Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Jan 25, 2008 10:50:29 GMT -5
dcbee said:
koyaanisqatsi said:
FEINGOLD ON EDWARDS:
The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.
Okay, so I have a bit of a problem with dragging up someone's past voting record for many reasons. But the main one is isn't someone allowed to change his mind? At the time of the war, sure there were people who realized what a stupid thing it would be, but there were many, many who didn't. We had bad information. Now we know what was really going on, so is Edwards (or anyone else, this isn't a pro-Edwards rant) expected to continue to support the war even though he has seen the light?
Opinions are made based on the information a person has at the time, be it about Iraq, No Child, China or even something as seemingly simple as whether to pave a road or not. When new information is given and new arguments are heard, I would hope that my politician would be open minded enough to consider them.
I can only see it as opportunism. Hans Blix knew it. yada yada- No disrespect meant to anyone here. Even he/she who smited my opinion. Perhaps stand up with an opinion of your own instead of hiding behind a button.
Yes, if the third party does become a viable option. Right now there isn't one.
But that doesn't mean that it won't happen. Sure it's always been more or less one party vs. the other, but what they stand for has changed. Even Democrats and Republicans have changed SO much in the past few decades.
This is a time to step back and look at the big picture and realize that the little changes now will all lead up to a bigger change sometime in the near future.
Post by SouthGA_Festival Machine on Jan 25, 2008 10:55:02 GMT -5
dcbee said:
koyaanisqatsi said:
FEINGOLD ON EDWARDS:
The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.
Okay, so I have a bit of a problem with dragging up someone's past voting record for many reasons. But the main one is isn't someone allowed to change his mind? At the time of the war, sure there were people who realized what a stupid thing it would be, but there were many, many who didn't. We had bad information. Now we know what was really going on, so is Edwards (or anyone else, this isn't a pro-Edwards rant) expected to continue to support the war even though he has seen the light?
Opinions are made based on the information a person has at the time, be it about Iraq, No Child, China or even something as seemingly simple as whether to pave a road or not. When new information is given and new arguments are heard, I would hope that my politician would be open minded enough to consider them.
Edwards = flip flopper great leaders = stay the course > g.w.b. ???
Okay, so I have a bit of a problem with dragging up someone's past voting record for many reasons. But the main one is isn't someone allowed to change his mind? At the time of the war, sure there were people who realized what a stupid thing it would be, but there were many, many who didn't. We had bad information. Now we know what was really going on, so is Edwards (or anyone else, this isn't a pro-Edwards rant) expected to continue to support the war even though he has seen the light?
Opinions are made based on the information a person has at the time, be it about Iraq, No Child, China or even something as seemingly simple as whether to pave a road or not. When new information is given and new arguments are heard, I would hope that my politician would be open minded enough to consider them.
I can only see it as opportunism. Hans Blix knew it. yada yada- No disrespect meant to anyone here. Even he/she who smited my opinion. Perhaps stand up with an opinion of your own instead of hiding behind a button.
that's weird that someone smited you. This thread has been great for people arguing but still keeping it friendly
Okay, so I have a bit of a problem with dragging up someone's past voting record for many reasons. But the main one is isn't someone allowed to change his mind? At the time of the war, sure there were people who realized what a stupid thing it would be, but there were many, many who didn't. We had bad information. Now we know what was really going on, so is Edwards (or anyone else, this isn't a pro-Edwards rant) expected to continue to support the war even though he has seen the light?
Opinions are made based on the information a person has at the time, be it about Iraq, No Child, China or even something as seemingly simple as whether to pave a road or not. When new information is given and new arguments are heard, I would hope that my politician would be open minded enough to consider them.
Edwards = flip flopper great leaders = stay the course > g.w.b. ???
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Jan 25, 2008 10:59:18 GMT -5
How does a third party become viable ?
And what if I vote for someone because of what they stand for, and then they change what they stand for to win over new constituents ?
Maybe a little change is actually effected by REFUSING to vote for someone that you don't know what they stand for except re-electability ?
What would Wellstone have done ?
Not aiming this at you AT ALL-just think that they are questions that the dems and their constituents need to ponder, lest they continue to be the ANTIREPUBLICANS. This is not a check or balance, but rather a way to keep the hands in the cookie jar !
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Jan 25, 2008 11:03:52 GMT -5
southgajd said:
dcbee said:
Okay, so I have a bit of a problem with dragging up someone's past voting record for many reasons. But the main one is isn't someone allowed to change his mind? At the time of the war, sure there were people who realized what a stupid thing it would be, but there were many, many who didn't. We had bad information. Now we know what was really going on, so is Edwards (or anyone else, this isn't a pro-Edwards rant) expected to continue to support the war even though he has seen the light?
Opinions are made based on the information a person has at the time, be it about Iraq, No Child, China or even something as seemingly simple as whether to pave a road or not. When new information is given and new arguments are heard, I would hope that my politician would be open minded enough to consider them.
Edwards = flip flopper great leaders = stay the course > g.w.b. ???
This country suffers at the impression of it being one or the other. That is not democracy.
I would LOVE to see Edwards get the chance to employ some of Feingold's ideas. What I'm saying, and what I think Feingold is getting at, is how can we trust him to.
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Jan 25, 2008 11:13:01 GMT -5
dcbee said:
It would help if the third party picked a stance that a huge portion of the population could get behind and then got a realistic candidate.
Like "change" ? Sorry-that's been co-opted by the cronies who have had that chance since the midterm mandate.
Perhaps if Edwards, Kucinich, Nader, Gore, and the like actually stood for what they proclaim, they would defect and start building a powerhouse Green party that would have enough $ to compete with the big two. But they'd have to really want change, not just immediately elected.
Think about it. Sure they would give up their power to be in office to get things done for the next 4 years or so. But what can you really get done if you are forced to constantly cowtow to the forces of electability and every decision you make is guided not by what your constituents elected you for, but on how you will be RE-elected ?
Modified to exclude our current Imperial President. It's apparent he only listens to a very special interest !
Last Edit: Jan 25, 2008 11:17:44 GMT -5 by koyaanisqatsi - Back to Top
Edwards = flip flopper great leaders = stay the course > g.w.b. ???
This country suffers at the impression of it being one or the other. That is not democracy.
I would LOVE to see Edwards get the chance to employ some of Feingold's ideas. What I'm saying, and what I think Feingold is getting at, is how can we trust him to.
My point is that he's the only chance we have. The other will not do it for sure.
And hopefully if that's the issue he gets elected on, he'll realize that THAT is the issue he can re-elected on also (and Congress too). So hopefully he'll follow through.
Last Edit: Jan 25, 2008 11:18:26 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
It would help if the third party picked a stance that a huge portion of the population could get behind and then got a realistic candidate.
Like "change" ? Sorry-that's been co-opted by the cronies who have had that chance since the midterm mandate.
Perhaps if Edwards, Kucinich, Nader, Gore, and the like actually stood for what they proclaim, they would defect and start building a powerhouse Green party that would have enough $ to compete the the big two. But they'd have to really want change, not just immediately elected.
Think about it. Sure they would give up their power to be in office to get things done for the next 4 years or so. But what can you really get done if you are forced to constantly cowtow to the forces of electability and every decision you make is guided not by what your constituents elected you for, but on how you will be RE-elected ?
No, not "change," an actual idea. And frankly, I don't see the need for a third party. I was just answering your question about how one could become viable.
I also don't agree that politicians just do what they need to do to become reelected or even liked. I might hate Bush, but the man certainly stands by what he says. He does what he wants to do, polls be damned. And he's gotten a lot of crap implemented. So it is possible.
AND there are those who do not run for office specifically because they know they could do better work from the outside or they don't want to be forced into a position. Al Gore. Colin Powell.
And by voting for "the only chance we have ", we ensure that we feel just as desparate 4 years from now.
How many who voted for Kerry felt EXACTLY that way four years ago ?
I really liked Kerry. And not just because my company took him on as a client or becuase he was the best of what was available. I even really liked Teresa.
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Jan 25, 2008 11:32:09 GMT -5
dcbee said:
koyaanisqatsi said:
And by voting for "the only chance we have ", we ensure that we feel just as desparate 4 years from now.
How many who voted for Kerry felt EXACTLY that way four years ago ?
I really liked Kerry. And not just because my company took him on as a client or becuase he was the best of what was available. I even really liked Teresa.
I jumped on the bandwagon and supported him even though I didn't believe in him. I voted in a pool to oust Bush. And I have come to believe that I was WRONG to think in such a short term fashion. True change will come when WE the populace, stop being opportunists as well. We must support what we believe in, not try to defeat what we are against. With that will come the integrity to lead.
No, media consultanting. So with Kerry, we were his main consultants and did all of his TV spots through the primaries. Then Bob Shrum took over in July and we got out.
This year, we're co-consultants for Obama with David Axelrod.
Post by spookymonster on Jan 25, 2008 11:38:15 GMT -5
southgajd said:
Edwards = flip flopper great leaders = stay the course > g.w.b. ???
Colbert said it best: "[Bush] is the kind of man that believes the same thing on wednesday that he did on monday..... regardless of what happened on tuesday."
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Jan 25, 2008 11:42:08 GMT -5
dcbee said:
No, media consultanting. So with Kerry, we were his main consultants and did all of his TV spots through the primaries. Then Bob Shrum took over in July and we got out.
This year, we're co-consultants for Obama with David Axelrod.
AHHHHHH I see. No wonder one's voting record is of little importance ! Obama needs the populace to be convinced of such integrity in absentee-ism. (i kid I kid)
I think a third party would encourage new ideas and stop the fingerpointing. Ask the people of New Orleans if THEY feel checked or balanced by the status quo....
Anyways-happy to see open discussion is accepted here-'cept for my secret smiter !!!
I'm actually not 100% that I'll vote for Obama. Even though I'm working 12 hour days to help him get elected But I have time - DC's primary isn't for several weeks.
But isn't that the point of the primaries? To see who is electable?
I know Huckabee is falling fast now, but after Iowa, everyone started talking about him as a real candidate when beforehand, no one took him seriously.
Or Fred Thompson. Before he entered the race, everyone was all excited about him, thought he was the Second Coming. Then he didn't do so well and now he's out.
IMHO, Primaries are for refining the Party platform as much as selecting the candidate. For that reason I have no problem in voting for an unlikely candidate (ie Edwards) so as to get the candidates message incorporated in the winners platform.
koyaanisqatsi said:
And by voting for "the only chance we have ", we ensure that we feel just as desparate 4 years from now.
How many who voted for Kerry felt EXACTLY that way four years ago ?
And No koya, voting for the only chance we have is not a sell-out. For all we know Edwards may be the new messiah who will break the corporate stranglehold on America. My point is that, worst case, he would likely "dance with who brung him" and push the issues that got him elected. His personal and political history makes me relatively sure I'm voting for the best case though.
Are you suggesting I should vote for someone I believe will not support the issues I do, or just not vote?
(please don't take this as an angry post. It's just good political discussion)
Last Edit: Jan 25, 2008 12:10:30 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Anyone remember Thompson on a old old episode of roseanne, where he played her a hole boss . . . thats all i can think when i see him . . . . and frankenberry of course
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Jan 25, 2008 12:30:01 GMT -5
troo said:
And No koya, voting for the only chance we have is not a sell-out. For all we know Edwards may be the new messiah who will break the corporate stranglehold on America. My point is that, worst case, he would likely "dance with who brung him" and push the issues that got him elected. His personal and political history makes me relatively sure I'm voting for the best case though.
Are you suggesting I should vote for someone I believe will not support the issues I do, or just not vote?
(please don't take this as an angry post. It's just good political discussion)
No-not at all. I don't like empty promises. To listen to what Edwards promises is similar to listening to Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. They talk big and then cower. Pelosi talked a big game, got her position, and now is the big stalwart to progress amongst so called progressive democrats. She is also one of the biggest beneficiaries of lobbying monies. She has NO faith to those who supported WHAT SHE USED TO STAND FOR. Nor would Edwards. That's why I stick to his record instead of his promises. And to vote for him based on promises that don't align with his record sends the message that you will buy what they sell you, not be vigilant for integrity.
It didn't happen during Wellstone's tenure, and does not typically happen for Feingold. What you are arguing for is support of a man's words instead of a man's actions. Tell someone who lost a child due to Edwards' support of the unlawful invasion of iraq based on "false information" that he is not accountable, at least in part.
False information ? Try not believing the administration that you were employed to be a "balance" against ! The whole world was basically opposed to our invasion. Though opposition to the war has grown, there were plenty who knew better than Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.
Yet they are our "hope" for "change" ? They are our hope for saying what's popular while "opposing" Bush. What do any of them stand for ? Getting re-elected is the only bonafied answer.
The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.
Okay, so I have a bit of a problem with dragging up someone's past voting record for many reasons. But the main one is isn't someone allowed to change his mind?
I have to make a case for paying attention to voting records. They can be helpful in assessing candidates amidst a world of spin .
At the time of the war, sure there were people who realized what a stupid thing it would be, but there were many, many who didn't. We had bad information.
If you voted against the Iraq war when public opinion was ~90% in favor of it, it shows that you stick to your principles. It also shows you do your homework, because I don't think the problem going into Iraq was a lack of good information but rather the lack of focus and attention given to it. I've read Hillary hadn't even read a lot of the intel available to her when she decided to vote for the war. To make an under-informed decision on a crucial issue like this also demonstrates a lack of judgement.
Now we know what was really going on, so is Edwards (or anyone else, this isn't a pro-Edwards rant) expected to continue to support the war even though he has seen the light?
I would rather have a candidate who knows what's right from the start than one who takes 2-3 years before trying to amend their mistakes. That turnaround period is a significant share of a presidential term. I'm not saying politicians have to hold the same view on the war they did from the start, but I definitely think more of them if they used brain and backbone in opposing it five years ago.
Glad someone's =talking about Iraq and not the economy. Bleh.
Okay, I was about to go into this whole rant about how elected people are human and people make mistakes and it's physically impossible to be well read on every subject a member of Congress/governor/mayor/council member needs to vote on, but I was starting to not make sense and I figured that you all are smart enough to get what I'm trying to say and argue back that I'm wrong
Post by koyaanisqatsi on Jan 26, 2008 10:17:01 GMT -5
Only when inspired to vote FOR someone. no longer will I vote against anyone on a National level.
I voted against Bush during the last general, and FOR Nader in 2000.
Never voted for Clinton, though. Didn't believe in him. And you would never guess how pissed off that used to make conservatives when I would rail against Bush and they would answer kneeJERKedly, that he was "better than Clinton". When I would answer that I never voted for Clinton, it would blow their little minds.
See, I don't believe democracy is defined as "a two party system", although the two parties have a stranglehold on our democracy. They are not unlike each other at all, driven by greed and not integrity. And that's why the corporate model must be wrestled into submission. Working towards that goal is often mightier than consumating the broken system that allows such a corporate stranglehold. And I hate the word electable. It could be replaced by saying I'm gonna vote for the candidate who has taken enough money from special interests to compete, and otherwise ignore the wishes of their "poor, struggling", constituents.
May we all choke on pork.
There's poison under the gravy.
Is that angry enough ?
Last Edit: Jan 26, 2008 10:18:46 GMT -5 by koyaanisqatsi - Back to Top
Well Koya. I can respect your conviction and your justifiable pessimism. I tend to vote a little more optimistically, though skeptically.
Rather than just not vote because the system is broken and everyone can easily be faulted, I look for my best option and hope that that person may have "seen the light." (or been forced into it.)
Kdogg: I agee that its' easy to find fault with Edwards' record but the options IMHO are vote for him and his current message or sit this one out. I'm not an Edwards fanatic, I just think he's without a doubt the best out there.(especially with Kucinich out.)
Now if Feingold was running, I'd be a Feingold fanatic. And I probably would have taken a hard look at Dodd if he hadn't dropped out.
I agee that its' easy to find fault with Edwards' record but the options IMHO are vote for him and his current message or sit this one out. I'm not an Edwards fanatic, I just think he's without a doubt the best out there.(especially with Kucinich out.)
This statement kinda reminds me of how I almost got into a fight on primary night in New Hampshire. I don't know if it was the only bar open in Manchester, but the place we were at was packed with politicos after the various post-vote celebrations. Afterwards, we - myself, two Dartmouth students and one of their fathers - had to drive from Manchester back to our Lebanon office. On our way back to the car, we ran into a rather zealous and/or intoxicated Edwards supporter collecting signs. He saw we were Richardson people and saw the opportunity to do some candidate promotion. He told us that we should vote for Edwards in our states' primaries, saying that anything less was a wasted vote and we might as well go hang ourselves in the shower. The father was in front of the pack, and said he'd probably still write in Richardson in California. Edwards man didn't like that, and again stated he might as well hang himself in the shower. I was bringing up the rear and didn't say anything about who I'd vote for. But the guy laid into me again about how I might as well hang myself in the shower if I voted for anyone but Edwards. I told him I definitely couldn't vote for Clinton, but I would have to wait and see how the race develops before my state voted Feb 19th. Edwards man spouted his "hang yourself in the shower" line for the fourth or fifth time. I expressed my reservations that he might not still be in the race by the time Wisconsin votes. He followed our foursome and went on a bit of a tangent. I again said I hadn't ruled out Edwards, but I would have to see how things developed and make my decision then. He kept following and talking, so I told him to look me in the eyes and tell me John Edwards would still be a viable candidate in six weeks. By this point, the other three members of my group are trying to intervene, because Edwards guy was more pissed by this point than he was when we first encountered him. He looked me in the eyes and said "John Edwards will be the next President of the United States. Mark my words." I told him I wasn't so certain about that, but I wished him luck because Edwards could use it. By then another member of my group was yanking on my coat, so it was left at that. We put some distance between ourselves and Edwards guy and returned to Lebanon, which was probably the optimal resolution at that time. Thankfully, because that probably would've been an entirely different encounter had there not been four of us and one of him.