And on we merrily stumble to question 4, and this time it is Becky who has decided to take a question off.
Identify yourself as either a Republican or a Democrat (for this exercise, no one is allowed to be an independent). If you really can’t decide, the tiebreaker is the party of the person you’re supporting for president in 2008 as of today. Now, name someone from the other side that you admire and describe what you like about them. No cheating (i.e. “I admire X’s naivety and the way he’s able to delude himself that he has the best interest of the country in mind”). For some of you, this one may require substantial research. They don’t have to be currently in office; just someone who is clearly identified with that party. Oh, and they have to still be alive (as of today).
John
By virtue of my own tiebreaker I am a Democrat. As such, I’m going to go with Newt Gingrich. I read his first book in 1996 and he is one of the main reasons I was a Republican for so long. Even now when I hear him speak, I recognize and identify with the logic that brought me to the party (and which, sadly, now seems to have left it). Low taxes, small government, balanced budgets, sign me up! What I respect most about him is that when he gives his view on an issue, it is always consistent and logical with his underlying philosophies. That’s a refreshing change of pace from other politicians who repeat the party line and try to act like it’s consistent with everything else they’ve said, even when it clearly isn’t.
Mike
Republican.
There are quite a few Democrats that have qualities that I admire, and they tend be older democrats that were around before socialism started to creep its way into the party line. Democrat principles of equality, fair treatment of all peoples, individual rights, a strong military, and defense of the liberty for everyone, are values of true patriots in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson… the founder of the Democrat Party, which was formed to fight for the Bill of Rights.
Jimmy Carter is one democrat whom I admire for his distinguished Naval career and his support and work with Habitat for Humanity.
Eric
I am a Democrat. I admire Governor Arnold Shwartzanagger. This is a guy who grew up from nothing. His father was a Police Chief in Austria, and he worked in a health club and attended business school while working out 4-6 hours daily to win his 5 Mr. Universe titles. The guy moved to the US speaking poor English and with a strange and thick accent which has been mocked since he hit the public stage. He won the Governorship by well over 1 million votes each time, and is an insanely popular Governor in one of the most liberal states in the union.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Weir, I honored my commitment to not edit anyone's responses, but good lord did you butcher the Governator's name!
Yeah, I wrote that on the fly without really thinking about it. The question was politically motivated and my answer was mostly based on life stuff instead of politics. Oh well.
I thought this would be an interesting exercise and the results were largely what I thought they would be. Mike and Weir's praises for their respective choices had mainly to do with them as individuals rather than their political positions, Becky flat out couldn't think of a single Republican she admired, and even I couldn't praise a Republican without taking a swipe at the current state of the party.
We (and I'm including myself in this) seem to have a real hard time offering unqualified praise towards someone politically who seems to be "on the other side." My question is, is this because we believe that the "other side" is really wrong on most issues or is it because we are guilty of group think?
As I've said before, I think people are often guilty of only following issues when presented by the side they are on. Sure, you might see Harry Reid on Bill O'Reilly or John McCain on Bill Maher, but in both cases the deck is certainly stacked against the guest. I think that is one problem with all these different choices that the modern media (whether through tv, newspaper, or internet) has presented us with. It is now possible to go through your whole life and never really have to hear anyone challenge your current beliefs. In the long run, I don't think that's healthy for us.
I also think the timeframe has skewed the answers you got to this question. There are Republicans that I like and respect, but this is an election year and ALL bipartisanship has gone out the window.
Hell, a year and a half ago I was a GIANT McCain fan. He had sensible viewpoints on immigration, torture, etc... and frequently disagreed with the administration, and did it publicly. Unfortunatly, in an election year, everyone is moving to cover their asses. Look how far the man has moved to the right. He has done a 180 on some of his positions. And the way he dances around the torture issue now makes me sick.
Then there are Republicans I like, and would like to sit down and have a beer with, but I would probably want to beat them over the head the whole time. This list includes Mary Matalin, Pat Buchanan, and Joe Scarborough. Of course, none of them hold office anymore.
Ask this question a year from now, after all of the campaigning is over, and you would get vastly different answers.
I really have no idea what McCain is doing right now (other than basically handing the election to Obama). You would have thought that when 2 years ago he started pandering to the religious right and it went over horribly that he would have learned his lesson. I love that when they asked his mother whether or not the GOP would support him she said "Yes, I think holding their nose they're going to have to take him." She gets it. He is never going to be accepted by the ultra-conservatives, and all he is doing by abdicating the center is ensuring that all (or at least most) the independents will go to Obama. And as for his strategy to pilfer Hillary supporters (which was smart), is there any more efficient way to get them running back to their base? He just doesn't seem to get that he's not running a primary anymore. He had a choice between staying center and attracting indys while risking having his Republican base stay home on him on election day or
moving to the right and trying to energize his base while alienating indys. I am stunned that he has chosen the latter, because it's simply a losing strategy. Of course, he seems to do his best when he gets himself 15 points down in the polls, so maybe his strategy is working perfectly.
Weir, I believe that your answer might be different a year from now but I'm not so sure most people's would be. Guess we will have to wait and see. Even now, though, as far as Republicans go I'm surprised I haven't seen mention of Colin Powell, Chuck Hagel, George Will, or Alan Greenspan.
I'm still putting together the many thoughts in my head right now about this, but I just wanted to say this: I think we're at a turning point for our country right now. There seems to be greater disparity between points of view between people (not political parties, but people) on the level of involvement of government in people's lives.
There seems to be one group of poeple that feel it's perfectly acceptable for the government to be involved in all the intimate and financial aspects of their lives, and another that truly wishes for freedom, with all of its responsibilities and benefits.
The people that wish for the "nanny state" to take care of them for their entire existence on this planet, as well as those that feel that it's the government's place to make sure there's one penis and one vagina assigned to every marriage license are all the same in my book.
I don't want the government paying my bills, just like I don't want the government telling me not to smoke a Pall Mall once in awhile, or 20 per day for that matter.
But I understand the downside to freedom (if one needs to call it that) is that I may fall down once in awhile. I may find myself out of a job (which I did yesterday). I may miss a car payment.
But I also understand that when I experience success, it will be mine. I will feel the pride and accomplishment that comes with hard work. I will see the fruits of MY labor.
This is why liberalism is not for me. This is why I truly cannot fathom any mentality that would sacrifice freedom for any sense of safety (and this includes some of the most recent republican policies).
Finally, this is why I cannot find a modern living example of a democrat that has any admirable political qualities. Because, like a mother that doesn't know when it's time for her child to move out of the basement, liberal democrat government is causing real harm to her children by not letting them fall down once in awhile. Failure is what makes us stronger, and by allowing and encourageing government to cushion our falls, put baby gates up, and wrap us in social and economic bubble wrap, we're making ourselves weaker election by election.
I put a comment in for roundtable 1. Figured if I didn't leave a note it wouldn't get read.
Here is a great quote that I think succinctly sums up what you just said:
"The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself."
That is from Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, although he was a Democrat, served in both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think it is a lot more gray than the picture you paint.
For one, let's look at education (grades K-12). The plan that I am in support of calls for the government (whether state, local, or federal) to give money to the students (probably in the form of vouchers) and then it is the school's job to attract the student. The school's funding depends on the level of its enrollment. This would open the door to charter schools coming into areas where they think they can do better than the public schools, and would offer incentive for the public schools to get better since they would have competition. Whether you like the idea or not, answer me this: is it a liberal idea or a conservative one? The government is still ultimately paying for it, so that suggests liberal, but it is encouraging competition and free markets, which would indicate conservative. To further complicate matters, the person I first heard about this from was George Will (a staunch conservative) but the example of where this is currently being used (and very effectively) is in Sweden, which is one of the most social program-intensive countries in the world.
Another good example has to do with environmental concerns. In cases where, for example, corporations are overfishing an area to depletion we can't afford to wait for them to learn that it is in their long-term best interest to pursue a sustainable course. Most of us could probably agree with government's role in regulating that, but then it's exactly that kind of thinking that leads them to ban smoking in public places due to second-hand smoke concerns.
The other point (which you already made) is that this is not purely a left/right difference. Both sides are guilty of it. A lot of left-wingers want to tax you to death, redistribute wealth, and ban guns, but a lot of right-winger wants to display the 10 commandments in public buildings, ban abortion, and only allow you to marry members of the opposite sex. All those ideas are misguided and trample on each of our individual rights. To me, that's a good reason to be an independent.
Phil, yeah I am going to work on updating the site so that it displays the most recent comments made. That way hopefully we can still have some discussions in topics that are other than the one that's on top.
Wow, this suddenly got interesting. And there is no correct answer to this new question.
I was recently reading a book about opening a business in Illinois. Holy shit. 200 years ago you could buy property, build a structure, and start selling shit. Now business is regulated to death. Construction codes, building codes, permits, etc... (Not to mention taxes)
Business plan: find a city corner lacking a general store, build a counter and some shelves, buy a cash register, load up on supplies from Target/Walmart, mark up 10%, open for business.
Unfortunately if you were to do this you would be breaking like 10 laws.
So yeah, the government needs to get off our back a little bit.
Then again, in one of the richest countries in the world, one in five children are born into poverty. One in five.
So yeah, the government needs to help out a little here and there.
And as John already pointed out, strict capitalism can be highly destructive for both local and world economies, ecosystems, societies, etc...
(Oh yeah, and John, just for fun I'm reading this book.
While the reviews are quite bad, it seems most of the negative reviewers haven't read the book. Typical internet.)
Don't know anything about that book but I love the wilting flower on the cover. "Nuclear power makes flowers sad"
Not the place for it, but I feel the need to say that if the Illinois primary were held today I would vote for Hilary.
The senators (including Obama) who wiped their ass with the fourth amendment yesterday should be ashamed of themselves.
And the ones who didn't even bother showing up should be run out of town and country.
Fucking 1984. Unreal.
Maybe I'm missing something, but other than granting immunity to the telecom companies I don't see what's wrong with it. I had to go to a CNN article to get details, but this is what it said:
Question: Under the proposed FISA bill, can Americans be spied on without a court warrant? Are their civil liberties protected?
Benson: Under the new revised law, a warrant is required to spy on an American, including, for the first time, Americans who are abroad.
Requiring warrants for wire-tapping seems completely in line with the 4th amendment. What are you seeing that I'm not?
I think Weir must be referring to the provision in the law that allows wiretaps for non American Citizens who are outside of the United States.
If I'm wrong, then I apologize. However, if I'm right about that assumption then why do you feel that the Consitutional rights of our country should apply to foreign citizens in foreign countries?
Since calls from one country to another can be routed through US based phone equipment, previously we needed wiretap warrants. Now we don't, unless the caller or recipient is a US Citizen.
Also, the new law actually extends protections further than the previous version did. Non US Citizens in the US are now protected, as well as US Citizens abroad.
The part about protecting the phone companies actually requires judicial review. And last I checked, the phone companies were not government agencies, and have no responsibility to protect your 4th amendment rights.
John, to respond to your comment ealier, it's not so much that I couldn't think of a Republican I admire so much as I don't follow politics enough to really name for you with confidence any politicians at all who I admire. For all I know they've done some stupid things and I didn't know about it. I figured it would be better to not comment than just embarrass myself.
Becky, I think you kind of missed the point. It was just supposed to be someone *you* admire, not someone who is infallible. I can't think of a politician (or human being for that matter) who has not done something stupid or agrees with me on everything.
Ok, fine. Condoleeza Rice. Because that lady don't take no shit from anybody. :) And she works her butt off and it seems like people actually listen to her.
Hey, awesome job on the recent comments feed! Woohoo!!
Yes, except for the minor detail that it doesn't appear to actually work . . .
anyone see this?
nice try iran. nice try.
Allright. FISA.
Lets start here. This is a truely terrifying story. And while it is over a year old, still no one knows about it (hell, even I just watched it today.) It is an ABC news report with video, so beware at work.
After trying to write intelligently on this issue (the bill signed into law today) I feel that I can't be succinct enough for a blog post response. I tried it a few different ways, but couldn't keep it to any sort of short length (even if you consider my tendency to be long winded.)
So I'll take my advice from a reformed fictional skinhead: "Derek says it's always good to end a paper with a quote. He says someone else has already said it best. So if you can't top it, steal from them and go out strong."
The ACLU Press Release on their lawsuit
(And that doesn't even cover the retroactive immunity.)
(Anyone catch the political news today? Freaking field day for reporters. Obama forgets Clinton's debt. Gramm puts foot in mouth. Viagra vs. birth control. Jesse Jackson fallout. Great day.)
Must be something wrong with the coding. Have a peek at Christy's, see if anything doesn't match up when you compare the two. Otherwise I can take a look.
Actually, it looks like it works but there's a delay. I can't set up mine like Christy's. To make changes to the blog I had to upgrade to a different version and the old code doesn't work right anymore.
So, to paraphrase that story, something may have happened somewhere; I don't know what it was, but it definately wasn't what I was used to seeing as a guy that normally plugged phone cords in for a living.
Yeah, sounds like hard proof there.
Regardless of the veracity of the claim, the new FISA law pretty much fixes that situation. You should be happier about it now.
Once again, US Citizens are still protected by the fourth amendment. Read the law here:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6304pcs.txt.pdf
Yeah, I think I'm going to have to actually read the bill, because what the ACLU alleges is almost the exact opposite of what the CNN article said the new law will do.
Post a Comment