All of the discussion seems to center around one party being better or worse than the other. In my opinion, as stated in other threads, there isn't much difference these days. One party is as corrupt and stupid as the other. If there is a difference, it isn't enough to mean anything.

Where the focus relative to politics should be these days is the public demanding better, more enlightened, more honest, more transparent representation in Washington. That's our real need. If we got that, then we could consider the flavor (conservative vs. liberal), but on an honest basis.

American politics has completely lost the scent, and the American people are allowing it to happen by focusing on the wrong things.

I agree, I don't think the two party system represents our fragmented and niche society anymore.

But I'm still more liberal than anything else. :P

You've still not supported that very well, but your follow on point is worth discussion. I don't think setting the parties equally bad is valid, all things done by the GOP taken into consideration. I'm open to this, but you need to provide more.

Remember, they had the full control, was their show, should be their accountability now, should it not?

So, let's say we just look at people. Funny, this exact line of reasoning has come up recently in casual conversation with clear GOP supporters.

Given the strong party unity, demonstrated by the current GOP leadership, and their tendancy to attack anyone that gets in the way of that, how then can these "better" quality people make a difference, and or actually get elected?

This is why I hold the line I do on absolutely no GOP votes, until the current leadership structure is gone.

We are essentially wanting the same thing to happen. However, the difference lies in how we see the result actually happening.

If you want to vote for better GOP members, more power to you. That's a good thing, but IMHO a somewhat wasted thing right now.

Better to work on campagin reform of some sort to correct the disease, not work on the symptom.

I stand strongly against Bush neocon-Republicanism.

I respect and agree with much of the philosophy of traditional, conservative Republicanism.

I most strongly identify with Democratic principles.


I think the problem here is that each party has a mainstream element (the majority of the members of each) and each party has a fringe ("extremist?") element. When one side attacks the other in this forum, it is often an attack on the fringe, and not on the mainstream. But the mainstream responds, saying "That's an incorrect stereotype - most of us are not like that." (true) In short, the political center in society is moderate, right between mainstream Democrat and mainstream Republican.

But in the halls of government - especially Washington DC - power is skewed to the right. The center is between mainstream Republican and fringe (neocon) Republican. Through this lens, moderate Democrats are considered the fringe, and fringe Democrats are wackos. Again, this is not true in the real world, just in the political world.

This is how Joe Lieberman (really a right-leaning Republican) can sell himself as a centrist, and why Hillary freaks out so many people as being such a leftist, when if you look at her positions oplicy-by-policy (forget her personal traits) she is a mainstream Democrat.

I have to give credit to Bush and Rove for re-framing the political spectrum in government so completely. They've convinced people that their policies represent the wants and needs of the majority of Americans, when in fact they are fringe Republicans.

About a year or two ago,I remember I wrote a big long essay (KSKD-ish, honestly, in the best sense of the comparison) on exactly how the Sports Mentality as it's been applied to politics is what's kneecapped our country's ability to execute critical thinking about our leaders.

See, long ago, the people in charge of these parties bought into this mentality, this simple, thin, almost empty and totally victory (and not advancement) based mentality, and have done their best to make every effort feed it, as opposed to actually doing their jobs to the best of their abilities.

And the people belonging to these parties learned to substitute their conscientiousness and their passion for a very simple and thin "Need to win" over the "other side" and this false adversarial relationship has subsumed almost EVERYTHING that politics has become, to the point where running for office is almost no different than surviving a professional wrestling free-for-all.

Until americans break their habit of looking at politics and their government the same way they look at the Lakers/Blazers game, the same problems plaguing this country, idealistically, will plague them for the forseeable future. The problem here is that it's entiretly too easy to STAY in that sports mentality, and it makes politicians too much money to support it, so that I don't see this changing any time soon, if ever, much like I don't see gas ever dropping below 2 bucks again. The people have proven to the government that you can turn the heat up on us like frogs in a pot and we won't bitch. There's no reason to turn it down, we're all too willing to hop around in the boiling, roiling, bubbling shit and croak mindlessly to the sky as if we're doing anything but waving pennants and foam fingers helplessly from the sidelines.

Interesting that Missing and Edselehr don't catch on even when it's laid out for them. Fatboyroberts does catch on and expands on the issue.

Missing, over the months, has degenerated severely into the trap American politics are in today.

Hey I grok that totally.

However, it's a process. I need accountability in that process, or we risk devaluing the law that will eventually empower and strengthen whatever solid change in this area gets done.

The no GOP vote, no matter what right now, is exactly that. It's gotta hurt before real change is on the table.

I'm not pleased at the idea of having one party again hold all the cards. I even like the party this time, if it happens!

But, the damage done really matters. If this goes unchecked, then we are essentially saying it's completely ok to game the system, and be sure to grab all you can while doing so!

Sorry, but that's not ok with me.

Actions have consequenses. To ignore that and just frame it as 'just politics' is stupid and quite harmful for all of us. It also makes us no better than anybody else.

I'm just not gonna go there.

So, that means we actually need to face some acceptance of what's been done, act rationally on that, hold people accountable, then move on. I don't let my kids pull this crap, I sure as hell am not inclined to let my elected representatives, who work for me, pull it either.

There is lots of dodging about this issue and I'm just not gonna dodge along!

I'm open to all comers. If some GOP members want to run as Independants, I'm up for that. But that group of people, who stood by and let this shit happen, need to be very strongly encouraged not to continue public service. We've had enough.

Some of them need jail time. That's what we do to liars and crooks right?

Again, defusing that sports mentality takes some strong incentive to do so. Where exactly is that gonna come from, if we do not actually step up and use the system we have to get there?

You can try and marginalize me, but the facts are all right there. I, and others here, have freaking hammered them home over and over and over.

The burden is more than met. Go back through the posting history. It's all there, and it's solid. I feel good about nearly everything I've ever written on these matters. Where I hosed it up, I made adjustments and refined what I believe.

You GOP / Resident supporters have not done the same in like kind. Until you do, you've not a whole lot to say about the likes of me.

Now it's time to act on what we've learned. --or are you gonna pull a Herb and hold that one issue over everything else and let the world burn in the hopes you get what you want?

KSKD-ish.... (I totally deserve that)

You need to post more Fats. Seriously.

"...she [Hillary]...is a mainstream Democrat. "

Nationalizing health care is a socialist ideal. So in that way, I suppose she is a mainstream democrat.

Herb

"...or are you gonna pull a Herb and hold that one issue over everything else and let the world burn in the hopes you get what you want?"

Mr. Lincoln did that with slavery. Ol' Herb does it with the pro-life cause, which history will see as visionary.

Not all of us are so easily disposed to throw innocents under the bus.

Herb

Oh shit, Herb's here to wreck a well meaning thread.

FLAME OF UDUN! GO BACK TO THE SHADOW! YOU SHALL NOT PASS.

Fly you fools!

The abortion issue has been one of the main elements of radically dividing the voters. That's a shame, because there is so much of importance in addition to abortion that this country faces.

Personally, I'm very much against abortion, but also against government regulation. Trouble is, the age old question of when a fetus is a person entitled to protection.

However, I'd really like to not turn this into a pro-life vs pro-abortion discussion. The issue has been discussed to death and there can be no resolution or advancement discussing it in this thread. I simply stated my position as starter of the thread so that everyone would know I'm not in lock-step with the Republicans on the issue.

The abortion issue has been one of the main elements of radically dividing the voters. That's a shame, because there is so much of importance in addition to abortion that this country faces.

Personally, I'm very much against abortion, but also against government regulation. Trouble is, the age old question of when a fetus is a person entitled to protection.

However, I'd really like to not turn this into a pro-life vs pro-abortion discussion. The issue has been discussed to death and there can be no resolution or advancement discussing it in this thread. I simply stated my position as starter of the thread so that everyone would know I'm not in lock-step with the Republicans on the issue.

Re-read this thread.

You guys don't want me to weigh in?

Then don't drag my name in.

Otherwise, I'm happy to opine.

Herb

I dislike seeing things get personal, folks getting labels, stuffed into ill-fitting pigeonholes and being marginalized for their opinion. If there is not room for everyone to have an view on any given subject from any given angle, then we are already a one-party system, and this discussion, and all other discussions, are simply facades.

To expand a bit on FBR's fantastic observations, sports entertains, but politics shapes our world and ought to be more important. Unfortunately, it is not.

Look at the current backlash against Sosa, Bonds, McGwire and others. Sure, they are recognized as stars, but really, even without hard evidence, few folks believe in them and even fewer folks love them anymore. Winning at all costs, with little regard for the rules, written or unwritten, does not endear you to fans (the public) for very long. A team or player that cheats consistently is not popular indefinitely.

Mental toughness has also been discounted in favor of brute strength. Watch "Slapshot" and tell me who the real winners and losers were in that hilarious movie. Being tough is one thing, but senseless brutality, like cheating, is more harmful than helpful.

Hollow victories leave you shining in the moment, but false achievements do not last. History is actually written by writers, not ballplayers or politicians, and often, with quite a bit of hindsight. Folks may seem to know their destiny, or can manipulate their fate, but in the long run, they have little control over their legacy.

Sports mentality is an extension of the classic black hats and white hats world. This seems to be a nice simple thing for Americans to grasp, and simple Americans do. The problem with the bad guy wearing a black hat and the good guy wearing a white hat ought to be obvious to everyone. In the real world, most folks wore straw hats and were too damn busy working to have gunfights.

We do not have time to don a cap or helmet, nor do we have time to legislate. We hire others to play the game. So long as top athletes and powerful leaders are almost all insular millionaires running willy-nilly, the reaction of the American people to politics and sports will be the same.

Until we can discern the differences between entertainment -- quick blowjob -- and the real world -- slow torture -- this nation will slowly marginalize itself into oblivion. Spend a little time on ancient Rome and it will be easy to find the parallels. They developed the modern sporting arena. They conquered and killed for theology and greed. And in the end, for all of the pious chatter and bloody crusades, the empire simply amused itself to death.

Ed hit on a point that resonates HUGE with me, and that is this redefinition of what centrist really is.

On another level, it's what American means and the spirit of what our founders started.

This is why I push back really hard! That's a gross error that's gonna cause us a lot of problems. Also, while it remains, we cannot move toward the better discussion outlined here.

I want this to happen.

If it's ever gonna happen, some acceptance of the damage done has to occur. This is happening with a lot of people. All good.

I don't think it's gonna continue, to our benefit, without some serious pushing hard on fundemental realities.

If you've been asked to support how a given body of people is good for us, and have been unable to provide that to a fairly diverse set of people, over an at least 4 (fricking FOUR!) year period, you just gotta question if what you are trying to sell is rooted in any reality at all.

LOL FBR

You must be a fellow fantasy/sci-fi geek!
Question: What is the best show on dish-tv?
Answer: Battlestar Galactica!
Question: The next best shows?
Answer: Pick a Gate any Gate will do "Stargate"

"If you've been asked to support how a given body of people is good for us and have been unable to provide that to a fairly diverse set of people..."

I recently ticked off a list of items. Just because you chose to ignore them doesn't discount them one iota.

*Historically low interest rates.
*Historically high employment.
*High homeownership with big gains among minorities.
*No homeland attacks since 9/11.
*People continue risking their lives to enter our country.

That's just off the top of my head.
If you really want to Trash N' Bash™, then no one is going to stop you. But don't continue to distort the truth.

I don't really have a dog in this fight and it's obvious you're simply pandering to partisans.

Do I think Mr. Bush is an outstanding president? Maybe, maybe not. History will tell. Yet he's visionary in some ways, like believing that all peoples deserve a shot at freedom. But in spite of all the liberals who mouth their caring about others, at least Mr. Bush has taken a stand at actually changing their misfortune.

Herb

Deane called me out on missing the point of the thread he started, and maybe I didn't address his initial comment as well as I should have.

Transparency is the key, correct? I agree. But if government becomes more trasnparent, who is going to do the looking?

The average American? - I don't think so. I'm too busy with my job, my kids, gotta mow the lawn, etc.

The Press? - good choice, but Herb says they are partisan shills of the left, so perhaps not the fairest arbiters of government action (too kind to Democrats, too hard on Republicans, dontchaknow.)

Blogs? - maybe. This potent force for divining information from the bureaucracy is just beginning to mature. Will it stay independent, or will the Lefty Journalists soon take over? Or will Net Neutrality die in the end, killing the small independent voices?

Transparency is a great idea Deane - it will help to keep the system honest. But we also have to figure out who to trust with getting the word out if more transparency reveals more damning information about government's actions.

Finally, as for it being a pox on both houses...over the last 30 years Democrats have generally voted for more transparency in government, while Republicans (most particularly Bush) has created more opacity.

"FLAME OF UDUN! GO BACK TO THE SHADOW! YOU SHALL NOT PASS." LMFAO.

Thank you Edsel and Missing. The basics of our democracy are at stake and you both nailed it.

With the recent GOP leadership, I saw old problems not addressed, new problems left unacknowledged, and massive corruption, quagmire and incompetence. With the recent Democratic leadership, I see old problems readdressed, new problems acknowledged, and ethics reform, massive investigation, quagmire and skill. So far, they do have one thing in common.

"Historically low interest rates."

True, on loans with conditions, balloon payments and strict guidelines. Foreclosures are breaking records too.

"Historically high employment."

True, based on a new system of accounting. If you use your unemployment, cannot find a job and are dropped from benefits, you are no longer counted. If you work for a temp agency that pays week to week, you are hired every monday and can statistically create up to 52 jobs per year.

"High homeownership with big gains among minorities."

True, based on a new model of loans. It is virtually impossible for a minority to get a fixed rate mortgage. Most loans they qualify for are low interest for the short term, but increase and sometimes more than triple over time. The foreclosure and eviction rates for minorities across the country are staggering. Especially when you account for those who have been gentrified and can no longer afford property taxes.

"No homeland attacks since 9/11."

True, and there were no homeland attacks between June 21, 1942 and September 11, 2001. There were also no homeland attacks between February 13, 1815 and June 21, 1942. Not a bad track record.

"People continue risking their lives to enter our country."

True, we are a land made up almost exclusively of immigrants. It is a wonderful tradition. My Grandfather came from northern Italy to find a new life in a new world. He did not want the United States to invade his country and tell him he was liberated. He wanted to be a citizen of the United States.

Thanks back Littlesongs!

Herb, you've trotted out that [short] list over and over and over, while at the same time working your ass off the marginalize the [much bigger] list of negatives and outright crimes!

Besides, you've already admitted you've got an issue you value over the American process.

Just so you know, I don't have one of those. Well, maybe I do. If anything, I want our system of government to respect the law in the same manner it expects us to. That's currently being forced by the Democrats, who were put there to do exactly that.

...continuing to destroy the GOP. Admitting their destruction now, are we? Hope so.

Care to tell me why that is exactly? Surely you can't believe it's all because of the Democrats just wanting to get back. Doesn't this destruction have anything to do with that big ass list, I mentioned above?

Just wondering...

As for your Bush sentiments. Sorry, but he started that mess in Iraq for oil, potential control of the region, and other things. If he really was all about freeing the Iraqis, he would have sold us on that aspect, not the lies about WMD's.

Also, he might have worked a bit harder to make sure we maintained the control we established after winning the brief war.

Finally, having sold us on the value of making the Iraqis free, and being up front with us about the impact, he would not have to hide the war spending as he has!

Note the thread I posted about the Insurance tax cut rollbacks. Your average joe is not gonna notice this 300billion or so INCREASE, but it's there and it will pay for the war at our expense.

(another lie or broken promise or incompetence, you pick one)

To everyone, I don't like this mess. I don't like having to continue to post the stuff I do regularly. However, I don't like the redefinition of what American means, the crimes, the costs, no bid contracts, corporate involvement, attacks on social programs via contrived money shortages, etc... more!

It's not worth it, we didn't ask for it, and these clowns need to own up to it, along with their supporters, before we can actually move forward and get anything solid done.

Hell, we didn't even elect these clowns! Selected, not Elected remember? The American people chose the other alternative.

They got confused in 2004, and were manupulated huge.

Finally, the pain reached a level where corrective action needed to happen in 2006!

Say what you want, but the healing has begun, but has not even come close to completion.

This is not partisan stuff. I don't have an anti conservative agenda, and I strongly support many republican and conservative ideas. Above that, I value being American and want our deeds to honor our founders vision.

Whatever issues I have are up for debate --as they should be. Legislating them via a power grab, blatent exploitation of our system of government, and other less than honest means, is a false victory. It's not true and or just. This means it may not be the right thing to do, even though it feels good.

I don't know where this is going....

How about this?

I'll seriously consider giving some ground, in exchange for some acceptance of the actual harm. I've not seen it from some here yet. Do that, and I'll back off.

Don't and the pressure is on.

Really there is no alternative. Yielding simply allows the problems to fester and that harms all of us.

Call me radical, whatever... I don't care. Either meet your burden where you disagree, or suffer repeated reminders of that failure.

"...you've got an issue you value over the American process."

Say what? Last time I checked, there are laws against certain forms of abortion and so-called 'mercy killing' is not legal in most states.

Many spoke just like you before slavery was outlawed. You're the one with an issue you value over the American process.

Herb

Define " American Process." - well, define it again, I guess.

Nope.

I'll always hear the debate. Frankly, I think we can get some middle ground established. Choice early on, near ban with severe restrictions later on.

So make your points and convince others and it all will work out.

Back liars, cheats and crooks, who would just circumvent the system and do your bidding and you value your issue over the process.

Slavery has nothing to do with it.

"Back liars, cheats and crooks, who would just circumvent the system..."

Your comment pre-supposes that only one side has dishonest representatives.

Plenty of scoundrels from both sides have been pilloried here. Your pre-supposition is flawed. If the democrats had such clean hands, none would be imprisoned.

Marion Berry.
Dan Rostenkowski.
William Jefferson.
The list is very long.

Better find another line of reason. That one doesn't hold water.

Herb

You didn't respond to Missing's complete statement, Herb.

I believe he is saying that you acknowledge much of the wrongdoing of the current administration, yet you still support it based on their being in alignment with a few of your most important core values. Absent that alignment (for example, if Bush were to become pro-choice) would you still defend the administration's actions in Iraq?

I don't think Missing is saying anything about scoundrels on either side of the aisle. He is talking about your defense of scoundrels - any scoundrels - that also happen to share your key philosophical beliefs.

How many misdeeds do you allow your philosophical bretheren (I assume Bush is one) before you are willing to take the keys of governance away? This assumes they remain your philosophical bretheren to the end, and their misdeeds do not threaten the key pillars of your philosophy.

Well?

"Absent that alignment (for example, if Bush were to become pro-choice) would you still defend the administration's actions in Iraq?"

If Mr. Bush were to become 'pro-choice,' I would have no good reason to select him over potentially electable pro-life Republicans.

But in his current attempt to protect innocents in Iraq, Mr. Bush remains consistent with the pro-life cause.

From where I sit, Mr. Bush is taking hits simply because he's defending the defenseless.

Herb

"From where I sit, Mr. Bush is taking hits simply because he's defending the defenseless."

Herb, you have a point. Looking at many of Bush's actions and statements during his tenure (stem cells, Terri Schiavo, pro-life, democracy in the Middle East) I can see why you would come to that conclusion about him.

And to be honest, I would agree that Bush's heart is in the right place regarding all these issues, and many more. I have little doubt that he is a good man.

And yet, I'm reminded of England's Charles I, who's battles with Parliament lead to his defeat by Cromwell and his eventual execution. Edward Hyde, author of the History of the Great Rebellion, acknowledged Charles' faults, but offered this intuitive observation: "... he was, if ever any, the most worthy of the title of an honest man - so great a lover of justice that no temptation could dispose him to a wrongful action, except that it were so disguised to him that he believed it to be just."

Short Charles I bio:

http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon47.html

Ed nailed it. That is pretty much what I'm asking, and have been asking for a while now.

I see that part, but what if said defense actually is causing harm to both the ideal (pro-life) and the people in general?

At what point does this harm outweigh pushing forward on the issue?

Also, what if the issue is just not a binary one? Abortion isn't, neither is freedom. History shows that freedom must be balanced for the greater good of everyone.

Abortion is similar actually! Both extremes have their problems. Too permissive and we abuse the freedom of choice possible. Too restrictive and we abuse the rights of women to be in control of their own lives.

It's all worth some discussion to achieve balance. When we make value judgements, that are absolute in nature, we are likely doing the wrong things, simply because all but a few situations are simple enough to allow for that.

Isn't the better choice then to move forward in a way that causes the least harm, while providing the maximum motion toward some greater resolution of these tough issues? I also find it quite interesting that a whole lot of effort is devoted to keeping us from considering things in that way!

The constant barrage of stupid labels is one example of this, that is totally easy to understand and fix, for anyone wanting to work at it. These are known things, yet most of our leadership and media continue to engage us in this way all the time, despite totally knowing better a high percentage of the time.

This should bother you as much as it does me and others!

Seems to me, when one is willing to do anything to see something, they become a tool. Such a tool can then be leveraged easily because it's behavior is easily anticipated and controlled.

From where I stand, the GOP has totally leveraged all the pro-lifers, by dangling the possibility they might see their extreme law rendered on all of us. That's a powerful temptation for someone who will do anything right?

Powerful enough to then justify all the other crap that comes along for the ride no?

Nobody wants to be a tool. At least I hope this is true... is it?

An example from my own experience, that I struggle with:

I said I'm not gonna vote GOP, for any reason right now. I gave my reasons and feel they are defensible, but that does put me in a particularly nasty position where my position on things will support a single party government, that may well get us into more trouble than not.

That makes me as much of a tool, in this dangerous regard, as I claim you are for holding the pro-life issue above everything but fighting terror.

Honestly, exploring this discussion would do us all a whole lot of good!

I don't want to be a tool, neither do you. Also neither of us wants more harm in the world than is necessary, yet we both are faced with tough choices, and that brings us back to Deane and Fats positions where we need to work on change to mitigate this bastardized set of choices we all deal with.

I will tell you this. At the end of the day, I would have to either not vote, or vote GOP, if the Dem vote was the only other choice, and it would cause more harm than good. For me, the question of harm will still outweigh conviction about matters in general.

But, it gets tougher to do this! And that's wrong.

Perhaps this line of reasoning, given a solid example and demonstrated harm and or false nature, would do well to advance the kinds of changes and people necessary for our system of government --and us, to function far better than we are right now.

"Isn't the better choice then to move forward in a way that causes the least harm, while providing the maximum motion toward some greater resolution of these tough issues?"

That sounds great. But it's a matter of who's ox is being gored. Great if you're a slave owner, not if you're a slave, or a pre-born child, or senile person who is unwanted.

How would your comment have addressed Lincoln's attitude toward slavery, which many liken to the pro-life cause? Answer: sometimes 'least harm' is subjective and not even the question.

"At what point does this harm outweigh pushing forward on the issue?"

What would Mr. Lincoln have also said about that?

Herb

Let's not guess - let's see what he DID say.

Pick the Lincoln quote about slavery that you feel best addresses the discussion:



"The Autocrat of all the Russias will resign his crown, and proclaim his subjects free republicans sooner than will our American masters voluntarily give up their slaves."
--From the August 15, 1855 Letter to George Robertson

"You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it."
--From the August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed

"The slave-breeders and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters, as you are the master of your own negroes."
--From the August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed

"I believe this Government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free."
--From the June 16, 1858 House Divided Speech

"This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave."
--From the April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce

"One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended."
--From the March 4, 1861 Inaugural Address

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling."
--From the April 4, 1864 Letter to Albert Hodges

"One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war."
--From the March 4, 1865 Inaugural Address

Here we go! Our resident educator, educating! Love it.

I like this one:

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling."
--From the April 4, 1864 Letter to Albert Hodges

I like it because his conviction is strong. "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong". Powerful, speaks to a set of core absolutes, from which we reason. I share this methodology.

"...Presidency...unrestricted right.."

This bit is significant in that he does recognize the government comes from the people. His role, as President, perfectly embodied here. That role is of leader, not dictator. He throws down the gauntlet --a challenge to the good people (and the people are assumed to be good, just ill informed) to resolve this issue and bring justice to it for everyones greater good.

Perfectly American.

As applied to abortion, a President today could throw down a similar gauntlet. We lack an absolute, like we do with slavery.

(slavery violates equality of persons under the law -- unborn are not yet persons, and intertwined with mother, thus not fully formed and therefore not equal --the core reasoning does apply, but not absolutely as with slaves)

However, we do share a lot of common ground. There is room to bring significant resolution to this issue, thus keeping harm to a minimum.

Again, a good President would encourage this. By doing so, would unite the people, thus freeing the energy of their deliberations to use on other issues.

A poor president, pushes a stand on the people, thus splintering them, and in so doing, consumes their deliberations to deny energy for other issues. This also brings leverage into play. A people so divided, are easily exploited for a greater purpose they may or may not share.

I like the April 4, 1864 quote also. For the longest time, Lincoln would not act against slavery though he was morally against it. His attitude was that his job as president was to protect the Constitution and defend the Union. If the slave states insisted upon keeping slaves, then as President he would have to accept that and find a way to make this country half slave and half free. He had no mandate or power to impose his morality on the rule of law. It was only near the end of the war, when it the abolition of slavery was clearly necessarly to preserve the union did he begin to use the power of the Presidency against that institution.

Great stuff Edsel and KSKD! I truly admire Lincoln, but both parties ought to stop pretending they have noble roots when so many of them were rotten. Thomas Jefferson is one of my very favorite American leaders. He, like all men, was flawed as hell, but his ideals are still the cornerstone of (potentially) the greatest system of government known to mankind. We have wandered far astray. This current administration would be selling pencils if we took the timeless advice he offered in this classic bit of prose:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

While we are patting the Republicans on the back for a handful of years in the middle of the 19th century, let us really see how long Abraham Lincoln influenced his party to embrace all people. I contend that history shows a well polished turd. In reality, his giant step was never turned into a stride until Dwight David Eisenhower was elected almost a hundred years later.

Since the Supreme Court ruling on Plessy v Ferguson made segregation legal in 1896, perhaps that is a good place to dig. It looks like the Republicans won the White House in a very tight and contested election that included third party candidates. This started a run of 16 years of GOP control of the Oval Office.

Can you point to any positive immigration rules, race reforms or civil rights legislation during that time period? Did the party fight that Supreme Court ruling with even a fraction of the same vigor they have used in the last 30 years in the fight about abortion?

The turn of the century saw great strides in technology. It was also a time of racial and gender oppression, forced child labor, rampant corruption and profiteering, secret societies, chaos and fear, yellow journalism, a bloody class war, and unjust invasions of other countries. Does any of this sound familiar?

Excellent, Littlesongs. The turn of the last century and the turn of this century have striking similarities. When looking to the past for answers about today you cannot cherrypick - you have to take the entire situation and see how it played out in full. There are no perfect parallels, but a lot of examples (and mistakes) to learn from.

"Can you point to any positive immigration rules, race reforms or civil rights legislation during that time period?"

While you're patting democrats on the back, remember it was the republicans who weren't AWOL in voting for civil rights, unlike democrats like Mr. Gore's father...and it took Mr. Nixon to start the EPA.

Herb

I can see how you would bristle at Littlesong's comments about the Republican party. But what I see as the point to all of this is that party labels become meaningless over time. For Republicans of today to call themselves the "Party of Lincoln" is innaccurate and disingenuous. Similarly, for Democrats to criticize today's Republican party based on the actions of Republicans in 1896 is stupid. Both parties have changed in dramatic ways, and may have only a tangential connection to their namesakes from 30-40-50 years ago or beyond.

Both parties can claim Lincoln as their heritage because both parties have taken ideas from that president and what happened during those times. The Civil Rights era is equally distant, and changes since then (ex: Dixiecrats have largely become the Republican South) make your statements above a moot point when discussing today's politics.

Finally, for the record, here is a summary of the roll call vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is clearly a vote based on regionalism, not party affiliation.

Source: http://www.bhs.bismarck.k12.nd.us/history/gov/civil_rights_act_of_1964ch5.htm

Of the 256 House Democrats, 152 (59 percent) voted in favor of the bill and 96 against. Northern Democrats supported it 141–4. The exceptions; Lesinski (Mich.), Hull (Mo.), Jones (Mo.) and Baring (Nev.). Southern Democrats opposed the bill 11–92. The exceptions: Pepper (Fla.), Perkins (Ky.), Albert, Edmondson and Steed (Okla.), Bass and Fulton (Tenn.), Brooks, Gonzalez, Pickle and Thomas (Texas).

Of the 177 Republicans, 138 (78 percent) voted for the bill and 34 against. The 34 Republican opponents included all 12 Southern Republicans plus Rhodes (Ariz.), Martin, Utt, Clawson, Lipscomb and Smith (Calif.), Gross and Jensen (Iowa), Hutchinson, Johansen, Knox and Meader (Mich.), Hall (Mo.), Battin (Mont.), Beermann (Neb.), Wyman (N.H.), Kilburn (N.Y.), Short (N.D.), Ashbrook (Ohio), Berry (S.D.), Van Pelt (Wis.) and Harrison (Wyo.).


(I wasn't able to find roll call results from the Senate vote. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and 6 Republicans voting no. Thanks to Herb, we know that one of those "no" Democrats was Gore Sr. BUT...was he voting his conscience, or representing his constituents, or...?)

Of the 177 Republicans, 138 (78 percent) voted for the bill and 34 against.

Of the 256 House Democrats, 152 (59 percent) voted in favor of the bill and 96 against.

Thank you for showing that it is the republicans, who like Lincoln, are actually the party of civil rights.

Herb

Glad to see Herb is now God.

Can't face facts, Chris?
Why do you hate Republicans so much?

Herb

I was a Republican for 30 years Herb. You continue to show to me the reason why the party is so off base today.

Now you are putting words into my mouth like "hate" just like Wayne. Don't lower yourself to that level.

There is no way the current GOP is the party of civil rights.

The Republicans of then bear little resemblance to the ones we see today.

Herb, when did you quit beating your wife?

Herb, you are a beacon of clarity in a world muddled with shades of grey. So let me ask you this: What should I do with Strom Thurmond? Voted against the '57 and '64 Civil Rights acts (longest filibuster on record for the '57) before turning Republican. And what's that all about? - you claim that the Republican party is (or was? I'm confused) the party of civil rights, but Thurmond and other Dixiecrat segregationists ended up joining the Republicans largely because of the Democratic Party's support of civil rights. And, Thurmond spends the last 39 years of his Senate career as a Republican, rising to president pro tempore.

You were making broad generalizations using Gore Sr. as an example, so you should be willing to allow me to ask about how Thurmond typefies Republicans. Up to his death, did he not stand for Republican values? Should I weigh his actions in 1964 when considering the Republican Party today?

While we are confusing ourselves Herb, how about the fact the Thomas Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican? So were Madison, Monroe and Adams. After those gentlemen, there were five Presidents from the Democratic Party and four from the Whigs before Lincoln was elected.

Since he won in 1864 as a member of the National Union Party with a Democratic running mate, he was followed by Andrew Johnson when he died. Johnson was a racist and a putz.

The National Union Party became the Republican Party and rolled out U. S. Grant. He took the opportunity to foster the most corrupt administration in American history. Well, at least until now. Grant was a criminal, and since you suggest that Republicans are traditionalists, he is easily the template for the modern GOP.

The next fellow, Rutherford Hayes was a mixed bag. He fought to protect the rights of Blacks, then he ordered troops to kill around 70 striking workers. He extended rights to female attorneys, then sold off the west to big railroads and timber companies.

Garfield was ambidextrous and his assassin's brain is in a jar. He was shot the day he started the job, had lousy medical care and died in six months. A typical American story.

Chester Arthur was next. On his watch, the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was overturned by the Supreme Court, segregation took hold and it effectively ended the Radical Republican movement. One should also note that the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, and we began to act like an empire in Central America and Hawaii.

The Democratic Party took over with Grover Cleveland. He said, "Sensible and responsible women do not want to vote. The relative positions to be assumed by men and women in the working out of our civilization were assigned long ago by a higher intelligence." That statement quickly undermines all the nice things written about him.

He was also a wealthy draft dodger who stayed out of the Civil War. He inherited a Depression when he took office, and Coxey's Army -- a march of poor people to the Capitol that ended in arrests -- later inspired a book by one of the participants called, "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz."

Between the two Cleveland administrations was a stint by Benjamin Harrison. Like a modern member of the GOP, Harrison thought it would stimulate business, so he cut taxes to the point that the surplus in the treasury disappeared. He was the first President to have a billion dollar budget, the first with electricity and may have been the first to have his voice recorded. He also was commander in chief for the massacre at Wounded Knee.

Toward the end of the last Cleveland term, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of segregation and our country was officially in a state of apartheid. Cleveland was the only Democrat elected between 1860 and 1912.

Neither party has done as much good as harm in the big picture. Perhaps it is time for us to start demanding more from our leaders. After two hundred and thirty years, we deserve a better legacy and a brighter future.

This is an awesome thread.

It is time to start demanding more. And what an interesting turn we have here! Going back to Deane and the let's focus on people bit, it's got merit. However, it really packs a punch combined with campaign reform, or some core change in representation. Proportional representation maybe, such that minor parties actually have an impact.

Our system is flawed in this way, where only having two parties is concerned. Maybe the two parties are ok, but with the imbalance of representation (corps, groups and substantial people driving both), it's not doing us justice.

One positive...

Despite all our shortcomings, we have established the idea of government for and by the people as being potent, viable and just overall.

Sorry to digress, I'll just read with interest for a while. (Go Little and ED!)

Herb said>>>
Can't face facts, Chris?
Why do you hate Republicans so much?

Tell us why you hate Libs and anyone that doesn't think like YOU????

Ah yes, Cleveland - the adulterous cad!

“As early as July 21 [1884] the Evening Telegraph, spread broad upon its pages what it called "A Terrible Tale," showing that Cleveland had once maintained a connection with a Buffalo woman named Halpin whose illegitimate son was later placed in an orphan asylum.”

“Maria Halpin was a young widow of Pennsylvania family who, leaving two children behind her, came to Buffalo from Jersey City about 1871, and found employment first as a collar-maker and then in the drygoods store of Flint & Kent, where she was soon placed at the head of the cloak department. She was tall, pretty, pleasing in manner, and spoke French. She attended the fashionable St. John's Episcopal Church and made numerous friends.”

“For a time she accepted the attentions of several men, including Cleveland, who was a year her elder -- she was thirty-six in 1874. When a son was born to her on September 14 of that year, whom she named Oscar Folsom Cleveland, she charged Cleveland with its paternity. Although, as he wrote a Boston friend when President, he did not know whether he was really responsible, he consented to make provision for the child.”

“Those closest to him believed that Mrs. Halpin was uncertain who was the father; that she fixed upon him because she hoped to make him marry her; and that he did not question her charge because the other men in the scrape were married.”

“All these events of 1874-76 were kept out of the press, and but for partisan malice need never have been lifted from the sphere of Cleveland's private concerns, where they belonged. Those who knew all the facts were never inclined to judge him harshly. A weaker or more callous man in his place would have tried, with some prospect of success, to deny responsibility for the child; but Cleveland saw the matter through in the most courageous way. He might have said, in the words that Alexander Hamilton used after the Mrs. Reynolds affair, that "I have paid pretty dearly for the folly;" but at any rate, like Hamilton, he had acted a man's part.”

“Had this scandal been brought out during the Chicago convention, it would doubtless have prevented Cleveland's nomination; had it been brought out in the last fortnight of the campaign, it would doubtless have defeated his election. But appearing when it did, it soon fell into its proper proportions.”

http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/z_x22halpin_g.htm

Sorry - meandered a bit with that last post. Just thought y'all might enjoy some juicy prose circa 1890's. Amazing how they could trash talk and be so civil at the same time.

Totally!

Protocol was more significant then. An insult, without some structure and substance behind it, is something uncouth to be uttered by the ignorant and as such easily ignored.

We could use a little of this norm weaved back into our culture. More than we have now, but less than back then.

"She was tall, pretty, pleasing in manner, and spoke French."

I wonder if any of these descriptors would apply to Merkin

Sorry I won't be able to make it to the Fool's Errand downtown tomorrow. The Domestic God in me is yearning to install a new glass door in the tub, and maybe run a mower over our happy little half acre out here in Sandy. Think of me as you quaff the refreshing beverage of your choice.

Some of them do!

You missed some of the good ones though! Guess, you'll just be wondering while mowing that lawn...

"So let me ask you this: What should I do with Strom Thurmond?"

There are plenty of wrong-headed republicans. There just happen to be more right-headed republicans than democrats these days.

I don't excuse anyone who throws innocents under the bus, regardless of political party. Were the republicans 'pro-choice' instead of democrats, then I would become a democrat.

Herb

"Were the republicans 'pro-choice' instead of democrats, then I would become a democrat."

Even though they are not the party of civil rights? Hmmm....

Edsel, mowing a whole half acre takes the other half of the day? Is it a Playskool® Bubble Mower? Get that door done, take a test shower behind it and come on down...

Thanks for the invite, and I really wish I could make it. Just a busy time of year for me.

Now I'm ticked at myself...got in a rush installing the new bath door and bunged up the lower rail. Have to order a new one from Kohler which will take who knows how long.

And the day is still cold, and the grass is not drying out. But then again, the bubble mower works best with wet grass, so maybe I'll try it.

"Even though they are not the party of civil rights?"

Exactly. Were the republicans to become 'pro-choice' and the democrats reverse their position, the republicans would lose any meaningful high moral ground for me.

Herb

Herb, did you just state that abortion is the only political issue that you have?

I'll give it to you, it would be easier for me to remember if I only had one issue to think about. I tend to focus on a trio: Liberty, Justice and the Environment. It is a list that predates our country, but what the heck, I love the oldies.

The uterus is a wonderful place we all once knew. I could not imagine constructing a wide reaching political agenda around a part of another human being. That entire individual has the Constitutional right to make decisions about every square inch of herself.

The logic in giving any political party any credit for being on "high moral ground" escapes me.

"The uterus is a wonderful place we all once knew."

This is the single greatest quote I've seen on this board, ever! So many interpetations!

Nice job Little!

I second that!

Nicely done.

I got fired from a morning gig saying the word uterus.

an unlikely utterance.

(yeah, it just popped in there)

Actually it was a comment from a story I read about a woman who had given birth to 55 children. I uttered something about an active uterus. I was gone the next day.

Was she from UTah-r-us?

You should have spun it saying you were speaking gutteral Swedish...as in "it's either yoot or us".

Needed you call in to the show back then MM. Where were you when I need ya?

The funniest thing to me was the way I was fired. The PD, who is a good friend of mine, came over to my house and we sat on some lawn chairs and he gave me my last check and said you're fired. Probably the nicest firing I have ever received.