The Politics Thread

[Max]

As a moderate Republican, I feel really betrayed by Arlen Specter, given the fact that so many fellow moderates--as well as the entire Republican establishment--went out of their way to help Specter narrowly win his primary contest in 2004. (So much help was given to Specter because we wanted to keep that seat in Republican hands, and we knew that his ultra-conservative primary opponent had no chance of winning in the general election.) Although Specter clearly has philosophical differences with the far right, I feel his party switch was primarily motivated by a desire to win another term (which is another thing that really upsets me, since Specter said back in 2004 that--if re-elected--he would retire in 2010). Also if Specter was really that principled, then why didn't he switch parties several years ago? Back then, the far right still had every bit as much control over the party as they do today. Obviously, the reason why he didn't switch parties back then was because (1) the Republicans were the majority party in the Senate and (2) Specter himself was not headed for certain defeat in a Republican primary.

However, with all of that being said, I do feel very troubled that the far right is causing so much difficulty for the moderate wing of the party. This attitude of "let's purge the moderates from the party" is a sure-fire way of making the Republican Party completely irrelevant. The sad fact of the matter is that the far right's primary concern is not what is in the best interest of the Republican Party; rather, their concern is solely with adherence to their rigid agenda. All Democrats ought to thank God for the Religious Right, becuase they are absolute poison to the Republican brand. The far-right social agenda espoused by the Republicans in charge is the reason why almost no Republican can win a statewide election anywhere in the Northeast, on the West Coast, and in much of the Midwest.

Unfortunately, the far right will remain in control of the party for quite a few years to come, which of course means that Republicans can expect to do poorly in the 2010 and 2012 elections. Yet, after enough electoral beatings, I predict that the far right will eventually lose credibility among those in the establishement, and the GOP will finally begin to embrace moderates as the key to its future. Obviously, such a drastic change will take many years to complete, since the far right has controlled the levers of power in the party for so long; specifically, I expect that it won't be until around 2016 or 2020 when the moderate wing of the party prevails. However, once that happens, I believe that the GOP will enjoy a long run of successes, since the views held by moderate Republicans truly do reflect the beliefs of a large portion of the American electorate: conservatism on issues of economics and national security, and tolerance when it comes to the hot-button social/cultural issues.

[GoldenDogs]

Well, Max, I totally disagree with most everything you have said.

What's the difference between a moderate Democrat and a moderate Republican? Not a damn thing. A moderate is the everyperson who appeals to everyone, yet appeals to nobody. Without ideology, the political parties are void of principal and reasons for even existing. I believe John McCain lost the election because he was so ridiculously bland that nobody knew what he stood for. In contrast, Barack Obama is so boldly to the left that, despite my differences in his political philosophy, it is almost refreshing (in a twisted way) to see him so principled in his actions (even if I dislike those actions). At least the man pushes forth an agenda.

Obama is a liberal. McCain is a moderate. People voted for principles and ideas of government... moderates offer nothing along the lines, in my opinion. Had the Republicans actually served up a truly conservative candidate, THEN it would have been a race.

I believe that is what is causing the Republican party to falter... they have abandoned their principles and it is unclear what they stand for. I believe partisanship is very good for the country and I believe candidates should be clear where they stand on the issues... state boldly what their ideology is. How will we know what we're voting for if they don't?

Just my honest opinion.

[Max]

Brian, I appreciate your thoughtful response to my post. However, I guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

There is actually a huge amount of difference between a moderate Republican and most Democrats. For starters, while moderate Republicans are pro-chioce, most of them still support bans on partial-birth abortion as well as a requirement that minors notify parents before having an abortion. On the other hand, so many Democrats believe that everybody should have as easy access to abortion as possible. More importantly, in my opinion, are the differences between moderate Republicans and Democrats on issues of economics and national security. Just about every single Democrat (even the "moderate" ones) supported Obama's huge pork-barrel stimulus package and would rather make sure that terrorists aren't "tortured" even if that means protecting the U.S. from another terrorist attack. Moderate Republicans are opposed to such liberal tax-and-spend policies and are far more concerned with protecting the U.S. from another terrorist attack than with treating suspected terrorists with comfort.

McCain did not lose because he was a moderate. Rather, he lost simply because the voting public blamed the entire Republican Party for the economic collapse that happened in September. It would simply have been impossible for any Republican to have won the 2008 election. However, McCain still garnered 173 electoral votes and lost the popular vote by just 7 percentage points, which was a very respectable showing under the circumstances. By contrast, had the Republicans nominated somebody from the right wing of the party, that candidated would have been butchered by Obama.

And finally, I'd like to talk about your home state of California. (I'm discussing this state because the political dynamics there are so similar to the dynamics in the Northeast and in several Midwestern states.) The only type of Republican who can win a statewide election there is a solid moderate such as Arnold. If the party instead chose to nominate a right-winger, that candidate would have lost the general election badly to a very liberal Democrat (along the lines of Barbara Boxer). Now, while I know that so many conservatives dislike Arnold, don't you still think he is far better than an ultra-liberal (run-of-the-mill) California Democrat?

[GoldenDogs]

Well, we've disagreed on a great many things in the past, haven't we? Nothing new there. With regard to the collapsing economy, McCain had lost steam long before things really disintegrated, in my opinion. I personally believe the economy wasn't the biggest stake in the heart of McCain... I believe one of the biggest was actually his stance on immigration and overall his inability to articulate his position on most any other issue put forth. The Republican party is a conservative party and McCain just simply wasn't conservative enough. With few truly conservative options available, those that voted did so while holding their noses... the rest stayed home. It wouldn't be the first time party faithful from either side of the isle protested mis- or underrepresentation by their candidate and/or party and simply did not participate.

Anyway... we can agree to disagree, just as we have in the past when we didn't see eye to eye. Admittedly, you haven't always been my favorite person.

[SteveFrame]

I get what you are saying to a degree GD, but I agree with Max too.

I know many people that I know who lean conservative or very conservative did agree with you that McCain wasn't conservative enough. But in the end they said they had to give their vote to McCain because even a moderately conservative was a better choice then Obama was ultra liberal. There said there was no contest and no choice for them.

I think when it boiled down to just a conservative/liberal issue any conservative had to make that choice.

Now if they looked at other things, I think the economy ended up being the deciding factor.

[Greg's GL]

My apologies, everyone....this might be a long post but I'm catching up after a few days in the hospital with my man. And there are some things that I just have to respond to!

Brian, Brian, Brian....<sigh>. You know I think you're a great guy. And enjoy your posts here. But OMG you have such a gift of twisting words and meanings around to a post like no other! I'm "judging your words and presuming your actions"?? REALLY? What do you call this response to my post? I wasn't calling you out on the actions the Prez took on the pirate situation or the other thing he did that you approved of. This was directly posted because you said you didn't watch his press conference. That was it. You (I can only assume by this post) flew off the handle and thought I was talking about his entire time in office up until this point. Talk about judging one's words!

Exactly. And I'm getting tired of it too buddy. We were all supposed to gather around and support Bush at a time of a national disaster and we did (myself included). I was actually LIKING him until he started running off at the mouth about gay marriage. Then the Iraq War. Then he lost me. Forever. I propose that we are now at a time of national emergency and the President needs the support of everyone. Not just Dems. But you see, it's a double standard. Republicans and (some) Independents expect Dems to be open-minded and support whichever Prez is in the Oval Office. But they do not act in the same manner when there's a Democrat as Commander-In-Chief.

I say GOOD for you Mom.

Anyway, it would be great if you could provide some examples of how the Democrats "dogged" GWB for 6-8 years of his presidency? I would agree the last 2 years of his reign, he did get some resistance from the left. And I would argue that that's the beauty of dissent. Did you expect the Dems to go along with everything GWB did? And now you DON'T expect the Repubs to go along with everything Obama is doing?

This is the double standard I mention above.

Brian and Steve - I looked at Roman's post. He called NEITHER ONE OF YOU A RACIST. HELLO?!?!?! Was there a post that is now deleted where that accusation was made? Cuz it wasn't in the one I saw.

Quoting: "If you can't stand Obama for whatever reason (including the color of his skin)..."

The fact of the matter is that there are people living today (yes, it's true) that dislike Obama for....wait for it....THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN. It's true! As hard as it may be for Brian and Steve to believe that. Don't get me wrong here - I'm not calling either one of you racists and I really don't believe either of you are. Steve is simply jaded. Brian is a Republican. That's why they don't like Obama IMHO.

The color of his skin is an issue for a lot of people. And it does have to be brought up because there are still some serious race relation problems in this country. How someone can say "I don't even know why it's an issue" regarding Obama's skin color baffles me. The fact of the matter is that involvement in Nazi/Skin Head/White supremacy groups has increased since Obama took office. Why do you think that is? Because he is left-handed? Or because he's black? HMMMMM. Let me think.

So let's give it a rest, people. No one has called you racists. And YES.....racism is a problem in this country in 2009. If you think differently, I'd love to discuss that more with you.

Interesting post. Hopefully your party can break the bonds of the religious right. It's doing them more harm than good. But now that Spector has defected to the Dems, I wonder how many more will do the same? Besides Snow and a couple others, are there really many moderate Republicans left in the Senate?

Republicans have gotten so good at the politics of fear and hatred, I think it may take them longer to break out of their rut. Alot of people will remember the campaigns of old and how hateful Republicans were during them.

[GoldenDogs]

What an outrage! What a ridiculously long post!! Ugghhhh!!!!

I don't think that's what I did. But I believe you and I are very similar in posting style, my good friend. However, a good example of twisting words and meanings? Well...

I'm soooooo tired of this blanket defense for anything Roman says. Roman's point could have been made without the "color of his skin" line. He was talking to ME, not a member of the Klan. So, I'm assuming that Roman felt the line was important to include because, somewhere in his mind, he suspect I have an issue with black folks. Greg, you know as well as I do that 2+2=4 and that none of us here post so much as a word unless we MEAN it. I think it's safe to say that this forum is filled with very intelligent individuals and we say what we mean and leave little to question. Roman's implication was obvious... Dude, I wasn't born yesterday. Nor was Steve. We both have been around the block a few times. Roman is a lightweight when it comes to debating but he definitely chooses his wording carefully and purposely. You deny that, Greg?

No doubt, but this fact was not part of our ongoing debate here. Again, no reason to discuss the issue of race when it had no bearing on MY feelings or STEVE'S feelings regarding his policy and performance in office. Greg, please rationalize Roman's need to bring this up while referencing and discussing MY reasons for disliking Obama. To remind you.. and please look back on the thread... Roman and I were discussing *MY* disapproval of Obama's performance, NOT anyone else.

You're absolutely right! It was implied.

That you can honestly say this without acknowledging how good Democrats are at this is absolutely hilarious. That has been the mantra of Democrats for as long as I can remember. In fact, it is always the mantra of the party not holding the White House.

[SteveFrame]

And see I see that on both sides - Democrat and Republican. And I would think because of the sort of high five you gave to my Mom that you are jaded in favor of the Democrats - something that you have accused others of being for the Republicans. I am jaded toward both parties and don't favor either.

I don't see where the Democrats or the Republicans either one have been any better than the other in these issues.

I always find it funny that the REpublicans say the Democrats are worse and the Dems say the Republicans are - and both claiming innocence on the matter.

As far as the other yes there was a time when SOME Democrats but not ALL did rally behind the President in last election but I think more of it was out of Patriotism after 9/11 than anything else. I do not remember any gerat specifics right now but I do recall several articles right after Bush was elected where he was dogged right off. I sent a few of those to Jess by PM a few months ago. If I can find them again I will post them. He was hardly in office and already was being criticized by Democrats.

And I can remember many posts right here on this very board where the Democrats dogged Bush very badly over the last 6 to 8 years. Many of them were removed due to the controversy of them all.

So yes there was a brief time when yes people rallied right after 9/11 but it wasn't too long after that it was party lines again.

You mentioned the Iraq War and that brings up something that I have been wondering how some feel and have been looking for things. I know that most of you had problems with the Iraq War but have no problems with Obama sending troops to Afghanistan. I know that there is an anti-war group out there of both Dems and Reps who are against any kind of war. People like Martin Sheen and Cindy Sheehan are part of that group. I have not heard at all what Sheen is thinking about more troops to Afghanistan but I did hear the other day that Sheehan who supposedly supported Obama is against sending troops. I just wonder if this movement will immobilize bigger as Obama gears up to send more troops there. It will be interesting to see if Sheehan and her group of mothers will camp outside of Obama's home like they did Bush's. Because their stance was against war and bringing troops and not - at least not supposed to be - a political thing.

As far as the race issue. I have no idea whatsoever what Roman said and didn't say. I don't care one way or another. My response was to the general idea of race in this election. And yes I have been called a racist - in fact by a very member of this board - in a very bad tone. And by others too.

I do not dare to believe that there is not a problem with racism in this country but I do get tired of being called a racist simply because I do not trust Obama.

I will ask you this Greg. MTV was so good at showing both sides of things during the election. They let McCain supporters as well as Obama supporters speak in their ads and urges to get the young people out to vote. I was proud of that and proud that they never endorsed one candidate or the other.

One ad they ran though really bothered me. There was a black man who did the ad and he mentioned that for the first time when he went to polls to vote there was a man with the same color skin as him and for the first time he felt like he could relate to a candidate. It was the first time ever that he had something in common with a candidate and had a reason to vote. And for that reason alone it was the first time he was voting.

To me that was really offensive and made me think that this young black man was sending out the wrong message to whites. If he was only voting because he had something in common with Obama, what does that say to whites. It says and gives white people the right to say well I don't feel I can relate to this man and so I shouldn't vote for him.

But if a white man said that he would be called a racist. The press would be all over it.

I do agree with you that there are many people out there who did not vote for Obama because of their prejudice. I know some of them. But way too many times during this last election, the race came into play way too often - many times when it had nothing at all to do with the issue. In this nation, I feel way too many times that prejudice and race has become a crutch that we rely on to explain things when we don't want to look at the truth or the deeper issues. I know that it exists. It is there. It is a plague on our country. But it is not at the root of every issue all the time.

When I first heard of Obama, I had never seen a picture of him. I didn't even know what he looked like. My daughter was the first one who mentioned him to me back before he ever decided to officially run. I asked her then what his issues were. We didn't even talk about race. I didn't like him then because of the things he stood for.

But immediately when I first ever spoke out about Obama here on SON and over at DR and on many other boards the race issue came into it. And if I had a dollar for everytime I was called a racist or asked if my dislike of him had anything to do with the color of his skin, I would be a very wealthy man right now.

Why can't I dislike and distrust him simply because of what he believes in?

Back to the other I will never understand the mentality of Republican and Democrat. I guess because I have never been and will hopefully never be die hard either. As I said I look at all these posts and I try to look at how they relate to who that person is, and yes in Golden Dogs I weigh in the fact that he is die hard Rep, but I also see the same thing with you and Roman and a few others who are die hard Dem. I think in the same way that GD sees things only through Rep eyes at times you and a few others only see them through Dem eyes.

And I only see them of late through jaded eyes. I try to step out of that but after so much that has happened it is not easy - in the same way that it is not easy for you to step away from you Democratic eyes.

[Greg's GL]

I wasn't really coming to Roman's defense. I just think that you may have read a little too closely between the lines. It seems to me that over the course of the last 6 months or so that Roman hardly minces words. It is my belief that if he thought you were a racist, he would simply say it. Of course, that's just my impression of Roman. Since I have no way of knowing what he's thinking or meaning to say, you can take that for what it's worth.

What is it that I'm supposedly denying? That you've been around the block a few times? Or that Roman is a "lightweight" debater? Or that you weren't born yesterday? Or that Roman could have made his point without including "the color of his skin"?

Brian.....I can't rationalize Roman's "need" to bring this up when discussing the topic with you. Anymore that I could rationalize why you post some of the things you do. The only person's postings that I would even BEGIN to rationalize would be mi macho's. And he doesn't post here....so......unless one of you want to be my man, I can't go there!

I'm glad you got a good laugh outta that. But answer me honestly, buddy. When is the last time a Democrat wanted to write discrimination into the constitution? Or used gay marriage as a wedge issue simply to get votes? Or went on public television claiming that the country was "less safe" because of someone of the Republican party's actions (that's happened so many times by Repubs it's alarming)? Can you examine your own party without prejudice and deny that?

Actually, I am biased toward Democrats. I feel that they are the party that (mostly) aligns with my beliefs. Everyone here have some preference for a particular party and will tend to give that party a little more leeway than we would an opposing party. That's just human nature.

GWB made some very, very bad decisions during his Presidency. Even Brian admits that. And there was ALOT to criticize when he first took office. A few refreshers: 1. Pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol, effectively killing any worldwide effort to combat the destruction of our environment. And it was done unilaterally. 2. Ending allowance for stem cell research. 3. His seeming inability to construct a meaningful sentence without mispronounciations or grammatical mistakes.

Steve - You are a proponent of dissent. That much is obvious. Are you saying that such dissent is harmful when only directed at Republicans? At times it seems that you hold more disdain for Democrats so I'm curious.

The Iraq War was/is controversial because of the justification. If we all recall correctly, the reason for going to war changed almost daily before GWB kicked it off. Human rights violations, chemical weapons, sanctions violations, collusion with Osama, etc. The Iraq War was the first (and hopefully last) started under the pretense of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption which was another strike against it. Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator. That's true. But there are many others that are better positioned to do us harm than Hussein was. So why exactly did GWB have a hard-on for this one in particular? I don't think we will ever know the real reason why.

Afganistan is completely different because that's where the War on Terror should have been concentrated from the get-go. A bastion of the Taliban and Osama's followers, this is where he (Osama) was given refuge and planned the attacks of 9/11 with the help of the Taliban. I argue the true terrorist enemies of America are there and more effort has to be done to stop them before more harm can come to our country.

The ad question is a good one. I am going to take your word about it because I never saw it and you seem like a trustworthy guy, Steve. But here's my thoughts on that.

No white person here can possibly ever know what it's like to be black in America. From the beginning of this promised "land of the free" - they were not. And even after they were given their freedom, they were oppressed for what, another 100 years as "separate but equal"?!?!?! Most of this was done in order to serve white people or to be made to feel less than white people. Given this history, I can completely understand some hesitation or "disconnect" with white politicans to the average black citizen. The argument that the Civil Rights movement was 40 years ago is debatable because for the majority of time the USA has been the "USA", black people have been second class citizens.

Therefore, Obama being the first Presidential candidate that a black person (not all of them, but for some) felt they had something in common with is not all that hard to understand for me.

Let's turn the tables. What if this were the case for white people? What if, in my 22 years of voting, all I ever saw on the ballot were black people?!?!? And then one year, a white person is on the ballot! How could one resist voting for them because of their skin color? It would be tough I'd imagine. And honestly Steve...if there were a gay man - Repub or Dem - running for President.....could you be so impartial to that as well? Commonalities - real or imagined - tie one to a candidate and whose to say they are wrong? What he were voting for him because they're both left-handed? Or wore the same size shoe?

And BTW, you most certainly can dislike a President for his policies and nothing else.

[GoldenDogs]

Hey Steve, actually I don't so much consider myself a Republican as I do conservative in my thinking. I am not thrilled with the Republican party these days, however I find the tact taken by Democrats often to be more repulsive. I guess if I needed a label to apply to myself (as opposed to the one Roman and others feel they have a right to tag me with based on their rather narrow interpretation of who they think I am), I would be more independent... but I lean right and only vote Republican because their ideology is most closely aligned (or at least it used to be) with my values and principles.

I would almost pay money to sit down and have dinner with Roman and just chat one on one... man to man... no bullshit. I wonder how that would go.

[SteveFrame]

Thanks for the explanation.

I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever and you are right it is human nature. But at the same time I sit back and wonder why when it is human nature that those same poeple will call out others for being biased or give their party the benefit of the doubt. It goes back to what I was saying where each party seems to think the other party is wrong for what they do - yet they are doing the same thing themselves.

I see GD get called out so many times saying he is biased toward the Republicans and makes excuses or stuff like that for them - when I see so many do the same exact thing for the Dems over and over. Just an observation and that is why I brought it up.

It is just like I have seen it be pointed out that some of the stuff GD posts is from conservative sites that are biased - yet others will turn around and post stuff used as fact that comes from sites that liberal sites that are biased. What is the difference.

I ahve admitted too over and over that GWB made bad decisions during his presidency. And I have no problem whatsoever about him being called on them.

Some of the things you just pointed out go back to the party thing and how you feel personally. The same way that you see that there were many things to criticize right off about GWB many feel the same way about Obama already - yet when they point them out - it is brought up about them being jaded or that they just can't stand behind their president when they need too. So many see only good about Obama and preach that people need to give him a chance. Yet many of those same people were the same ones who never gave Bush a chance even back then. Just because someone else doesn't find something to criticize about him doesn't mean there is nothing to criticize.

And see some of the things that you bring up about Bush are not the things I would have criticized him about anyway. That last one esp. always seemed petty to me. So what if he wasn't a great speaker. Who cares? Obama is a great speaker but I don't believe a word he says. His words often come off as empty to me. They are eloquently stated but they mean nothing to me.

It all comes down to a matter of opinion and beliefs.

No way am I saying that. I just find myself defening it more here since there seems to be more of an overwhelming number of Dems who post in here.

During GWB's reign everything that the Dems brought up they had perfect right to. They had perfect right not to stand behind the President. That is what makes America the nation that it is - it is the ability to act in most ways the way we want. To speak out and do what we want.

My disdain comes when there is hypocrisy that enters into it. One of the comics years ago - I think Dennis Miller - explained it better than I ever can but I cannot find his routine anywhere.

But for example with the Dixie Chicks thing a few years ago, I thought it was neat that they spoke out the way they did. I cheered them but then I ended up getting angry with them when they got so mad when their fans got mad about it. The same freedom that gave them the ability to say what they did gave their fans the right to get mad or for any American to get mad about it.

It was as if they were saying this is how I feel and everyone should feel that way too. When everyone didn't they got mad. I thought it was ridiculous how far some of the fans and Americans went but it was their right to burn their CDs or quit buying their music. Each person from the Dixie Chicks to whoever was acting on their rights.

And now some years later the situations have been reversed on two parts - one with John Rich who is a very outspoken conservative. Many liberal stations have refused to play his stuff and many liberal fans have banned him or quit listening to him when he spoke out the way he did. They are doing the same thing the right side did to the Dixie Chicks - the same thing they ridiculed and criticized. And look at the Miss California thing. She stated her beliefs just like the Dixie Chicks did. The liberals have acted just like the conservatives in the Dixie Chicks thing - the same conservatives they criticized.

The two sides are more alike than they even realize.

Personally I think the response to all of the issues has been blown way out of proportion. Why can't people site their feelings and beliefs without people going off the deep end? Isn't that what free speech is supposed to be about? I don't have to believe what they do but they have the right to say it.

No each side has the right to feel the way they do and to act the way they do. Just like the Democrats had the right to dog Bush I feel the Republicans have the same right to dog Obama. I just found it so idiotic right after Obama was elected for people to get so angry when the Republican's didn't just roll over and play dead. That is what I tried to speak out about. I mean don't they know the game by now. We had 12 years of Bush/Reagan where the Dems blamed everything on them - 8 years old Clinton where everything was the Dems fault - then 8 years of Bush where it was all his and the Reps fault. I mean experience says that now for 4 or 8 years everything is going to be the Dems and Obama's fault. Why in the hell get so mad when the Reps blame Obama when you did the same thing to Bush? Sure maybe you don't see the things they are saying but remember they didn't see the things you were saying either when Bush was in office. Like I pointed out some of the things you blamed Bush for didn't seem like that big of deals to me but obviously they were to you or you wouldn't remember them.

Again it will come down to a matter of opinion. I have no problem with the Afghan war but I had not problem with the Iraq War either. I support Obama in this effort just as I supported Bush in the last one.

But there will be some that will not see it that way. They are anti-war no matter what. I am just anxious to see what they will have to say when all is said and done and more troops move that way. I think Sheen even protested when Clinton sent troops somewhere. I know he protested the first Gulf War. I am not sure if he protested Vietnam - I never have heard anyone say.

If they have spoken out this time, the media has not made the big deal about it they did before. In fact Sheehan's statements were buried almost on the last page of our local paper. Her statements used to make the front page.

Greg I should have pointed out that I had no problem with the guys statements. I understood his reasons for feeling that way. I just wanted to see what your response was and how you felt about what I brought up.

I think everyone brings into the voting booth the situations they grow up in or can relate too.

I think the problem for me comes into play is when some are criticized for using those things to justify their vote or their actions and yet at the same time the person who criticizes that person does the same thing when he enters the voting booth. None of us go into that voting booth and cast off everything that has influenced our lives. Our experiences play a role definitely.

I would not expect a Jew for instance to suddenly forget all he has been through and go into the voting booth and vote for a skinhead - even if they both believe in all the same issues.

As to your question about voting for a gay man or being drawn to him, I can honestly say I have already had to face that decision. Back several years ago, there was a gay man running for County Executive in our County. He really wanted in office big time and he would have been our first openly gay man to serve in office in the county. It would have accelerated his career in a big way and helped him in his goal of evenutally running for Senate or some statewide office where he could help to push toward getting gay marriage in Tennessee.

All of it was so enticing, but he and I were so far apart on some issues that I just could not vote for him at all. He was a moderate Republican by the way - or at least that was the party he ran under. He was not for abortion in any situation. I think there are certain areas where abortion should be an option. He was totally against capital punishment. I am for capital punishment - strongly for.

I don't remember all the issues now, but I just could not vote for him - but I will admit it was tempting. I just couldn't bring myself to sacrifice things I felt so strong about even for the sake of possibly getting someone if office who could influence gay marraige.

[Greg's GL]

I, personally, would like to know more about this point, Brian. What, exactly, do you mean by "values and principles"? Are they geared toward social issues (gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research) or fiscal? It would be great if you could explain this to us.

Brian does post points of view from conservative web sites. I expect that. Just as I expect Roman to post from left-leaning ones. And I readily admit I've called out Brian for being closed-minded. Guilty as charged. But he has done the same. As a matter of fact, I think everyone here - perhaps UCLAN being the exception - has called out someone for being biased. So be it.

And I've stated this before - but I actually VOTED for a Republican in November because I thought he was the best person for the job. Mind you, this is not a moderate Republican, but a crazed right-winger. His name in case anyone wants to research? John Mica. So let's understand that if someone from the right posts something inflammatory about the left, we will challenge them just as they have every right to challenge someone from the left. I think that's one of the best things about this thread.

Brian is no martyr. He comes out fighting and I think, would expect opposing views to do the same. Don't feel so sorry for him!

I respectfully disagree with this, and have stated why in my previous many posts. It's probably best to let bygones be bygones at this point.

But I thought that you originally said you had a problem with his statements - that they were "offensive" because he said for the first time he had something in common with someone he was voting for as President. Isn't that true? Please correct me if I'm wrong, Steve, but I was merely pointing out that if he feels something in common with Obama and it's his skin color, then so be it. For alot of the same reasons you state above.

Look, Steve. If there were two candidates, both of whom you identify very closely with on the issues. The only difference is one of them is gay the other straight - do you mean to tell me that you wouldn't pull the lever for the gay guy? If you wouldn't, then you're a bigger person than I.

Brian - I noticed that you didn't address some questions from my earlier post. What's up with that? Giving up buddy?

[SteveFrame]

I am not sure if you mean bygones as far as the people in this thread or bygones as far as Reps and Dems in general. If the last is the case, I just have to ask how far do we take it.

I mean do we wipe the slate completely clean and start all over. Because I don't see that ever happening. Democrats across all the boards are still bringing up things the Republicans did to the Dems while Clinton was in there. And it was brought up numerous times while Bush was in office.

Again I ask when does it start. Just because Obama is now in there and people want everyone to come together - is that why all of a sudden this comes about and if Obama loses the next election and a REpublican comes back into power - does it all go away then.

I just don't see that ever happening. I don't see the Republicans or the Democrats ever giving up on dogging one another and letting bygones be bygones.

I didn't mean to imply that Brian was a martyr. I just used him as an example. I could have used Kwing or a whole number of other people. He was just the first one that came to mind. He just served the purpose of the example of posts from conservative sites at the time.

I should have worded my problem with the ad better I guess. I thought I explained it right but I didn't. The reason I had a problem with the ad was not a problem with why he was voting for Obama but the message that it sent. As I said it further justified to me why a white person has the right to not vote for a black man because of the color of his skin. If a man can go on TV and say I am voting for him because I identify with the color of his skin then the other man can say well then I can not vote for him for the color of the skin. you identify with him but I don't because of that - so I now I am full justified in not voting for him. It just sent the wrong message to me. I would have preferred that MTV stuck with the issues in their spots and not focus on this man identifying with Obama souly because he was black.

As I pointed out before in one of my posts - Americans especially spend too much time blaming race for way too many things. Yes racism exists and we need to acknowledge it is there, but one of the best ways to me to combat racism is to stop pointing out our differences in stuff like that and focus on the ways we are alike.

That ad again focused on the differences and sent the wrong message for me.

And to the last part after looking at how the two men stood on the issues, and if we were in agreement on both men, I would vote for the gay man too. I don't feel any shame in that at all. But as far as issues as I have said before I look at them and I have voted on the issues for so long now that it is the only way I can vote. It is just programmed in me now. As I said before I can't even vote in primaries anymore because I guess it is the same everywhere but here in Tennessee when you vote in the primary you pull one lever - all Democrat or all Republican or all Independant. I can't do that.

[Greg's GL]

Well, I meant in relation to this thread. Obviously, I can't work on mending the relationships betweeen Dems/Repubs on my own. My intent was between us in this thread and the whole "Republicans did this, so the Democrat's are gonna do this" and vice versa. It's apparent, at least to me, that your sympathies lie with Republicans or why else would you be playing devil's advocate the way you have over the last few months. And honestly, it's surprising to me the line you are towing is primarily on the right. You do realize, that you are defending a party that would rather throw you to the wolves (based on your orientation) than sit down at a table and welcome you with open arms, right? The party you are defending were willing to classify you as a second class citizen in the constitution all for the sake of (hopefully) winning an election? And when was the last time the big, bad Democrats did the same to you and I, my friend? Hmmm......the answer is never.

That's just my point, Steve. THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T VOTE FOR OBAMA BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN. This ad on MTV didn't cause those people to suddenly realize that. They already felt that way. They didn't need an ad to justify their bigotry.

If a white man chooses not to vote for a black man because of the pigmentation of his skin, fine. So be it. But if that is the primary reason WHY he cast his vote for the opposition, then NEWS FLASH....he's racist. Plain and simple. I don't understand how that's difficult to comprehend. The ad you mentioned will not turn a white man to vote against a black candidate and I would like to know why you think otherwise.

Furthermore, I simply can not accept, nor would (I imagine) the majority of Americans, a white person that announces to everyone that it's ok he's prejudice against a black man because of a television commercial. It simply doesn't wash. I will defer to my earlier post but given the history of race relations in this country, it's simply not acceptable. If this were a country without the racial discriminatory history that we have then it may be different.....but it's not. Therefore, the argument falls flat to me. If you can explain it on perhaps simpler terms for someone like me, that would be great because I'd love to hear it.

For a country that professes that all men are created equal, it's history says otherwise. Even it's current history betrays the constitution in relation to gays and lesbians. If anyone feels differently, please speak up. We will have something to debate in this muthafuckin thread.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Greg's GL

[UCLAN]

OMG! You are so right on. The civil right's act passed in 1965. The voting rights act was passed in 65, yet the Supreme Court is hearing a case that could possibly change that act. For all those who believe that the act in '65 change the tenents of discrimination in this country, open your eyes. Discrimination is alive and well in the US. It's more covert today. And please dont deny it. When you have people calling for the closing of the border with Mexico because of swine flu., when you here the terrible things that are said about these people; it makes me wonder. Do we judge people by the content of their character or the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their national origin.? How come there has been a rise in the sale of guns since Obama was elected? How come there has been an increase in hits on white supremicists websites? Intolerence is the problem that we sweep under the rug. We don't discuss it, but it's there like the elephant in the room.

I love a good debate and even more so an exchange of ideas.But first and foremost I believe we need to be respectful of our divergent opinions. We have all been posting here long enough to know "what side of the fence" we are on. It has always been my hope to come away with a new take on an opinion.Hopefully, to be intrigued enough to do some further research on what is stated and draw a conclusion. To me that is how the flow goes.

It is often said that history repeats itself and that times swings on a pendulum. I often look back to see how far we have come. Someone mentioned seatbelt laws in a previous post. Yes it is a public health law, but it does speak to government's involvement in our lives. The law is protective of society in general. (same thing goes for cell and texting laws). So, is that government involvement bad. And how do we want government involved in outr lives? We don't want them interfering in spending tax payer revenue but we want them involved by making laws regarding choice and marriage? Who decides that involvement?

The Republican party as it is today has narrowed it's base. That's a fact. The religious right exerts a lot of influence on the party. Can the party survive in this minority state? Probably not, but here are people who are trying to open up the party to more moderate idea's (John McCain's daughter is one). Only time will tell if they will be successful. I can only hope that the Democratic party can remain as open and diverse as it has been since 1965. If Democrats become a party of absolute power, then that doesn't fare well for any one.

Keep the faith folks, we will survive this because our democracy has proven itself to be flexible and adaptable and our citizens always seem to know what is best for the country and strive to achieve it. Peace