Andy9o8 3 #1 November 3, 2006 From the Dallas Morning News http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-schaeffer_01edi.ART.State.Edition1.3eab2ff.html Excerpts Quote 07:52 AM CST on Wednesday, November 1, 2006 I'm a Christian, a writer, a military parent and a registered Republican. On all those counts, I was disgusted by an e-mail I just received that's being circulated by campaign supporters of Republican George Allen, who's trying to retain his Senate seat in Virginia. The message goes like this: "First, it was the Catholic priests, then it was Mark Foley, and now Jim Webb, whose sleazy novels discuss sex between very young teenagers. ... Hmmm, sounds like a perverted pedophile to me! Pass the word that we do not need any more pedophiles in office."Democrat James Webb is a war hero and former Marine, wounded in Vietnam and winner of the Navy Cross. He was writing about class and military issues long before me and has articulated the issue of how the elites have dropped the ball on military service in his classic novel Fields of Fire. By the way, that's a book Tom Wolfe calls "the greatest of the Vietnam novels." Mr. Webb's son is a Marine in Iraq. That's an uncommon fact in this era in which most political leaders' children act as if it is only right and proper that it's someone else's war to fight. My wife and I have reached the tipping point. We plan to go to town hall to dump our Republican voter registration and reregister as independents. I don't care anymore what party someone is in. These days, what I care about is what they're made of. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #2 November 3, 2006 I watched Lynnn Cheney on a show the other night defending HER writings asd not being the same when she wrote about lesbian rapes in her books..etc. That was ok according to her.. yet she also was vilifying Webb for his writing.... DISGUSTING... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #3 November 3, 2006 QuoteMy wife and I have reached the tipping point. We plan to go to town hall to dump our Republican voter registration and reregister as independents. I don't care anymore what party someone is in. These days, what I care about is what they're made of. Which means, frankly, that he isn't going to be able to vote in the primaries. That's about all it means. In most states, primaries are "closed" or party specific. Because of that, he won't be able to vote in them because there are no independent primaries. So he's wasting a vote (or two - his wife). 'Course, most people don't vote in the primaries, anyway, so it probably doesn't really matter. In the general elections, he can vote for whomever he wants...dems, republicans, independent, green, libertarian, cross ticket, issue-only, the martians, a write in candidate...whomever he pleases. It's how the system works...and while I don't agree with it, it is the way it goes. I am a proponent of open primaries, but they're few and far between in my state. I understand his opinion - and held a similar one. I learned the hard way, as I suspect he will. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #4 November 3, 2006 QuoteI don't care anymore what party someone is in. These days, what I care about is what they're made of. damn skippy (to quote another poster) hopes it's not too hard for some of the hardliner left and rights here to swallow..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,602 #5 November 3, 2006 In Texas, it doesn't even mean that. I'm not registered as anything, and I can vote in any primary I want to. The only limitation is that if I vote in a given primary, I can't vote in the other party's primary runoff. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #6 November 3, 2006 I should point out here that both Democrats & Republicans are really pulliing the same sleazy bullshit. It's ridiculous. I"m seeing all these negative ads on TV & in the bulk mail about how much the other guy sucks. Usually the ads are exagerations or take things out of context, or gloss over important details, so I don't pay much attention to the negative ads regardless of who they come from. Of course, if you believed the ads you'd come away with the idea that ALL the candidates are complete evil sleazebags. No wonder so many people don't want to go to the polls. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #7 November 3, 2006 Quote Of course, if you believed the ads you'd come away with the idea that ALL the candidates are complete evil sleazebags. Which, in most cases, they actually are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #8 November 3, 2006 Sorry for asking a stupid question, but what is the puspose of the primary? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #9 November 3, 2006 QuoteSorry for asking a stupid question, but what is the puspose of the primary? It is a device the ruling parties have for ensuring their party faithful get a chance to vote for the candidate that will support their party platform in the general elections. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #10 November 3, 2006 QuoteSorry for asking a stupid question, but what is the puspose of the primary? It's the method in the US through which the parties choose the candidates who will run in the general election. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #11 November 3, 2006 QuoteSorry for asking a stupid question, but what is the purpose of the primary? It's a method used by both major parties to ensure only their extreme lock step wacko candidates get on the general election ballot. it also allows grown people to act like childish 8 year olds for a few days. It's good practice as they maintain that posture for the next 2 to 4 years until the next primary cycle. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #12 November 3, 2006 >It's a method used by both major parties to ensure only their >extreme lock step wacko candidates get on the general election ballot. Had an interesting conversation once with a conservative australian. He was suprised that we emphasize candidates instead of parties (although I explained that many simply vote along party lines.) His take on it was that people were unreliable, and only the party had the power/vision/permanence to make governmental policies work. Indeed, if a candidate bucked the party line, he could expect to be voted out by his own party (a vote of "no confidence" is what he described) and a replacement appointed. Electors generally vote for parties, not individual candidates, and debates are usually between Government (majority party) and Opposition (second-largest party.) I don't think I agree that that's a great idea, but it was interesting to hear that viewpoint from a non-american. (BTW the australian system of government is pretty similar to our own, with a queen as head of the executive instead of a president.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #13 November 3, 2006 Quote(BTW the australian system of government is pretty similar to our own, with a queen as head of the executive instead of a president.) That could never work here..... "queens" are expected to stay in their closet and be good little boys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #14 November 3, 2006 >"queens" are expected to stay in their closet and be good little boys. "I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my homosexuals flaming!" -Homer Simpson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #15 November 3, 2006 Dekker, it's not a stupid question... Quotebut what is the purpose of the primary? The different parties often have several candidates running at the same time (in national elections, at least). Because of that, the party has to winnow down their candidates to one or two that have the best chance of winning the national seat. So, the parties hold "primary" elections to determine who that candidate is. At this point, the two major parties don't compete against each other if it's "closed". Something like 38 of the 50 states have closed elections (some have caucuses, some have open, but most have closed). The issues that come up with the closed primary elections are that historically, the people who vote in the primaries are the die hard faithful, i.e. the most conservative republicans or the most liberal democrats. Because of this, the candidate must appeal to those who are voting - so you have hard line rhetoric being espoused. Once the primaries are over, the issue then becomes how to court the more middle of the road people...those people who make up the majority of voters...without losing the "base" support of those who vote in the primary. Something like 10% (or less...I don't recall off hand) vote in the primaries, so that means once the candidate has been selected to run, they then have to modify their position to appeal to the rest of the likely voting public. It's been likened to riding two horses at the same time; dangerous, difficult, and confusing. Once the primaries are over, then it becomes an open election, meaning you can vote for whomever - party lines notwithstanding - you believe to be the one who more closely aligns with your own personal views. In primaries, you can't vote across the board, only for those candidates the particular party you are registered with puts forth. Put it into perspective, only republicans could vote for Bush and only democrats could vote for Gore in the primaries, while in the general election, no matter which party you belong to, you could vote for either one. It's an interesting way to hold preliminary voting rounds, and one I am not sure I agree with. I think I'd rather see more open elections, as that would increase the candidate base and open it up to such people as McCain (who has alienated a lot of the base Republicans) or Lieberman (who has alienated a lot of the base Democrats). I have voted in primaries, but don't often do so now. The fact that California primaries have become a moot point notwithstanding, if we were able to vote for whomever we choose in a primary, the candidate field would be better reflective of the general consituency of the US... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #16 November 3, 2006 Quote I'm not registered as anything, and I can vote in any primary I want to. We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #17 November 3, 2006 Thanks Michele and others. It is similar too, yet completely different (lol) to the Canadian system. In our system the political parties hold conventions at which time party members vote a leader. The party in the end decides which candidates run in the different districts. This system is the same for federal and provincial elections (At least in Ontario). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pubwoof 0 #18 November 3, 2006 QuoteI should point out here that both Democrats & Republicans are really pulliing the same sleazy bullshit. It's ridiculous. Not so fast, Speed! While nobody could plausibly argue that the Democrats haven't gone negative, there is a huge difference between the insulting grade-school level personal attacks coming from the Rove/Mehlman cabal than from the Dems who at least limit their attacks to actual job performance and to positions/people their opponents have publicly supported. There is a good article on this here: http://www.slate.com/id/2152671/ In my home state, the attack d'jour against Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill has been that she advocates hurting old people in nursing homes. The basis of this attack is that the guy she married a few years ago once co-owned nursing homes that were cited for "serious violations" and were sued for stuff. There is no evidence that her husband knew of any of the incidents or that he failed to take the responsible steps of a co-owner to ensure that serious violations never occured. By all accounts, and like many owners of business, he had no role in any day-to-day operations of the units. Yet, the RNC is willing to use the misdeeds of the then-current employees of her then-future husband in some logically bizaare triple-twisted smear that she hates old people. Nice! My favorite example from the above-cited article is the Republican attack ad against Michael Arcuri which alleges that he spends tax money on sex hotlines. In a different article I read about the incident, a staffer of his was attempting to dial a long distance number to reach some administrative regulatory commission (don't recall the name of it) which happened to have a phone number one digit removed from being identical to the phone number for a sex hotline. Even though the incident and the details proving the inadvertance of the call were made public some time ago, RNC scum were still willing to smear Arcuri by alleging he spends tax dollars on phone sex. Is there anything Republicans won't do to win an election? I defy any of you right wingers posting here to come up with an example of a DNC-sponsored ad which is anywhere near as dishonest or as hateful as what the Roverites are willing to use to smear somebody. Happy hunting! The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #19 November 3, 2006 How about the attack on Congresswoman Nancy Johnson (R), running for re-election in Connecticut’s 5th district? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pubwoof 0 #20 November 3, 2006 A citation would be helpful. Thanks The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #21 November 4, 2006 You asked for an example. I provided one. It should easy enough to google. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pubwoof 0 #22 November 4, 2006 Thanks for being so helpful. "Results 1 - 10 of about 689,000 for nancy johnson 5th district attack." The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pubwoof 0 #23 November 4, 2006 So far, the most insulting ad I've seen so far in that race has been her variation of the "Democrats want terrorists to win" argument as an attack against Chris Murphy. I'll presume that's the one you're referring to until I hear back to the contrary. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #24 November 4, 2006 http://www.factcheck.org/article451.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pubwoof 0 #25 November 4, 2006 First of all, the attack does limit itself to the public duties of Ms. Johnson as a member of Congress. Secondly, the most that could be said of it was that it was misleading in regards to some of the details. The article you used even states; "The Johnson campaign asked Murphy to withdraw the ad after it began running on Oct. 8, but the Murphy campaign has refused, claiming in a statement that, "the ad is completely true." Maybe so, but only in the narrowest sense. The ad's carefully constructed language would lead any reasonable viewer to draw a false conclusion." If this is the worst a Democrat has done against a Republican this cycle, I'll stand by everything I said earlier. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
