branch is one of the big three as outlined in the constitution. And unlike Ray, when a vote/process goes against me (my side) I don't declare it wrong and invalid (see ObamaCare and the Supreme Court).

Those times when the process (either judicial or popular vote) goes against I don't run around claiming anyone is "shoving it down my throat" I just keep working towards what I believe. If you are cheering when the process delivers results you like you should at least accept it when it doesn't, though of course nothing is settled forever so keep fighting for what you believe, I know I plan to.

does anyone think that other than a few political junkies folks would sit through the 5 odd hours of a lincoln-douglas type debate?

We’d be surprised what people will do if they have to, if they don't have much of an alternative to pass the time and socially engage. In an age of great preachers, the great poet John Donne was also a great preacher, and people flocked to hear his sermons, sermons that often were really subtle and complex theological and philosophical arguments. The congregation loved it. Do away with texting and twittering and blog responses in the form of one snark after another, and you might be surprised at what eventuates. People will be entertained and edified (or, rather, have their beliefs and biases confirmed), one way or another. But, of course, every organism seeks to find its level.

Maybe, to be fair to the Catholic Church it is (unlike most protestant evangelical churches) against the death penalty as being anti-life- so it is in fact more consistently pro-life than rightwing bible thumping protestant evangelicals.

This is true. I assume Snap is in line with Church doctrine here and opposes the death penalty (and torture, etc.)

We’d be surprised what people will do if they have to, if they don't have much of an alternative to pass the time and socially engage. In an age of great preachers, the great poet John Donne was also a great preacher, and people flocked to hear his sermons, sermons that often were really subtle and complex theological and philosophical arguments. The congregation loved it. Do away with texting and twittering and blog responses in the form of one snark after another, and you might be surprised at what eventuates. People will be entertained and edified (or, rather, have their beliefs and biases confirmed), one way or another. But, of course, every organism seeks to find its level.

Well, the snark has come about because people for the most part have come to realize how corrupt power really is and much our leaders really do have feet of clay.

I'm guessing most undecideds want a mythical candidate who agrees with them on every single issue, and is not an egomaniacal jerk who runs negative ads and plays petty politics. No such person exists.

No such person could exist. That is not a recipe for thriving; that is what gets you extinct. There is a price to be paid for everything, and if you are going to depend on the kindness of strangers, expect to get ######.

Same goes for insisting that wars be fought like it’s a Kennedy family touch football game. How many times must we learn that fighting wars with high principles about concern for the adversary is good way to confuse and demoralize a country. Need I give examples?

GregD, I appreciate your thoughtful response. I know what you mean, and up until the last two decades I felt the same way, but the behaviour of western governments, especially the US, in this time period has become so blatantly counter to the best interests of the vast majority of their populations that its become clear we're being taken for chumps. Both parties in the US are unequivocally controlled by corporate lobbies, especially the banking sector. We can't be satisfied with the marginal improvements that may occur when voting one party over the other.

Today I just found out that Stephen Harper is about to sign into law a sweeping trade deal with China that will authorize the $15 billion acquisition Nexen, a large stakeholder in our oil sands, by CNOOC, a Chinese oil giant (i.e. the Chinese government). The deal also stipulates that the Chinese can sue any level of government for actions it deems to be against its economic interests....through a secret tribunal. This is called investor-state arbitration. They can also employ only Chinese labour if they so choose, and use only Chinese-produced materials and equipment. Also under the deal, no Canadian gov't can sue China for breaking any Canadian laws.

Harper sells out his country

This is outright treason, yet its to be signed into law on November 1st with no debate in our House of Commons. Obviously the official opposition doesn't seem to give a damn. Are you saying we should just wait until the next election?

We have become so utterly complacent that Prime Ministers, Presidents, Cabinet Ministers/Secretaries, Senators and MPs/Congressmen feel free to do whatever the #### they want to advance their personal goals, whether they be economic or solely egomaniacal. They feel no shame whatsoever when they lie to our face, and they will not stop until we demand accountability. Voting every four years isn't a very effective method for that.

Well, the snark has come about because people for the most part have come to realize how corrupt power really is and much our leaders really do have feet of clay.

This has been true for a very long time. You should, for example, read what people were saying about Robert Cecil, the chief minister for Elizabeth I and James I.

Harper sells out his country


Man, Bryce really is a douche.

Hell Giuliani could at least get a hearing from the Republican primary voters.

I am going to politely challenge the notion that the level of support for Giuliani in the republican primaries constitutes reasonable evidence for your contention that republican primary voters have a more open mind on the issue of abortion than democratic primary voters.

In California 16 counties voted to reject Prop 8 and among non-black voters it was virtually a tie statewide.

Why would you exclude black voters???

This is true. I assume Snap is in line with Church doctrine here and opposes the death penalty (and torture, etc.)

Once again, you don't understand Church doctrine.

There is no Catholic doctrine that prohibits the death penalty. It is a matter of "prudential judgement", like when a war is just, or how high taxes should be, left to each Catholic to decide given the circumstances of their society.

See the letter from then-Cardinal Ratzinger to the US Bishops.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.htm

Here's the core quote.

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.