I brought this up in an earlier post. I truely believe Gore will step in, but if/when a frontrunner stumbles. Remember, RFK didn't enter the '68 race until the Spring of that election year, mainly due to Eugene McCarthy challenging the politics of LBJ, and starting to divide the party. McCarthy couldn't win, but Kennedy might have.

Plenty of time for Gore to wait and seize the moment.

I wish Gore would run but I don't think he will.

One problem with your comparison between 68 and 08: in 68, the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries weren't so important as they are today, plus the rest of the primaries weren't so front-loaded. Candidates could get a much later start then than they can today. For 2008, it should all be over by February (which is rather silly if you ask me - but that's what's probably going to happen).

But you are right: if a tornado strikes the site of one of the Democratic debates and sends all the current candidates down the yellow brick road, someone could jump in late. Gore MIGHT do it IF there's a big opening when something unexpected happens, but it would have to be quite dramatic I think. But, you never know. If Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are still standing in January 2008 I don't think anyone else could jump in.

Andrew

Andrew, valid points, but in the end it comes down to a numbers game. It STILL is about gaining enough delegates for nomination, and while the media and other factors force more importance to the early primaries, things can change quickly. The desire for States to move up their primaries hurts the process IMHO. It's almost an ego thing among states, and that does not help the country as a whole.

My perfect scenerio would be a maximum of three state primaries per month from Jan through April, then let everyone else do what they want in May and June. Then you would have a more equal, fair, and realistic view of where things stand going into the conventions. Plus it would make conventions interesting again!

I respect Gore but hope he doesn't run. I don't want Clinton either. New blood is needed, which is why I support Obama. I wouldn't mind Richardson or Edwards, either.

I'm not sure that "new blood" is a good enough reason to support Obama. What kind of decisions would he make as president? What is he likely to do? Whom would he appoint in his cabinet? Does he have the judgement to be president? We should be asking these questions of all the candidates, acutually. (To me, issues are secondary if you agree with the candidate on very basic issues.)

Unfortunately we don't get much of this information in the media. Instead we get horse races. Who's ahead in the polls? Who raised the most money? What cute nickname did Maureen Dowd give John Edwards this week?

I'm starting a little research project. Of the major candidates, especially the ones we know least about (let's face it, we know a LOT about Hillary and McCain), what kinds of choices have they made at important times in their political careers? Who did they hire as their chiefs of staff? What happened to these people - where are they now and what do they say about the candidate now? I'm really curious about this kind of stuff.

By the way, I'm planning a trip to New Hampshire in October to see some of the primary events if I can.

Andrew

I need to look more at Richardson. I like his energy idea's not sure where he stands on the other issues to well.

Chris, what the point at looking at Richardson? Hillary already has the nomination.

That may be the perception, and that is why many democrats are so worried. And that is why Gore may enter. I think things are going to get very interesting in the next 9 months.

This week a nuclear power plant in Japan was ablaze and leaked radioactivity into the ocean after a massive earthquake. There are wildfires raging across our country, even while communities recover from floods in other parts of the land. Still, folks think Al Gore is a non-factor. I think he is quietly building a great deal of support. I think that if he runs again, he can win it, again.

Seriously, I don't see how Hillary Clinton doesn't get the nomination.

The problem with Hillary is that many Democrats aren't crazy about her. Why do you think she isn't way ahead of Obama in all the polls? Democrats haven't united behind her like the Republicans did in 1999 behind Bush, making him the obvious frontrunner. Hillary ought to be now. Given her prominence coming in to this, and the fact that a guy no one had ever heard of in 2004 is now neck and neck with her in polls, she's got every reason to be worried.

Andrew

I'm in that camp. Hilary has not exactly demonstrated she is the best choice. It's not too good when women, excited early on, now are having second thoughts.

IMHO, she's too divisive.

I like the idea of Obama, but... that's about it. So far, he's been drawing the crowds, but I just don't see that winning spark.

Edwards remains my ideal choice, of the runners so far. Gore would trump him, but that's not an option just yet.

One thing I really like about Edwards is he seems to be willing to lead. Often we see Hilary or Obama holding back just a bit, as if they are waiting to say what people want to hear. At least that's my perception.

Edwards has done less of that, and he's also not currently holding office. IMHO, given the crap that's going on, I see this as a plus and somewhat of a new blood factor.

A coupla other gut reactions so far:

Hilary is jaded, Obama may well be naive.

Hilary has a lot of money, but I'm not so sure she has the nomination in the bag. Most people I know want a winner. Known good, solid shot winner because they fear another GOP President.

That's just not Hilary or Obama for a growing number of reasons. If that sentiment is national, she's not gonna get the nod.

>>>"Plenty of time for Gore to wait and seize the moment."

If he doesn't explode from overeating in the meantime.

I don't know about you guys, but the upcoming democrat slug-fest should be interesting.

Herb

When we get to the conventions, I invite all members of the forum to carefully watch the audience shots in both conventions. Observe the type people you see. Observe their dress. Observe their demeanor. Observe their conduct. Then, ask yourself which group you are most similar to.

Why? What will that do?

Duh, gee CJ I don't know nuthin.

Why not say it Deane?

It's not hard, you are a smart guy, been around the block, etc...

So what will this do for us? Why does doing it matter?

I think it might tell you who the winners and who the losers are and who you are identifying with. If you don't care, then that says a lot.

Nobody said they didn't care.

You've been asked why and how this exercise matters. So how does that all work and why is it the right thing to do?

I think you are full of shit! I don't give a flyin flippin @$@$ bout how the people in the conventions dress or what type of people are present, hell one of em could have a carnival for all I care, i'm just about what the candidate stands for on the issue's and not the eye candy in the store window! But hey.....call me crazy.....but I tend to like the guy with the meat and potatoes over the one with just the dressing!

If one wishes to affiliate themself with abortionists, socialists and those hostile to faith, the democrat party is the one to join.

Herb

OK - I gave you a chance.

Well at least tell me which station I should watch. I think there will be about 59 stations with coverage. I need to know which agenda, in advance, will be like mine.

Here's what I bet I will notice.

I don't like that guy's tie and he seems shifty. What is his party affiliation because I need to make sure I vote opposite of that guy.

Where are all the black people?

That guy isn't wearing a crucifix. He must be a atheist.

She is way too young to have an opinion - I'd best make sure to fight her in the voting booth. I wish more television directors of conventions would tell me what to think. Now if you'll excuse me, my popcorn is done and Jesus Camp is ready on my DVD player.

Deane, if someone hasn't made up their mind or figured out which party they are most similar to and need to make notes on television shots of THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE to help them decide for whom to vote...well...I started to say that they are kind of purposely being ignorant. But hey, if that is what it takes for you, Deane, well you are not dumb. So I don't know what criteria on a TV screen at a convention would convince you to vote Democrat, but maybe you could tell me what kind of suit gives you pleasure. I'm guessing beige.

I could really slam you on this. But everyone has their own way to determine how they will vote. If you wait until TV coverage to do it, then so be it. I guess you do since you state it as such an obvious barometer and guide for yourself. I hadn't considered that angle. It surprises me that you do - but hey - there are probably stranger ways to assess who I am most like. Like not pressing the mute button on your remote.

As the old saying goes from my Iowa farm days.....

"birds of a feather flock together".

Whatever you say "Deleted" (No ?Need For Name Calling)

Edit Add:
Sorry....i'm in a "Fowl" mood today!

Anyway.....I kinda like hangin' were "Eagle's Fly" (shameless Sammy Hagar plug)

Add Add:
Hey...there ya go....Sammy Hagar for president! A bottle of Cabo Wabo for every vote!

Well Deane, come on. You are doing the thing that you and I agreed would be bad for the future; Falling on old habits. And your party, like it or not, has spent a LOT of time trying to do damage control over things being done in the dark getting exposed. Revealing that outward appearance is not always what it seems. In fact Republicans in general have so much repression that they are simulatenously repulsed and stimulated about seeing anyone let their freak flag fly.

So either talk like a human being or don't and talk in bumper-stickers all day. But I don't need to view TV shots to make up my mind. Doing what you suggest SPEAKS enough to me to know that it is not a party I am similar to.

I'm still trying to find the Republicrat convention! I guess i'll have to settle for the Inde! I never have been a party person and have liked a lot of Inde's in the past but sadly without one of the big 2 parties and there associated lobbyists in their back pocket's they usually never do very well.

We should be supporting ideas, where we have common ground, and looking to avoid divisive people.

If you look back over the conversation here, we've got plenty in common. How we want to fix it differs, but that's not really a big deal is it?

(I don't think so.)

I agree with Chickenjuggler Deane. That's just shallow. IMHO, we've had enough of shallow --and that's speaking as one American to another.

Besides, if we are looking for TV comparisons, I'll take Edwards any day. He's got that nice demeanor, accessable, smart, sharp looking, etc... No brainer.

Clinton reminds me of the hag next door, nobody talks to, unless they must. (And she forces it too.) Obama looks like a basketball star, trying to fill shoes that are a bit to big.

Ron Paul looks like something right out of a Stephen King horror story --same with Thompson.

McCain looks washed up, etc....

It's all really subjective, and therefore worthless right?

A multi-party event would be cool. I still say MTV needs to make some more celebrity deathmatch episodes. Hilary and Thompson, Edwards and Ron Paul. Great TV --worth millions, I tell you! Millions.

You'll notice I didn't say anything about which group would look better or would look more desirable. You all jumped to conclusions based on things you already know.


>>>"Whatever you say "Shitbird"

Darktemper, I don't call you names.

That's true. You didn't.

I get so sick of you not saying what you mean. Purposely implying things and then when we call you on it, point out how weak it is, you and Herb both pull the " I didn't say that." Always leaving yoruself an out for when your points get crushed by it's own lack of weight.

Now you say " It was all just a grand experiment for me to do to you."

Lie. You know it's a lie. But that's your only out now.

Stupid.

CJ, it's not a trick. I'm seriously inviting you and others to watch both conventions and make a comparison. Which group most accurately reflects you.

Apologies......My bad temper got the better of me today....and yes you are right....you don't call me names so I won't either....Sorry Man!

But if your flock is a bunch of Seagull's....well then you get my point!

ADD:
Previous post edited. After a time out (lunch) in a better mood!

I like Obama because I believe he will be intelligent enough to hire people underneath him that will do good for America, unlike Bush. I like how he has risen from the ranks of an average American and not born with a silver spoon in his mouth, like Bush.

As far as the conventions go, who cares? I vote on ideas and policy, and right now the better ideas and policies are on the left. As long as the right wing is controlled by bigots and religious extremists, they will never get my vote. But, I do look forward to the keynote speech by Senator Vitter addressing his fellow Republicans on how "Abstinence education is a public health strategy focused on risk avoidance that aims to help young people avoid exposure to harm...by teaching teenagers that saving sex until marriage and remaining faithful afterwards is the best choice for health and happiness."

Perhaps Mark Foley give the keynote address,
and Ted Haggard could do the invocation?

I'm sure they will be well dressed.

Cool! Like the Village People!

" CJ, it's not a trick. I'm seriously inviting you and others to watch both conventions and make a comparison. Which group most accurately reflects you."

Right. I heard you. But Deane, I know I can't prove it therefore it's easy for you to deny, but forgive me I just say bluntly " I do not believe that your comment was only an invitation without insinuation or implication that there will be differences between how they each look. And using how they look is something you choose to use as validating their worthiness on all sorts of levels."

If you weren't implying that, you would have focused more - or at all - on what was said at the conventions. But you are hung up on tattoos or Doc Martins and how they look or that they get SO bothered by something that they will react in a physically different way. My God, they may even BOO or SHOUT something. While your party is all prim and proper.

I KNOW YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT! But if you were not implying ANYTHING I am suggesting, tell me now. Deny it and have it be the truth. Because right now, I do not believe you. You, I believe, DO have a problem with people who are generally more expressive in how they look. You think it makes them look bad, for one, and they are easilly dismissed by you, for another. I think you and Herb want to be open about that. But instead of that, you walk right up to it, don't actually say it, and then feign wonder when we finish your thought for you. You stop short because you know it's unpopular to judge pople like you do. But you can't help it. And it's unpopular because it's wrong to do. But you can't help it. It's why you flock to The Republican Party. Because you know there are MANY more people like you who are shallow and don't like hippies. All the while you have that repressed side of you that closets anything not puritanical and you fight natural urges to be accepted by implying that a nose ring will caused the demise of civilization.

All the while you are having sex with a hooker and preaching to like minded people who are daily beat down by their own self-inflicted shame. Instead of helping, you want to reshape them in your image.

You know, I try and keep things civil and like to talk. But you have pushed a button of mine with this whole conversation. This kind of inability for you to admit that you have a substantial shallow streak - and to try and make me look crazy for pointing it out - is exactly the kind of example that I use when I just am thankful for my relative youth. You and Herb act and sound old. You want things that way they used to be. I am still young enough to see it through to fix your bigoted, cowardly, hypocritical fucking con-game, power grab, control freaked, money hungry, self-serving, fear based, Buford Pusser, LYING, injusticed lifestyle, until you dinosaurs rot. I try so hard to appreciate the differences and discuss them. But man, you are too much of a " take a mile " kind of guy.

And since I would be a hypocrite to not come clean in the interest of full disclosure. Yes, I am not liking, trusting or believing you anymore. And I'm finding it hard to not use a lot more profanity. But I don't want you to use that lame excuse of " Well, he said a bad word. I stopped reading after that."

See, you made it all this way and still heard me.

Yes CJ, I have made the observations I suggested during the past three presidential conventions.

Has it occurred to you that the liberals on this forum (and elsewhere) are extremely defensive and overly sensitive? Does this not seem surprising for the group that feels so strongly they are in the right?

You don't see any tension from me. You don't see any tension from Herb. You don't see any tension from the few other conservatives posting on this forum. Ever wonder why?

I suspect that a lot of you younger folks get caught up in the moment. Right now, Bush is on your shit-list, so the conservative viewpoint is crap. That's where the shallowness of youth comes in. Fact of the matter is, if someone were to make a list of the crooked and stupid politicians in the country, the list for both the Dems and the GOP would be lengthy, probably about the same length.

Conservatism is believing that everyone should have an opportunity to rise to the highest possible level of success.

Liberalism believes that everyone should be pulled down to the level of the lowest on the ladder of achievment.

If there is a slight impatience about us, it's the frustration that there are those who actually believe that pulling people down instead of up is a good way to go.

Now, I'm going to watch a feature film in my front projection home theater built with good Republican successful dollars while the libs tear this post apart. Then, I'll come back and read all the negative and insulting posts, yawn and go to bed. Then tomorrow, I'll get up, check the overnight insults, get in my large Republican Cadillac Sedan DeVille and drive out to my Aunt's home in Iowa and discuss the new web based genealogy site I am creating over a fine Republican lunch at a fine resturaunt.

I'll leave you with one thought. Why would anyone want to be a poor Democrat instead of a rich Republican?

Being a whore pays well. Self respect is priceless.

Don't forget your lube for your time on the tube.

>>>"Don't forget your lube for your time on the tube."

We obviously watch different types movies.

Deane, your definitions of conservatism and liberalism are pretty funny. Do you really believe the stuff you write?

I myself see conservatism as wanting things to stay the same, not taking chances, selfish, and unwilling to hear other sides. I see liberalism as being open minded and respecting other people's rights to make choices, even though they may not be the choices I would make or choices I think are right.

"Why would anyone want to be a poor Democrat instead of a rich Republican?"

Why would anyone want to be a poor Republican instead of a rich Democrat? I'm a rich Democrat, and quite proud of it. And, I could be a rich Republican, but why would I want to marginalize my beliefs?

And as far as your insinuation that Democrats are poor and Republicans are rich, you obviously have no clue of demographics. Nationwide, go to the redest states, and you will find states that have the lowest literacy rate, and lowest per capita earnings. Do you think there's a correlation? I do. Here in Oregon, compare the rural and urban areas, and the urban areas are again more blue, and earn all the money, while the rest of the state is more red, makes less money, and is less educated.

The reason this myth exists that Republicans are rich and Democrats are poor, is because the Republican establishment is run by a small minority of rich people looking out for their own interests, while riding the backs of the uneducated social conservatives who think those rich people are acting in their best interest. Meanwhile the Democrats tend to look out for everyone's economic interests, even if it's not in their OWN best economic interest (ie tax cuts for the wealthy).

Also, to add to Vitalogy's fine definition, there are those of us who spend a great deal of time and a good percentage of our money doing something we love -- whether it profits us or not. So, while I am hardly wealthy in the bank, I have a great deal of riches in memories, friendships, and to be frank, love from other folks. Call me misguided, myopic, or a malcontent, but on this journey, my soul will never ever be poor.

Take a deep breath and yell something more accurate at all of us. Like, say, "MY FELLOW AMERICANS..."

So, how 'bout that Al Gore?

Deane asked - "You don't see any tension from me. You don't see any tension from Herb. You don't see any tension from the few other conservatives posting on this forum. Ever wonder why?"

No. I hadn't. But since you brought it up, tell me; What's your definition of " tension "? An emotional reaction? Getting a button pushed and saying so? What?

I think seeing a growing majority of Americans not well aligned with the GOP creates significant tension.

I also think the idea of this unbridled power in the hands of an all Democratic government creates even more tension.

(the latter is true for me)

>>>"What's your definition of " tension "?"

If you can't read your own posts and get a clue, then I certainly don't have the skill to get it to penetrate through.

Yes you do, but this is another slippery post, like the one CJ called you out on earlier.

I don't see any tension, I see passion.

Tension is what you need Viagra to help you release. Passion is what helps you achieve something you believe in.

>>>"Deane, your definitions of conservatism and liberalism are pretty funny. Do you really believe the stuff you write?"

Enough so that I use my real name and don't hide behind a screen name like most do on this forum.

And this matters how?

Lots of good reasons to just use a handle. Does this make you better somehow? More entitled?

Maybe it's just a cheap shot that comes in handy for diffusing yet another difficult position?

You've went for the "what's your background?", now it's "some people hide behind screen names". What next? There are only so many of these goofy tricks, why not just get them all over with so we can then focus on the bogus liberal and conservative claims?

Vitalogy, share with us your background. You come off as being intelligent and very articulate.

My own background is no secret to the posters on this forum. I've owned a radio station in Oregon and have employed a number of the posters on this forum. I've also been President of two different station groups. Now I'm retired and enjoying pulling peoples chains.

Translation: Me? I don't give a fuck. I have mine and am always looking for more.

>>>"And this matters how?"

Just a difference in philosophy. To me there's a lot of difference between the person who posts anonymously and one who is willing to say this is who I am.

And who one is is clearly different from what one is saying.

Notice the focus on the "who" when the facts, or just points at hand, get somewhat pointed!

I happen to share your view, but don't use it in this fashion.

DJ said>>>
We obviously watch different types movies.

Or your just like the other 99% of the Bible thumpin' neo-CONers out there that won't admit to something that might be morally wrong.....

"Now I'm retired and enjoying pulling peoples chains."

Actually you were doing that years ago Deane to me when you signed my checks.

"Conservatism is believing that everyone should have an opportunity to rise to the highest possible level of success."

To Deane's terrific comment, I only add:

1. Unlike socialist countries, in the United States one is free to fail, try again, fail, and try again as they work to succeed.

2. I've never seen a poor man employ anyone.

3. How come so many immigrants come to the US not speaking English and in a few years they end up very successful and employing the American-born? Answer: They work their fannies off and don't buy into the socialist nanny-state.

Herb

"I've never seen a poor man employ anyone."

Really? Well, I am about to volunteer at an event tonight that will be hosted and presented by at least a dozen employees in a historic Portland setting.

I will not make a dime, and they will make a living.

Of course, you may have meant poor in spirit.

Actually, to correct Herb, I believe that it's Liberalism that believes everyone should have an opportunity to rise to the highest possible level of success. Conservatism holds people back.

Deane, I don't disclose my personal information on the internet, no matter what. It's a blanket policy I have on any messageboard I participate on, with no disrespect to anyone here or those that post their real names. However, I don't post stuff I don't stand behind, which is what counts.

If you want to know some generics about me, I'm male, 35, college educated, married to an incredible woman, who has her masters (but I make more, go figure). We own two homes, we both work in professional fields, and are looking to have children as soon as possible.

deane sez: "Enough so that I use my real name and don't hide behind a screen name like most do on this forum.

on the other hand, some screen names are more informative to other posters than real names. for instance, when the troll, and lately, you, try to pass off BS in here, one can pretty much expect someone with username such as "skeptical" to respond accordingly.

And there it is!

Love that username, BTW.

All things considered, can one really blame Vitalogy for that policy? We are not exactly living in a time where all is good in this regard.

As for the posting stuff to stand behind, this is perhaps one of the biggest reasons people have for wondering about semi-anonymous posting. (being really anonymous is very difficult, BTW.) Attaching ones true name helps identify the same person being the source of the same stuff. How much self respect they have affects the quality of what they post.

This same dynamic works even if you want a handle. Contribute often enough and people get to know your style. Different handles don't impact that very much. Post often enough and it's soon clear where one is at mentally and socially as well.

IMHO, this all comes down to trying to pre-assess people and set expectations. Put them into whatever little box happens to fit closest and move on from there. Far better to take what is given and forget the boxes. Learn who they are, what they are about, and grow together.

We all possess something others can benefit from. Self-fear, and pride often get in the way of that. Deal with those things and other ordinary people have a lot of value.

Vitalogy, go for the kids sooner rather than later! If you wait too long, understanding your kids will be more difficult. Enjoy the ride when it happens. Debugging people is very rewarding and thought provoking.

Knowing there are some people here that love you unconditionally is vital and helps when the world is dark. When things are going really well, you will want to just stop time and stay there for a while...

The best is being able to share in the hopes they have a better time of it than you did. The worst is seeing elements of yourself reflected back.

Pardon me while I hit the bong and put on some sitar tunes.

When I started this thread, I never thought it would explode as it has. Might prove that Gore is still in the mix, or might prove that anything political will start the back and forth.

However, one thing that is interesting to me is the historical perspective. I mentioned that RFK entered the race quite late, and may have gone on to win.

The Nixon comparison is even more fascinating. Remember, Nixon lost in '60, layed low,(except for a failed run for California governor.) and then came back and won the Presidency eight years later. Same possible scenerio for Gore. Both VP's for two terms, both initial losers in razor-thin close elections, and both with high name recognition. Only difference is the parties. Will history repeat?

Nixon is exactly like Gore.

...wait for it...

Magic eye, if you must, go for it, but I am not sure that pot does a 6N5 a whole lot of good.

Herb, just so you know, last night I shared my talents and helped raise some money for kids to attend a worthy educational institution. Without counting hours of my time -- only the taxi, a few 7-Ups and generous tips -- the evening cost me $31.00. Am I a rube for those expenditures? Or am I doing my part?

Vitalogy, I appreciate your candor and getting your "demo" down on record for the curious crowd. I think that some folks are better served by anonymity -- for non-nefarious reasons -- and I respect your choice.

Forgive the digression, but screen names have been brought to bear several times now, so I will weigh in on my feelings about it. I doubt that any person here is "hiding" behind a name, but some do obfuscate. I think that creativity, self-reflection, radio history and just plain humor is found in many names here on the board.

Deane, you are a well known quantity in these parts. For better or worse, some might say a legend. Even as "Consolidation_Sucks" or "DARSAP" or "The_one_and_only_DJ" or simply "Deane" you would be recognized by friends, admirers, and former associates. This is true of dozens of posters.

I also believe that most folks in this forum are real and approachable. While a couple of people have not bothered to respond to correspondence or do not look in their posted e-mail boxes, most have been open to side dialog about interests beyond the scope of our discussions. They do not continue with any sort of pseudonym or other charade in a one on one atmosphere.

I like the idea of transparency. However, it is simply not practical. I posted my full name for months and was rewarded with waves of "personalized" spam. I already have a bursting box for legitimate reasons, so I removed it. Most folks know who I am, or can spend five minutes and find out. Bots do not make that kind of effort, so I have nipped that distraction in the bud.

Although it seems that few can find a spot in the field, I still work part-time in radio. However, my minor position with RTC -- that I have held since the company was founded -- is not one I wish to discuss a great deal. The anecdotes are priceless, but they could potentially come with a cost. Other folks with far more at stake count on my silence. I happily oblige. After all, in a decade, no rules were broken and nobody got hurt, so it is simply a matter of professionalism.

I often see posts on the other side about this or that and I bite my tongue because I want to preserve contacts, contracts and relationships. One on one, however, is a whole other matter. This is true of virtually all of us, is it not? An industry based public forum is not a good place to hang work related laundry, or inside information, until a very healthy bit of time has passed since an amusing incident, or the deal is done. On that point, I am sure we all agree.

Thankfully, a whistle-blower -- or bitter former employee -- does have a chance to be anonymous, and at the very least, make folks aware, wary, or amused. Often, it enriches the discussion, and sometimes, it does not. I choose to post with one name, but others do not. This is the nature of forums.

My politics and personal views are my own. I am an American. No surprise, while discretion is the watch word for discussions of the profession, my freedom of speech is still intact and active on any other matter. This too, is true of most of us, is it not?

Ironically, folks are being singled out for their nicknames smack dab in the middle of a tangential discussion of personal labels. Hammering stereotypes and marginalization through derogatory remarks exposes prejudices, but a nickname simply lets you get a little glimpse of a person. Should we all have an "R" or a "D" or an "I" next to our real names too?

"Missing_KSKD" says volumes to me in a politically neutral way that is totally germane to the board. I loved that station too, so the moniker instantly created common ground between Doug and I, and I am richer for having met him. No, not wealthier. This too is a confusion among some of you.

I am also a big admirer of a fellow who calls himself, "skeptical" because it fits him to a tee. I think that "Mrs_Merkin" is hilarious, and she is, but she is also a tireless researcher and a great Mom. "Warner" could be a cautionary noun folks, but instead of spending all his time keeping us from danger, he brings a passion for the medium and a deep love of music.

"Darktemper" instantly made me wary, but soon I realized that he is probably the only person in this forum -- other than Dan -- who really wants everyone to have a good time from the bottom of his big heart. Have you noticed that John will do everything he can to preserve the peace, inject a little humor or change the subject? Has anyone else figured out that he is conservative, has a Son with the smarts, dedication and cajones to join the Navy, and that he loves animals?

"Chickenjuggler" made me laugh out loud when I first saw the name, now I look beyond my initial thought of circus clowns whirling dozens of rubber fowl over their heads in a Fellini movie. He is Sean: A person with thoughtful things to say, and a humble, but brilliant webcaster with an intense love of music -- in addition to his wicked sense of humor.

I could go down the long list of names -- including folks who made a profound impact on me, like "Oldtom" -- and every one would mean something different. I think that everyone here has validity, relevance, and something to add. By and large, I enjoy every thread and appreciate the efforts of everyone who contributes.

The only thing that is not in abundance seems to be respect. Someone told me years ago that radio is made up of three kinds of people: Brainiacs, bullies and boobs. I am still waiting for them to be proven wrong, or for a fourth kind to evolve. For now, I am proud to truly call at least a few of you my friend, and I hope we will all find some common ground.

Again, please forgive my digression from the topic.

Chickenjuggler, not sure what you meant "Nixon is exactly like Gore...just wait for it."

My implication was not that the two would have shared any beliefs, positions, or politcal stance. I am only speaking of the strangely similar historical political situations.

Redford, do you remember the Tennessean who ran for president, won the popular vote but still lost the presidency to a former president's son? That was Andrew Jackson in 1824 and Al Gore in 2000. Jackson came back four years later to whip the man he lost to; I had hoped history might repeat itself in 2004 also, but it was not to be.

The parallels between Nixon 1960/68 and Gore 2000/2008 are interesting as they were with Jackson and Gore, but as with 2004 I just don't see history repeating itself. For one thing, Nixon really had few serious rivals for the Republican nomination in 1968. Gore would have formidable rivals if he entered the race even now. The Democrats have exciting candidates this time without Gore in the mix. I'm really not getting my hopes up.

Andrew

To return to topic, I agree with both Redford and Chickenjuggler. The idea that losing an election as a Vice President, then returning eight years later to win consecutive terms is not new, nor is it impossible. Another interesting parallel is that both Nixon and Gore struggled/struggle with the perception of being boring and stiff. The truth is -- regardless of your political leanings -- both Richard and Albert were/are very smart fellows, and in a crisis, that is half the battle.

Our current leader won with the other half: Money.

If folks are comfortable, they do not seem to weigh intelligence in their choices of leaders. We are not comfy. The next leader will inherit an out of control war, a restless population, and a time of great cultural upheaval. This too, is another eerie parallel.

Well, I like looking at history and how these things tend to repeat. That 1824 example is a good one, it had escaped me.

As for other exciting Democratic candidates...hmmm. That is quite subjective. I'm hearing so many say Hilary can't win. Obama doesn't have the experience. Edwards...jury still out. But beyond that, exciting???

Many Democrats believe they are exciting, at least compared to the ones the Republicans have so far. That's why the Dems have outraised the Republicans for primary money so far.

Obama is a terrific speaker; so is Edwards. The possibility of Hillary being the first female president or another "Clinton White House" is very intriguing to say the least. And you are not the only one speculating about Gore. So yes, I'd say there is definitely some excitement on the Democratic side this time.

Andrew

Great catch Andrew. That is deep in Edselehr territory, but with him on vacation, you went to the wall and robbed a home run.

However, on the choice of candidates, I gotta side with Redford. Who in the Democratic pack is exciting? In Hillary, I see division, in Obama, I see inexperience, and in Edwards I see, well, a fellow who would get more done as an outspoken advocate for the poor, rather than an embattled President.

Still, I suppose, any one of these folks could step up and make me take notice, but beyond a few flashes here and there, none of them seem to be "the" candidate. I think Al Gore has the tools now and it could be his time. So, like millinos of others, I simply wait for the "least of the evils" to step up to the plate.

Obama has had more experience than Edwards for sure. Obama was first elected to Illinois State Legislature in 1996, then State Senate in 2000, and he's been a US Senator for over two years. I'm not claiming that's mounds of experience, but I do call it self-made. G.W. Bush had two terms as Texas governor but had his daddy's name and fundraising connections, and he's proven that just about ANYONE can BE president.

Like Obama, Abraham Lincoln served some years in the Illinois State Legislature and a mere two years in Washington - the US House of Representatives - before being elected president in 1860. Otherwise, he was well known for losing two US Senate races to Stephen Douglass. I don't know yet if Obama has the character and judgement needed to make a good president, but Lincoln didn't turn out to be such a bad president, did he?

Andrew

Very good points Andrew.

I do not think Edwards can win, but he can raise a helluvalotta money being half of John & Elizabeth Edwards. This could benefit many Americans in a much more tangible and direct way than being President. He should simply start a foundation, and instead of a campaign for office, he can campaign against poverty.

The parallels between Obama and Lincoln are interesting. Unfortunately, with all of the current division in America, a civil war and an assassination are also parts of the equation that come to mind. I like him, but sometimes, I think a Black President -- and definitely a woman -- still scares the bejeezus out of too many Americans.

Littlesongs...like your "smart & stiff" comment.

I would much prefer this to what we have been offered the past 18 years. Oh, and if you can't tell, I'm an independent.

"...last night I shared my talents and helped raise some money for kids to attend a worthy educational institution. Without counting hours of my time -- only the taxi, a few 7-Ups and generous tips -- the evening cost me $31.00. Am I a rube for those expenditures? Or am I doing my part?"

You don't understand. Conservatives out give liberals handily in supporting charities. They put their money where their mouths are.

Herb

Herb, folks who want real change put our backs, time and talents into a project. Hmmm.

Put a pile of money in a vacant lot, but no effort, and soon, it is a vacant lot without a pile of money.

Put a pile of lumber in a vacant lot, and soon, with hard work and cooperation, it is a home.

You nailed -- pun intended -- the difference.

Redford, thanks. I did figure you were an independent. These days, I think it is the only way to go.

In spite of the side chatter, bile, and bloodied swords, this is a good thread and I am glad you -- and Andrew -- brought up the historical precedents for a future President.

This is gonna be an interesting race!

http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/news/online_clips/061029_PS_brooks.asp

"...values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance to two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals."

"... conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

"Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money."

"Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth. All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis."

Herb

Herb, I would much rather you did not hijack this thread with partisan poppycock.

If one is giving from a feeling of intense guilt and the fear of being refused a place in heaven, great, they are still giving.

If one is giving from the heart, without a tax write off, or any motive beyond the act, still great, they are still giving.

Charity is good. Period.

Fine. Then don't insinuate conservatives question if you're "a rube" for giving, when in fact conservatives give demonstrably more than liberals.

Herb

If time equals money, or as you folks say, time is money, then I would say we are probably part of two immensely generous and similar camps of Americans. We should both acknowledge that good is being done by you, me and many others, and drop the subject.

How about that lad from Tennessee?

"You don't understand. Conservatives out give liberals handily in supporting charities. They put their money where their mouths are."

Herb- I believe Jesus wants us to quietly give and help the poor...and to do it humbly. Its not just always the money you give. There is sweat and personal time equity too.

Social justice is at its best when it simply gets done without anyone really noticing except those who are on the receiving end.

Does it really matter who gives more Herb? Isn't it a biblical directive?

Sorry, Herb, it's not so simple as you make it sound. For one, we all know there are more wealthy conservatives than wealthy liberals, so it would stand to reason that more TOTAL money would be donated for tax purposes from conservatives than liberals, just based on income - because charitable donations reduce your income tax even more the more money you earn. That has to do with income level, not political ideology.

Just to help show that charitable giving has something to do with avoiding taxes, consider this: a Congressional Budget Office study from 2004 shows that if the Estate Tax were completely eliminated, charitable giving is expected to drop by as much as 12%:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5650&type=0&sequence=0

You want to show for real that conservatives are simply more generous of heart than liberals? Compare the amount they give by income tax bracket. For example, if Charlie Conservative makes $1M a year and gives $100,000 to charity, he gives 10% of his income to charity. But if Larry Liberal makes $800,000 and gives $90,000 to charity, he is MORE generous than Charlie is, because he gave 11.25% of his income to charity. If Larry gives only $70,000, he gives a smaller percentage than Charlie. After a quick look at his website, I didn't see this kind of detail in Brooks's research.

Andrew

Littlesongs: Good digression. I think you are spot on too.

Magic_eye: I put it out there. Half of doing it is for me. Having released some thoughts and ideas, I'm free to go and make new ones. I've no fear or shame in this regard. The other half is the hope it matters to someone.

Scroll it, read it, does not matter.

We have givers and non-givers. Sometimes I see "giving" actually building wealth at the same time. This is usually conditional somehow --like you do something I want, and I'll help you out somehow. Other times I just see giving, without these things. Here, you need this --essentially.

Does any of it really matter, so long as giving and helping is actually getting done?

Where one ideology does "more" than the other, I've no comment other than what if that body is a net loss overall?

The GOP is costing us a lot right now. Maybe they should give more! Just saying, there is another way to look at it. (Note I said GOP, not 'conservative' --they are not the same thing.)

In the vein, I can't but help to wonder if that isn't the point. People need help --a growing number of them need it because of how things are going. Tie this to the conditional kind of giving and suddenly you've got some control, while looking sorta good at the same time.

It's not all rosy with this giving, that's all. Very few people are actually just giving without strings of some kind attached. Of those that are, it's my opinion said giving is more time and effort than it is dollars.

I'm dismayed over the idea that Edwards isn't a winner. He's really my best choice. Perhaps some focus on our less than substantial people would just not be a bad thing. One could only hope that focus would keep things in perspective.

Littlesongs, that was extra nice of ya to take the time for the compliment. Thanks, man. ( Got any requests? I've got beer and am doing things LIVE tonight. Come on - dig deep - be self-indulgent ).

Redford said - "Chickenjuggler, not sure what you meant "Nixon is exactly like Gore...just wait for it."

I was trying to get Herb to laugh at the absurd comparison from me. I got your point though. And it is an estuate observaton about the scenarios.

"but Lincoln didn't turn out to be such a bad president, did he?"

But Bush did, so maybe we ought to consider experience?

Frankly, IMO, Gore, Hillary, Edwards and Obama will ALL be pretty good presidents.

So if "giving more" means giving to groups you may support, say the Aryan Nations, y'know a true conservative movement ... and someone to the left gives to a group that THEY like but YOU don't ... say, Planned Parenthood ... does that mean that you give MORE because it's to an organization that you support rather than one you don't?

Sorry, I'm not finding a whole lot of liberals lining up to give to the coffers of the fundamentalist Christian church. Just like I'm not finding many conservatives lining up to give to pro-gay charities.

Just because they don't give to YOUR group doesn't mean they don't give. Do you care to come up with some stats for us that state where conservatives give more than liberals?

I don't believe that conservatives give more than liberals. And how pathetic of the conservative that trots that kind of statistic out, and even further pathetic of the so-called smart guy that researched it.

But, there's one thing we all know is true, and that is that conservatives like to be made known that they give. It's part of their ego boost that is at the root of their giving. Mr. Pamplin would be an excellent example of that.

There is something beneath that. Maybe on a very general level, it softens the blow of "every man for himself" kind of thinking.

Nice catch.

IMHO, that's the conditional giving and building wealth at the same time. Wealth takes many forms: dollars, credence, reputation, status, etc...

I don't believe liberals "give more" than conservatives, either. It's a stupid idea to start with. The concept of charitable giving probably varies between conservatives and liberals, too. Social conservatives may give heavily to their churches which are also part of their social life; just because liberal atheists don't give to a church doesn't make them less generous.

Herb's suggestion that conservative people are more generous than liberal people is stupid and doesn't hold water - but it sure sells books to conservatives and gets you headlines and attention if you are researcher, doesn't it? I'll bet research that concluded that liberal and conservative giving is on a whole about the same would receive zero attention and wouldn't sell a single book.

Andrew

Completely agreed Andrew. For example, Americans gave record sums to aid the tsunami victims. Folks from every income bracket, race and background poured out dollars. Heck, thousands of kids smashed their piggies to help out.

The most telling part was that a good majority were already broke or deep in hock when the need arose. It was Christmastime, remember? Take a bow America. Even though our government didn't keep their pledges, we the people came through for millions of strangers in need. Is there any possible way to incite warm fuzzies in everyone in here anymore? This ought to, if nothing else.

To again return to topic, I have thought a bit more about the Presidential impasse.

I am bound to get a heap of mud tossed at me for mentioning this, but it bears noting nonetheless. In the 2000 election, I did my due diligence and research. I discovered that the election was screwy long before the first week in November. In reality, we really weren't voting for President at all. We were voting for the least dangerous Vice President.

Faced with a deeply alarming choice of candidates, I voted for Winona LaDuke. Given the fact that Oregon carried Al Gore and Joe Lieberman by considerably more than a handful of voters, I still feel no remorse for my third party choice. The nomination of Lieberman baffles me to this day. So, with all that said, I think we ought to think about running mates, early and often.

In my view, the speed, spunk and charisma of John Edwards did not hurt John Kerry one bit. In fact, it helped him. Though, like many, I wish Edwards had a faster horse in this race, he would not hurt a potential Al Gore ticket. As others have said, John is a very good communicator and sharp as heck. For stretches throughout the 2004 debate with Cheney, he had balls of steel.

Remember October 5, 2004?

http://www.rdono.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/05/debate.main/index.html

This was the one and only debate that Dick Cheney would allow. Personally, I want many debates between candidates, but money wants to think for us now, and makes no demands on our leaders. Mass media has relinquished almost every role in public advocacy that does not promote commerce.

I digress, but in modern America, it seems to me that dozens of discussions broadcast nationally, without interruption, would be logical and smart. I think every region should host one, if not every state, but of course, I am not a corporation, just a citizen.

So far, in this race, the Democrats want to change America all at once, but as always, only in a token way. Like 1984, we all hear, "look, we have a Woman" and now, "look, we have a Black person" instead of, "look, we have quality candidates." They actually have quality candidates, but will not focus on that fact.

As ever, the static of traditional Democratic infighting is drowning out their voices. Hey DNC, back and forth barbs are not earning my vote. Smug chortling about fundraising totals is not earning my vote. Lip service is not earning my vote. Have you thought about action, um, yet?

I am no different than any other thinking American. Candidates who have busted their butts to make our nation great, with real results, go to the top of the list. If they have the record, and ask me nicely for my support, they often get it, regardless of party.

To digress briefly, lip service after my vote, frankly, pisses me off big time. Forget the tough battles, set aside the war, impeachment and promised sweeping economic, legal and political reforms. Congress has delivered nearly nothing so far, and that is slowly killing candidates from both parties.

To me, this moment, Gore/Edwards seems to be the most obvious pairing in the pack, but not to the Democrats. Two Southern boys that everybody knows, and most Northerners like, is not groundbreaking, or historic, or revolutionary. It is just simple common sense.

What do you think?

@CJ and Missing, Thanks for the positive thoughts about my spiel. CJ, wish I'd have caught the show. Damn sleepies and work in the morning. :0)

I think if Gore were to run, a midwestern or western running mate would work to his advantage. The only one I can think of is Richardson. Or Obama, but not likely.

Richardson is a wild card. I like him.

Herb said>>>
When in fact conservatives give demonstrably more than liberals.

Show me fact.....

He won't. He's a one trick pony when it comes to anything resembling a follow-up that he doesn't even believe.

But in case he should, he'll cite something VERY particular. Not anything that that proves his blanket statement. But I WOULD really like to know who DOES give more. ON THE WHOLE! ( Which his statement made it sound like he knew about - but I'm guessing he doesn't. It was just something to say that he can't back up ).

CJ...the sad fact of Herb's over generalized statement is that he even brought it up to begin with.

Great point Chickenjuggler, every day in here is a day at Alpenrose with the greased pigs.

The problem with accounting is that not every person writes down every dime and every moment they do something for others. Too many of us just give without a second thought. I guess we ought to be ashamed for not tallying it all.

If we were all quantitative about it, nothing would get done. So, only the ones who write checks -- and take it off the total every April -- pay much mind. I still stand by my original statement that a whole bunch of us of every stripe give time and money to help.

I am just not comfortable with the whole idea of "this team" did this and "that team" did the other. I am also reminded of being surprised by certificates for volunteering when I was simply there to learn and share.
I am really sick to death of this whole line of discussion. After the "widescreen and wide car" speech from Deane, the remaining GOP probably ought to drop the subject. You see folks, greed is the opposite of giving, so the guilty and greedy give to keep from having to read this in their heads every night:

The dreaded "Eye of the Needle"

"The Babylonian Talmud applies the aphorism to unthinkable thoughts. To explain that dreams reveal the thoughts of a man's heart, the product of reason rather than the absence of it, the Rabbis say:

They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle.

"The eye of a needle" is part of a phrase attributed to Jesus by the synoptic gospels:

...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Matthew 19:24.

The parallel versions appear in Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:24-25 and Luke 18:24-25."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle

Three of Jesus' closest friends all mention it, so I am guessing it was something pretty important. The Rabbis quite prophetically pointed out the elephant trademark. Eerie.

As promised, I did not quote from the Bible except in cases of extreme hypocrisies. I hope that Wikipedia was a neutral enough source for everybody sorting through this tangential baloney.

Why do we have a fictional "Grinch" or "Tiny Tim" or "Pottersville" if the some of the wealthiest ones are not insulated, paranoid, selfish, spiteful and self-loathing in real life? Funny thing, all those stories are resolved through collective sharing, enlightenment, and redemption.

Merry Christmas movie house!
Merry Christmas emporium!
Merry Christmas you old building and loan!

Gimme an "A"
Gimme an "L"
What's that spell?
Our original topic.

"...religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.

Some of his findings have been touched on elsewhere by other scholars, but Mr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University, breaks new ground in amassing information from 15 sets of data in a slim 184-page book (not including the appendix) that he proudly describes as "a polemic."

"If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion," Mr. Brooks writes, "the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity."

http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

Herb

I shouldn't, but this is so laced with BS, I can't stand it.

Ok, so let's go.

"...religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals"

Implication that liberal minded people are secular by nature. --false

Implication that people are either liberals or not --also false, and quite divisive.

Implication that conservatives are religious by nature, and divisive in like kind.

Good grief, and that's just a part of this BS.

Know what? The core premise might actually be true, but what is missing here is the detail on just how many "secular liberals" there are. (not many) Lumping a clear minority together with everyone else is stupid. No nice way to put it.

The reality is most people lean differently on a variety of issues. Americans, in general, trend progressive right now. Yeah, I know, read the "conservative America is a myth" thread again, and again until the Media Matters information sinks in. That complicates matters further, as it also means "religious conservatives" is equally misrepresented.

Both done in a fashion to mislead the reader toward agreeing with the bomb at the end.

(told you guys to buy the propaganda game)

Ok, moving on.

Tell me this: If 90 percent of this nation believes, then does that not mean there are an assload of religious liberals, making this whole mess one big ass distortion?

"and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others."

This one is even more slippery than the opening bit!

It is strongly implied that "those who support the idea that government should redistribute income" are, in fact, secular liberals, and we know just how bad those folks are.

(if you can find enough of them to bitch about)

This isn't actually stated though, and for good reason! Here is why:

Current policies, deemed conservative, clearly focus income redistribution toward the top. Leveling this out some, or limiting it, would be characterized as a more liberal thing to do. Both extremes being manupulated here are all about INCOME REDISTRIBUTION.

So, really what is being said here, is those people who favor income redistribution OF ANY KIND are the least likely to DIG IN AND GIVE.

Doesn't that suck, given the point trying to be made?

Maybe this is why the wealthy make damn sure others know they have given! Something to think about huh?

(thought so)

"If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion"

NOWHERE has this been demonstrated. NEVER --it's not a proven fact period. Again, 90 percent of this nation believes. This means a very high percentage of people, who could be characterized as liberal, have no antipathy toward religion.

Read it again.

Thanks.

Nobody wants to eliminate religion. In fact, the majority American opinion favors freedom of religion --whatever kind of religion it may be. That is a fact, has been a fact, will continue to be a fact.

Another misrepresentation, just like the leading ones.

"the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity"

And here we bring it all full circle. Democrats are not a secular party. Period, end of story.

Once again, if this were the case, the number of believers in this country would be significantly lower than it consistently is. Also, if this were actually true, the amount of giving would not require a book of lies to "clarify".

This is bull shit, horse shit, cow shit.

Tying religion to more charity, framing anything left as "bad", "anti religion", etc... reasoning errors up the ass, all equate to a pile of lies and distortions aimed right at the suckers who will pay to swallow them.

Might as well say, if this guy represents "religious conservatives", then of course they give more. They are too fucking stupid to know any better!

I don't know, man. I am having a hard time finding ANYthing to show, prove, mush less imply that Liberals give more than Conservatives. What looked like an outrageously false statement from Herb is looking pretty darned accurate. Discuss all kinds of aspects if you wish. But the core of what he said vs. what I thought was pretty on target for Herb and NOT me.

I would have bet money on it. And I would have lost.

I'm sorry Herb. It really does look like I was just plain wrong.

Well, look at the states where the giving is happening. It needs to. Why? Because the people need the most help!

Why?

Because of "every man for himself" regressive policies.

That article was full of crap. Might be true, in terms of sheer dollars giving. I'm open to that.

But, if we go there, we then need to also go to the why and how of said giving.

Think about it. A tax to help those in need ends up distributed right?

Well, piling an assload of money somewhere, that is given heavy, is also distributed, right?

In the end, dollars are distributed to those in need.

What's are the differences and why do they matter?

Let's get into this giving thing and actually learn something beyond, "conservatives are good because they give."

They might give, because they are such asses, they need to, or suffer with too many hosed up people to be livable.

"Might be true, in terms of sheer dollars giving. I'm open to that."

Well the " Why " is endless. And you make points that are true and valid. But I was just looking at it ALL as a whole. Just like Herb stated. And on that level, I was wrong.

Agreed.

CJ & KSKD, you both have made some very good points.

I have said it before, charity is good, but Brianl did bring up some very interesting contrasts of priorities.

Sure, if it is total dollars, I may concede the issue. Any other measure, like say, percentage of income, or hours volunteered, and I bet it swings back with momentum and gusto.

Until somebody weighs in with a wide range of sources that confirm or disprove any of this, I think we can move back to the original topic. Americans are generous, and we all have different motives for our giving.

I have this gut feeling Gore is gonna hose it up.

He will think about it too much, wait just a bit long, then jump in, right after some crappy thing has happened to sway the fragile public.

Sorry, I gotta write on the giving bit some more.

IMHO, in terms of dollars, I think Herb is spot on.

No question.

That struck a chord however, and it took me some time to figure out why.

On giving:

there is giving of ones time and energy, helping someone think, do, etc...

, and

there is giving dollars, where wealth or value is transferred between parties.

I don't think it breaks down to other types. If you can think of another core means of giving, share it please. (core breakdowns are key for me)


Essentially then, we have giving of material things, and non-material things. Additionally, giving can be characterized as some activity that is not forced, but done one ones own inclination.

My beef with the obvious implications to more dollars coming from Conservatives is two fold:

it ignores the non-material giving, and I'll explain that in a moment;

it implies dollars are always good.

In Herbs defense, I think being forced to give does not ring true. That's social programs and other taxed things. The whole idea of personal responsibility ties into this, and also learning life lessons when one does not actually own up to their responsibilities. This goes both ways actually, as one who would rather give without so many conditions attached, sees the focus on people and institutions the same way.

A lot of conservative giving is tied to these things. I believe the honest goal is to help people both with empowerment, and some education / advocacy. Teach them a lesson, so to speak, not to be holier than thou, but so they won't need to be given to again and can help others.

I grok that and am ok with it. I share this ideal with much of my giving efforts.

Giving, in the form of programs, support and other empowerment means and methods, like progressive / liberal minded people do, does not usually come with the "teaching a lesson" element. It's also forced, for those that don't see things that way.

I'm not inclined to disagree with the latter, either.

So, one difference here is the dollars are being wasted and are subject to abuse. If there is no lesson to be learned, people can just sit around on the take. Fair enough.

I've seen it, we've all seen it.

Here's the chord:

My recent struggle with health care, almost losing the house, etc... came with some offers of giving. These offers were appreciated, but they came with some strings attached!

I had some bad things happen that were not in my control. So the living within ones means, saving for troubled times, not living in Christ, moral choices, and other messages, did not resonate --in fact were offensive. It was pretty obvious, if I were to just "accept" some things, I could get substantial help.

Given my particular life choices, I had a difficult time with this. Adopting kids, not being materialistic, living within means, and giving both time and dollars when I could, all pointed to solid choices, thus I was not really in need of "lessons", but just some empowerment to overcome a bad scene.

And that's where the idea that giving more dollars, often through substantial people, or institutions is the "right" or "better" way, does not ring true for me. There is no doubt these people and organizations do a lot of good. There is also no doubt they help people learn their lessons and live better lives too.

But, like conservatives see giving in terms of just empowerment as something to be abused, many of us also see giving through specific entities also as something to be abused. Where there is control like that, there is also potential for forcing things on people --moral things, religious things.

Neither abuse is cool. Shouldn't be cool with anyone really.

It is my opinion this control is being abused right now, just as social programs are.

It is also my opinion that focusing giving the conservative way is also empowering that portion of this nation wanting to legislate a lot of morality and religion onto people that might just need some help.

I don't think there is one right way to handle this, other than to provide balance. If we provide some elementary social support, and we encourage giving through people and institutions, we are giving to others, generally speaking, and that is generally good overall.

Some abuse will happen, but giving people options will empower them to avoid it and that's where we can do the most good.

I've zero problem with people engaging in advocacy with their giving. It's all good. But I do have a problem with that being the preferred means of giving too.

There is a balance where we provide some things for everyone, thus giving them options. If we don't over do this, then the advocacy element is preserved, and the abuse is also mitigated.

That's it. Just wanted to speak to that a little more.

Back to Gore, I suppose.

"I'm sorry Herb."

Not a problem, ChickenJuggler.

And before Missing blows a gasket, I should add that there are plenty of charitable liberals. For instance, I would guess that Mother Teresa will have a much more lasting impact than Jim Bakker. It's simply a matter of either going with the exception, or the rule.

Herb

Depends on how you define liberals, as a catholic, I would assume mother Teresa is against same sex marriages.

Maybe she was when she was alive. She was not pro-choice.

Andrew

Nwokie wake the F up! MT is dead!!!!!!!

Jesus can be a powerful ally for liberals. Jesus spend most of his time concerned with the poor and downtrodden. He didn't talk about gay marriage. He was comassionate and didn't judge when he ministered to the needy.

Liberals should embrace the teachings of Jesus. What Christlike thing has Bush and his followers ever done?

"What Christlike thing has Bush and his followers ever done?"

Oh, I don't know....EXCEPT MAYBE FREE MILLIONS OF IRAQIS AND AFGHANIS..OR SIGNING THE BILL BANNING PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, ALSO KNOWN AS INFANTICIDE, ON WHICH THE LEFT FOUGHT MR. BUSH.

Herb

Iraqis and Aghanis ARE NOT FREE! If they were, we wouldn't be over there today.

Gore needs to sit the next one out.

I'm voting Republican, no matter who it is.

Bush has screwed everything up so much, the next president will be tarred with the damage and will not be able to fix it in four years.

Gore should wait until the next election, when the job would be handed to him.

"Iraqis and Aghanis ARE NOT FREE!"

Fine, Mr. All or None. It took our nation a long time to improve to the point where women could vote. In the span of a few years, not only can Iraqi women vote, but girls are now allowed to go to school.

Herb

Blessed are the fetuses. So if Bush stops a few abortions while recklessly managing some ME wars where innocent pregnant women die with their fetuses, then all is forgiven and Bush can be very proud of how he follows the teachings of Christ.

I was raised Methodist and they skipped the parts of the Bible where Jesus said stopping abortions is so important that the end justfies the means.

Hitler must be a hero to the right. He was very much against abortion. Too bad he did all that other stuff but it's like Bush. You can't do everything but sometimes doing one thing is all that matters.

Classic leftist spin.

Compare Mr. Bush to Hitler.

Keep it up. 2008 is going to be great.

Herb

Yep, 2008 will be great for the GOP, just like 2006 was.

With the GOP having to defend 22 Senate seats while the Dems only have to defend 12, it will be statistically impossible for the GOP to gain any seats. Add in the current $100 million advantage the Dems have in fundraising, and 2008 will indeed be great.

It's too easy to compare Bush to Hitler and the American sheeple to the Germans who let their country be run over by Hitler but the shoe fits so well.

Vitalogy, do you think that Oregonians will let Gordon Smith fool them again?

Old Gordo is going to be hard to beat in 2008. So far, the Oregon Democrats haven't come up with a viable candidate to challenge Smith yet, and it's getting late. Many prominent Oregon Democrats have made up one excuse or another to avoid challenging Smith, because I'm sure they've seen polls saying it would be a very tough race.

But if the Dems could come up with a really good candidate? Sure, I do think Smith is beatable. Without a good candidate opposing, seems very unlikely.

Andrew

I think it would be a good idea to have campaign against Gordon Smith more than campaigning for whoever runs against him. If people realized what a right winger, Bush lover, hypocrate he was, he'd lose. The numbers are against Bush and I think anybody who's proBush can't win.

I think we can all see how well "campaigning against Bush" worked in 2004. Sorry, I think you need a viable candidate to oppose an incumbent; people won't vote for someone they think wouldn't be a good senator just because they aren't crazy about Smith. Lots of people who didn't like Bush voted for him anyway in 2004 because they simply weren't sold on Kerry.

The idea of "anti-campaigning" turns me off. I would love to campaign for a good candidate to oppose Gordon Smith. But I'm not going to waste my time campaigning AGAINST him.

Andrew

You make some good points, Andrew but don't you think that the public needs to be educated about Smith's voting record? A vote for Smith is a vote for W.

I over estimate people, I guess. I never expected the American people to be fooled and manipulated as far as they were by this administration.

Mrs_bug writes:
don't you think that the public needs to be educated about Smith's voting record? A vote for Smith is a vote for W.

Of course they need to be educated about Gordon Smith's record, but it should be done by a great candidate opposing him, someone who can then say, "Here's how I'll do better for Oregon than Gordon Smith has done." "Don't Vote For Gordon Smith" isn't an appealing argument to voters without an alternative they feel comfortable with.

And we can't really say that a vote for Gordon Smith is a vote for Bush, because Bush will be gone a few weeks after the next Senate term beings in 2009.

Andrew

Gordon Smith will likely get re-elected, unfortunately. Although I won't be voting for him. I think it depends on the candidate.

As for DeFazio and Earl B, they made the smart move. Why give up what they've worked hard for to face a possible defeat? They are better served in their positions than to risk losing it all in a bid for the Senate. Plus, I respect a person that says, "I don't need to move up, I'm comfortable doing what I'm doing and want to stay to make a difference."

One good thing about Smith is that he will follow the trends --just enough to look good.

So, if it's another sweep, the GOP shrinks by another third, we've got few worries with Gordo.

Herb!
Are the 50 soccer fans that got blow the F up in Iraq today free???

No, but the millions who didn't are free.

You wanna go with the exception, fine-That's your deal.

If we would have followed your logic during WWII, we would have rolled over for Hitler through appeasement. No thanks.

Herb

The THOUSANDS that have been killed after we invaded???

Nobody is free in Iraq. If that was the case, more US troops would not be necessary.

"The THOUSANDS that have been killed after we invaded???"

Trixter, now you're sounding like Ward Churchill.

You want to weep over terrorists who tried killing our guys as they closed down rape rooms and let girls go to school, you must be an ACLU member, too.

Herb

I should have known better that this thread would eventually NOT be about Gore entering the race. But, again, do you think Gore will enter, and do you think he has a chance? Or is it just too early to tell? I will look forward to a few answers to this, but then back to the un-related political debate! PDX radio "politics and other things" at its best!

BTW, everyone keeps talking about this election as being so still far away. Not really. The important primaries are only 8 months away, and the nominations are about a year away. Not going to listen to this "too far out argument" too much longer. Add on the fact that this is the first election with no incumbunts since, well, frankly I can't remember.

I don't think Gore will enter, I don't know if he could win the nomination even if he did (though he'd have a good shot at it), and in a 2-candidate race against any of the Republicans currently running for president, I do think Gore would win.

What else is there to say about it, really?

Andrew

Andrew, what else is there to say? Well, maybe just this...IMHO, Hillary and Obama would have a tougher time against the GOP than Gore. And while we both agree about this, it is hard to believe the dem "experts" can't see this. I will eat my words if it doesn't happen, but the dems will pressure Gore into the race at some point because at the end of the day, they want to win.

Also, watch Gore slowly back off from his global warming theories, and start talking more about Iraq. This will be a true sign he will be getting in. I may be off, but I predict around December '07 for a Gore announcement.

Wait, I thought he would be losing weight and THAT would be the true sign?

Who says the thousands that have been killed in Iraq are all terrorists? Seems to me, it's you that's pulling a Ward Churchill.

I'll chalk this up to another one of your double standards.

Herb ignorantly said>>>
You want to weep over terrorists who tried killing our guys as they closed down rape rooms and let girls go to school, you must be an ACLU member, too.

That's the biggest piece of CRAP I've ever seen on this message board!
COME ON NOW! Your smarter than that Herb...
I hope.....

And who in the HELL said I was crying over TERRORISTS? In your SICK mind you were!
How many kids were and have continued to be killed by the INVASION???
I'll be waiting....

"You want to weep over terrorists who tried killing our guys as they closed down rape rooms and let girls go to school, you must be an ACLU member, too."

A terrorist is not always an Iraqi. An Iraqi is not always a terrorist. In fact, we went into the war to find weapons of mass destruction, and after years and years, we did not. The result was that thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans died.

We stayed in this war to topple Saddam, and after a fashion, we did. The result was that hundreds more Americans died, and thousands more Iraqis died. There were no "terrorists" until it was clear that governing authority had been lost by all parties.

Now, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead and we are racing toward four thousand servicemen and women lost. At no point has this been framed as a Civil Rights issue beyond a few well chosen buzzwords like "liberty" and whatnot.

The girls who go to school in Iraq are shot down, blown up and assaulted now, more than any time in recent Iraqi history. Contrary to your back-engineered argument, this has not been about the women of Iraq at all.

As for the last part of the statement, I will let Wikipedia field it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitor

I'm going to do what Herb likes to do right now - it feels terrible;

" He doesn't care for or about the children of Iraq. They would grow up to be terrorists anyway. Pre-emptive strike on the most base level. He has been given plenty of time to address how he feels. He doesn't. It's about abortion and stats for congress. Not responsibility or anything that smacks of it. It's ' You started it ' or ' Oh yeah? Well I can call you a worse name.' "

So just know that and move on, I guess.

Herb......
We are waiting.....

If you comb through the archives, you will find that months ago I was willing to bet Gore would announce his candidacy this summer. I believe I mentioned a large metropolitan center like Salt Lake City being evacuated for health reasons making a perfect backdrop for the announcement.

"I may be off, but I predict around December '07 for a Gore announcement."

Redford picked the stretch from Thansgiving to New Year and he could be right. Gore is gaining momentum and there have been no shortage of natural disasters. However, I agree, the war is the biggest issue.

The September report from our Generals in the field might be the tipping point on a wide variety of things. I cannot help but see the deadline as either an interesting ironic coincidence, or foreshadowing more nefarious machinations to keep the war ongoing.

I strongly suspect the latter is true.

The perception of "being at war" against "a potent enemy" is the foundation for nearly all the crap that has gone on.

It's also the king pin required to maintain some cover-up stall tactics.

It is funny how scared they perceive the American people to be, since it flies in complete opposition to reality. There have been some pretty violent moments in my neighborhood of late, should I put duct tape around my door jambs? Of course not.

Before there was a Ghandi, long before there were treaties between Australia, Canada and their motherland, and certainly before there was an IRA, or Atlantic Charter, there was one country that beat the British Empire at the height of their power: The United States.

We aint 'fraid a' no-body.

So, if 200 years later, the nail biters are electing reactionaries with profit-based agendas, they will be easily swayed. All it took was getting us all to concentrate on one morning. History has already shown that the carnage divided us into the "hypnotized" and "free willed" in a hurry. We were unified by horror, but not by curiosity, or the need for answers. Nationalism is a dangerous tool, and often, lambs are sacrificed to keep it sharp.

We are in a new "McCarthy Era" with the most evil sorts of folks playing the part of Edgar Bergen.

This endless atmosphere of panic and subterfuge is another solid reason I would like Gore to win, again.

You know it.

We do have unparalleled people to people communication right now though. (That is being worked on with the Net Neutrality fight --but I think we will prevail.)

IMHO, this makes the cycle far more difficult to maintain. We have been in that new era, but it's peaked, IMHO. Barring some contrived event, it's looking increasingly golden from here.

"Barring some contrived event, it's looking increasingly golden from here."

*knocking on wood*

I hope our optimism is rewarded more often in the future. This old world needs a rest from the killing.