|
When it has counted, Arlen Specter has been a Democrat for a long time. If we could have replaced him, McCain and Lindsay Graham a long time ago, we might all be in a better place. I know they would be.
As you infer, the bottom line is that it is unlikely to change his voting much. He was one of the more liberal Republicans; now he'll just be one of the more conservative Democrats. No big deal.
As you infer, the bottom line is that it is unlikely to change his voting much. He was one of the more liberal Republicans; now he'll just be one of the more conservative Democrats. No big deal.
I love the guy, personally, but I'm the one who refuses to join either party, and plays "devil's advocate" against both.
|
As you infer, the bottom line is that it is unlikely to change his voting much. He was one of the more liberal Republicans; now he'll just be one of the more conservative Democrats. No big deal.I love the guy, personally, but I'm the one who refuses to join either party, and plays "devil's advocate" against both.
You might be the future of the Republican party then.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Okay..having seen a portion of that movie, I am gonna make an effort.I believe Ben Stein is a pretty reasonable guy. In the movie he marvels at the complexity of the cell and doesn't seem to dislike 'science' as a pursuit of knowledge. However, in this context, 'science' has been used as a poltical tool in many areas - not the least of which has been a secular, murderous curiosity about eugenics before and during the Holocaust. In that sense I can see a legitimate fear that government using science to push ID out of the conversation could be a step to something larger. I am not trying to engage the ID in schools debate..I'm not totally decided on that. I am just trying to understand what that quote means when a guy like Ben Stein says it.
Now, to me, it is not the same thing as saying that a belief in micro-evolution (if I'm using that term correctly) is a belief that life started accidentally on the backs of crystals. Ben Stein lives in a world that has seen one holocaust, and seems noncommital about preventing the next one, as madmen insist that their brutality entitles them to nuclear weapons. I think in his case a little paranoia is warranted. We might pause to empathize with that.
But, I never saw anywhere in that movie (I didn't watch all of it) where Stein or another chronicler states that the pursuit of scientific knowledge is evil. Just that the methods by which science becomes orthodoxy these days bear some similarities to this...
You know, I like Ben Stein too, I always found him to be a reasonable, personable guy, and his quiz show was pretty darn entertaining.
But there's a part of his movie (and I watched it in its entirety) where he claims the theory of evolution lead to the holocaust. Seriously. He travels to Germany, visits the death camps, and then "quotes" Darwin to show how concept of evolution lead us there.
I say "quotes", because he actually leaves out a portion of the quote where Darwin specifically warns against and condemns the kind of thinking that Ben Stein implies he supports.
It was disappointing, to see Stein pull that kind of Michael Moore style BS.
When it has counted, Arlen Specter has been a Democrat for a long time. If we could have replaced him, McCain and Lindsay Graham a long time ago, we might all be in a better place. I know they would be.As you infer, the bottom line is that it is unlikely to change his voting much. He was one of the more liberal Republicans; now he'll just be one of the more conservative Democrats. No big deal.
I only think it matter since because of his reason for changing sides. I have little respect for someone who runs to the side with a lead or flees a fight he thinks will be too tough.
I like that Rebpulicans like McCain and Graham exist in good standing with the party. A party of diverse ideas and veiws to me is a stronger party then one that requires lockstep marching. I don't agree with either often but its nice they are given the freedom within the party to express their veiws. Also when someone like those two express veiws condricatory with the standard party line it reassures me they aren't just yes men.
I always like Bill Bradely though he was libral because I never once felt he was anything but honest and trying his best.
|
|
I only think it matter since because of his reason for changing sides. I have little respect for someone who runs to the side with a lead or flees a fight he thinks will be too tough.
Happens all the time, on both sides. Lieberman's case is similar - he lost his Dem primary, so ran as an independent and won. He still votes like a Dem the vast majority of the time. The only thing that's really changed is that letter behind his name on TV.
I like that Rebpulicans like McCain and Graham exist in good standing with the party. A party of diverse ideas and veiws to me is a stronger party then one that requires lockstep marching. I don't agree with either often but its nice they are given the freedom within the party to express their veiws. Also when someone like those two express veiws condricatory with the standard party line it reassures me they aren't just yes men.
Well the two-party system pretty much requires this sort of openness. When there are only two parties, you have to be able to get 51%, so that means they HAVE to be a bit more tolerant of dissenting opinions. This isn't Italy or something.
And of course the Dems have much less liberal senators than the Kennedy's and Kerry's and Boxer's, too. Evan Bayh for instance.
I always like Bill Bradely though he was libral because I never once felt he was anything but honest and trying his best.
It's always important to be able to respect good people you disagree with, just as it's always important to be able to disagree with good people you respect. :)
I only think it matter since because of his reason for changing sides. I have little respect for someone who runs to the side with a lead or flees a fight he thinks will be too tough.Happens all the time, on both sides. Lieberman's case is similar - he lost his Dem primary, so ran as an independent and won. He still votes like a Dem the vast majority of the time. The only thing that's really changed is that letter behind his name on TV.
I think there is a rather big difference. Lieberman fought the fight, lost and came back at the guy in the general election. This time he's running from the fight he thinks he can't win to fight one he thinks he can, and remove any chance of another democrat from running against him as well.
My good friend in PA hates him, always thought he was a Rino, now he just sees him as willing to do whatever will keep him in office.
|
I only think it matter since because of his reason for changing sides. I have little respect for someone who runs to the side with a lead or flees a fight he thinks will be too tough.Happens all the time, on both sides. Lieberman's case is similar - he lost his Dem primary, so ran as an independent and won. He still votes like a Dem the vast majority of the time. The only thing that's really changed is that letter behind his name on TV.
The difference between Lieberman and Specter is that Lieberman stuck it out for the tough primary fight and then decided to run as a member of a different party. He also won the general election. If Specter had done that I would have a lot more respect for him. Or if he had done like Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado did when he switched from Democrat to Republican, and asked for a special election to see if his constituants still wanted him to represent them. I just see this as a politically expedient manuver that argues for some form of term limits law.
The difference between Lieberman and Specter is that Lieberman...
"...abandoned the dark side and became a good jedi, whereas Specter finally became a Sith Lord"? Not that you necessarily are thinking that way, but that's what it unfortunately somes across as, when you cite two examples of "heroic" defections TO your party, one example of an "ignominious" defection FROM your party, and no other examples.
See, any claims about timing and virtue sound like partison justifications, unless you can also provide an example of one of your guys who "heroically" joined the other side, or one of their guys who "ignominiously" joined your side, or preferrably both. You seem like an exceptionally fair-minded guy; it should be easy for you to greatly bolster the validity of your point in this manner.
Personally, I have no problem with any of the switches you describe -- I start with the assumption that all politicians assume they can do more good by getting re-elected. If they figure their new constituents want to see a "fighter" who will "stay the course," they'll give them that show. On the other side, if they figure their new constituents are tired of fighters, and would prefer to see cunning and/or advance planning, they give 'em that show instead. It's ALL political expediency, though, so imparting virtue to the one display and baseness to the other isn't useful unless the respective party biases are taken into account.
The difference between Lieberman and Specter is that Lieberman..."...abandoned the dark side and became a good jedi, whereas Specter finally became a Sith Lord"? Not that you necessarily are thinking that way, but that's what it unfortunately somes across as, when you cite two examples of "heroic" defections TO your party, one example of an "ignominious" defection FROM your party, and no other examples.
Holy crap! When did Lieberman become a republican? I missed that totally.
There is certainly a difference between leaving your party and becoming an independent (without all the finacial backing of either party) and no guarantees at the time that your senority will be respected and switching to the other major party (and most likely getting money from them) and being guaranteed that your senority will be respected. But hey, don't let that confuse the issue.
Personally, I have no problem with any of the switches you describe -- I start with the assumption that all politicians assume they can do more good by getting re-elected. If they figure their new constituents want to see a "fighter" who will "stay the course," they'll give them that show. On the other side, if they figure their new constituents are tired of fighters, and would prefer to see cunning and/or advance planning, they give 'em that show instead. It's ALL political expediency, though, so imparting virtue to the one display and baseness to the other isn't useful unless the respective party biases are taken into account.
But that starts with the assumption that all politicians are in it for their own purposes and are willing to lie as needed.
I wouldn't want anyone like that in office.
But that starts with the assumption that all politicians are in it for their own purposes and are willing to lie as needed.
I wouldn't want anyone like that in office.
Don't get what you want much, eh?
;)
Clinton was my senator for a while, tell me about it. But there have been some good ones, like I said before Bill Bradely was exceptional even if I never agreed with him.
|
|
The difference between Lieberman and Specter is that Lieberman..."...abandoned the dark side and became a good jedi, whereas Specter finally became a Sith Lord"? Not that you necessarily are thinking that way, but that's what it unfortunately somes across as, when you cite two examples of "heroic" defections TO your party, one example of an "ignominious" defection FROM your party, and no other examples.
Well Joe Lieberman calls himself a Democratic-Independent, he never joined the Republican Party, as has been pointed out. You want sleazy switches? How about Robert Neall of Maryland. He was originally a Democrat and then switched parties when he faced a primary challenge for the state legislature and ran as a Republican. He ended up serving there for 12 years and then was appointed state senator to fill a vacancy after the sitting senator died. When he faced a primary challenge in 1999, he switched parties again, this time, back to Democrat. This time he lost the election. David Duke is another fine example of someone who crossed from Democrat to Republican that we would rather the Dems had kept.
|
|
The point that seems to be missed among all this is that the voting patterns of these people don't really change. And as long as that is the case, WHO CARES what their little party label says they are? Do you really vote for someone based on their party and not how they vote?
It seems we're missing the forest for the trees here.
The point that seems to be missed among all this is that the voting patterns of these people don't really change. And as long as that is the case, WHO CARES what their little party label says they are? Do you really vote for someone based on their party and not how they vote?
It seems we're missing the forest for the trees here.
I care because many people do vote only down party lines.
The point that seems to be missed among all this is that the voting patterns of these people don't really change. And as long as that is the case, WHO CARES what their little party label says they are? Do you really vote for someone based on their party and not how they vote?
It seems we're missing the forest for the trees here.
It really depends on the position being voted for. As I pointed out previously, if you are voting for a representative, then you are really voting for the party whether you are aware of it or not. If you vote for dem, then you are really voting to keep Pelosi in control of the house, if you vote for a rep you are voting for her to lose her leadership spot and the rep to take control. So if for example you didn't like what Pelosi was doing, but your representative was a democrat and voted against her on things you didn't like, you should vote against your representative, because that weakens Pelosi's control (less dems in the house means less likely chance she will be in charge). Yes, this might mean you actually vote against a candidate that you like more because the party they are a member of is something you dislike. To not realize that means you are voting "to win the battle while losing the war".
*Note you can switch dem and rep in the above and Pelosi with who ever is in charge of the house at the time.
You want sleazy switches? How about Robert Neall of Maryland. He was originally a Democrat and then switched parties when he faced a primary challenge for the state legislature and ran as a Republican. He ended up serving there for 12 years and then was appointed state senator to fill a vacancy after the sitting senator died. When he faced a primary challenge in 1999, he switched parties again, this time, back to Democrat. This time he lost the election.
See, just adding that bit strengthens your standpoint, I think.
But that starts with the assumption that all politicians are in it for their own purposes and are willing to lie as needed. I wouldn't want anyone like that in office.
In my experience, people who AREN'T like that prefer to follow honest trades, instead of running for office. And the few honest politicians we get turn out to be the worst at their jobs: Jimmy Carter was by all accounts a model of integrity while he was in the White House; he was also by far one of the worst presidents in my lifetime.
Holy crap! When did Lieberman become a republican? I missed that totally.
Evidently the broader point was lost there... luckily, David found it again.
But that starts with the assumption that all politicians are in it for their own purposes and are willing to lie as needed. I wouldn't want anyone like that in office.In my experience, people who AREN'T like that prefer to follow honest trades, instead of running for office. And the few honest politicians we get turn out to be the worst at their jobs: Jimmy Carter was by all accounts a model of integrity while he was in the White House; he was also by far one of the worst presidents in my lifetime.
Jimmy Carter was a good man, but not a skilled president. Bush Sr. I think was both honest and a good president.
There are some even recently that are both, why not require them to be so.
|
|
The point that seems to be missed among all this is that the voting patterns of these people don't really change. And as long as that is the case, WHO CARES what their little party label says they are? Do you really vote for someone based on their party and not how they vote?
It seems we're missing the forest for the trees here.
While I understand the point you are making here, I would like to point out that here in the west we have several Senators and Representatives that have a D after their name, but run on a platform of being more Republican that the Republicans. Then they go back to Washington and vote in lock step with their party.
Jimmy Carter was a good man, but not a skilled president. Bush Sr. I think was both honest and a good president. There are some even recently that are both, why not require them to be so.
I'm still glad I voted for Bush Sr.
As far as requiring, though, it's hard to tell until the cat's out of the bag. As David's and my exchange above illustrates, what seems like noble honesty to some can equally appear to be political opportunism to others.I've met Joe Lieberman. I liked him an awful lot. I'm grateful to him for the help he's given me, and for the work he did for the state. I still wouldn't necessarily trust him with my wallet or my daughter, however...
|
|
There are some even recently that are both, why not require them to be so.
The requirements of being President, as set forth in the Constitution, as fairly simple. 45, natural born citizen (sorry Ah-nold), and able to get the electoral college to cast enough ballots for you.
Integrity and so on are not there - if that's something we as a people wanted, that's supposed to be our job to vote in someone like that. Apparently, among at least 51% of the population, that's not a high priority.
I for one, don't give a rat's @$$ about honesty, integrity, or character in the people for whom I vote. I want them to espouse the positions I espouse on issues that matter to me. I want them to vote "my" way on bills that I feel to be important. I don't care if they screw their secretary, or sacrifice goats after work, or get hummers in the oval office, or solicit gay sex in airport bathroom stalls, as long as when it comes time to vote for smaller government, less taxes, and a balanced budget, they are there to cast their ballot. Your mileage may vary. :)
Edit: after further reflection, I feel the need to clarify that last statement. Any honesty/integrity issues DIRECTLY related to their job are a problem. Like the Gov. Blagojevich thing, selling senate seats, is NOT cool. Embezzling tax dollars, not cool. But once they're "off the clock", I don't care what they do with their personal lives, as long as it doesn't interfere with their job.
|
He's entitled to two 15 minute breaks. As long as he does it quickly, he's within his rights.
Personally, I like to sacrifice mine during work.Well, if I'm paying your salary, that's something I'd be against. Do it on your own time!
:)
Actually, we don't get those breaks, just a half-hour for lunch. We rotate sacrificial duties, just so everyone gets a turn.
I expect that no one I vote for will vote as I would on all issues. So I want the person I vote for to at least be honest. I'd rather they make an honest mistake in good faith then one made because they are after some bucks or a politcal favor.
|
|
I expect that no one I vote for will vote as I would on all issues. So I want the person I vote for to at least be honest. I'd rather they make an honest mistake in good faith then one made because they are after some bucks or a politcal favor.
So, you expect to be able at all times to ascertain the inner motives of people you've never met? You really expect to be able to know WHY they voted the way they did?
Of course no one will agree with you 100% on every issue. But I try to find people who most closely agree with me politically, based on previous voting record and positions. That person gets my vote.
|
|
Actually, we don't get those breaks, just a half-hour for lunch. We rotate sacrificial duties, just so everyone gets a turn.
He's entitled to two 15 minute breaks. As long as he does it quickly, he's within his rights.
Fair enough - sacrifice your goats during lunch or smoke breaks, and don't leave a mess for the staff to clean up...fine by me! As long as we end up with a smaller government and balanced budget, you'd get my vote!
I expect that no one I vote for will vote as I would on all issues. So I want the person I vote for to at least be honest. I'd rather they make an honest mistake in good faith then one made because they are after some bucks or a politcal favor.
So, you expect to be able at all times to ascertain the inner motives of people you've never met? You really expect to be able to know WHY they voted the way they did?
Of course no one will agree with you 100% on every issue. But I try to find people who most closely agree with me politically, based on previous voting record and positions. That person gets my vote.
If I trust them the why is simple. If I don't the why is not so simple.
I'd rather they make an honest mistake in good faith then one made because they are after some bucks or a politcal favor.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions... given a choice, I'd rather good decisions be made for bad reasons, than for bad decisions to be made for well-meaning ones.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I say "quotes", because he actually leaves out a portion of the quote where Darwin specifically warns against and condemns the...
Again, I don't think it's that Stein thinks that's what Darwin intended. I think that's how Stein thinks the Nazis and eugenicists interpretted it. More than a few genocidists rationalized their work with 'they're only animals', or 'we're learning to make our race invincible.'
Beyond that supposition, I defer to folks who saw the whole movie. But based on Stein's reaonability outside this issue, I think he's ascribing poor motives to the interpretation of Darwin's work, and not to the work itself.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Again, I don't think it's that Stein thinks that's what Darwin intended. I think that's how Stein thinks the Nazis and eugenicists interpretted it. More than a few genocidists rationalized their work with 'they're only animals', or 'we're learning to make our race invincible.'Beyond that supposition, I defer to folks who saw the whole movie. But based on Stein's reaonability outside this issue, I think he's ascribing poor motives to the interpretation of Darwin's work, and not to the work itself.
Possibly, but then why end his look at the Holocaust with an obviously intentional misquote of Darwin, designed to make it seem like he supported the concept of eugenics?
I expect that no one I vote for will vote as I would on all issues. So I want the person I vote for to at least be honest.
This kind of comes down to King Arthur’s question to Merlin in Excalibur.
What is the most important quality in a knight?
Merlin answers truth. I always felt loyalty.
|
|
I expect that no one I vote for will vote as I would on all issues. So I want the person I vote for to at least be honest.This kind of comes down to King Arthur’s question to Merlin in Excalibur.
What is the most important quality in a knight?
Merlin answers truth. I always felt loyalty.
Ah, but if they are truly honest, you can just ask them "do I have your undying loyalty?" and they will tell you. If they're loyal but not always truthful, then you can't really be sure, right? :)
I expect that no one I vote for will vote as I would on all issues. So I want the person I vote for to at least be honest.This kind of comes down to King Arthur’s question to Merlin in Excalibur.
What is the most important quality in a knight?
Merlin answers truth. I always felt loyalty.
Good point.
I would take truth. Loyalty leads to people to say they agree with you even when they don't. Loyalty can sometimes also lead to people doing things for you that you would never want them to do.
Good points, but what use do I have for an honest knight whose loyalty lies with another man? Should not a truly loyal subject be honest with his liege?
I do not think a loyal subject is just a ‘yes man’.
I do not think a loyal subject is just a ‘yes man’.
No; he's a lap dog instead... kind of like a toy poodle...
I do not think a loyal subject is just a ‘yes man’.No; he's a lap dog instead... kind of like a toy poodle...
Flagged for personal attack. :P