[BRussell]

Can Republicans support him? I worry that he might attract a lot of Democratic voters, who are easily turned off by conservatives because of their views on cultural issues like abortion and gay rights. Giuliani would neutralize that. On the other hand, if he won the Republican primary, it could invite a serious socially conservative third party challenge.

Honestly, if I had to have a Republican president, I'd almost rather have a socially conservative one than one who fancies himself Mr. Terror Fighter. Republican presidents rarely do anything on abortion or gay rights anyway, but, as we all know now, they can do a lot on war and spying and treatment of detainees and such, and not all for the good.

[Uncle Skeleton]

If the dems still have congress this could allow them to pass laws that would otherwise get vetoed...

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If the dems still have congress this could allow them to pass laws that would otherwise get vetoed...

You know, even though such issues (abortion, gays) seem to dominate so much of our political discussions, I can't really think of anything that either party would do, at least not at the federal level. Bush had his constitutional amendment, but that had no chance of passing and everyone knew it.

[Mithras]

I'd rather have any of the Democrats than Rudy Giuliani, but I'd rather have Giuliani than Sam Brownback, or John McCain for that matter. Actually, let me think about that. Gah, I don't want either of them!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Mithras 

I'd rather have any of the Democrats than Rudy Giuliani, but I'd rather have Giuliani than Sam Brownback, or John McCain for that matter. Actually, let me think about that. Gah, I don't want either of them!

In some ways I agree. In the sense that Giuliani, if you kind of add up his positions, is more liberal, and more like a Democrat, he's more acceptable. But still, Giuliani is really the only major presidential candidate that kind of scares me. I feel like I understand the social conservatives, and that their agenda is basically harmless because no one else outside their ~30% agrees with them. They can put up their constitutional amendments outlawing all abortion in the country, mandating Christian prayer, or whatever other nonsense they want, because it won't go anywhere.

On the other hand, get an egotist in office who believes he's a war president with unlimited executive powers to detain, torture, spy, suspend habeas corpus, wage war, and the like, and I think the country is genuinely affected.

[Mithras]

It's a good point. Certainly "autocrat" is a word that comes to mind with Giuliani, more than any other candidate. I wish I could share your confidence that a social conservative would not actually succeed in imposing his will upon the country, though.

[OldManMac]

Guiliani apparently doesn't care for you if you're not a millionaire, so McCain called these folks and apologized on behalf of "all politicians."

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pb...40/1001&lead=1

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/b..._rudy_campaign

One would think that supposedly intelligent people like Guiliani would be able to think of the all aspects of planning an event like this, including checking out whether the people he was planning on having a function with met the criteria that was analogous to the issue he wanted to address. At the least, if, after having stated he would come to them, and then realizing they didn't meet his criteria, he could have changed the issue that he wanted to address to fit them. Now, he just looks stupid, careless, and callous.

[Timo]

Because he is stupid, careless and callous.

Guiliani has never transcended being a prosecutor; he was more a prosecutor than a mayor. Considering that what this country needs in the White House is a man or woman of nuance, Guiliani would make a terrible president.

[Mithras]

I just hope things turn out better than the last time it was Clinton vs Giuliani. As I recall, he got cancer, then some whacko loser took his place, then we had Mark Green and Mike "$1,000 per vote" Bloomberg run for mayor, and then September 11th happened.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You know, even though such issues (abortion, gays) seem to dominate so much of our political discussions, I can't really think of anything that either party would do, at least not at the federal level. Bush had his constitutional amendment, but that had no chance of passing and everyone knew it.

Woah. Hold the phone.

What about nominating people to the Supreme Court?

The lack of movement on these issues I would say is dependent on how the SC was balanced. That's changed now, and could very well continue to change as I'm guessing the next president will have at least one nomination.

Now I personally think Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional (Tenth Amendment), so in one sense I should agree with the appointment of someone who is of the same mind, but for some strange reason people who are of this mind tend to screw up all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights (with the exception of the second).

[macintologist]

Rudy is just another shilling manufactured candidate. He's an authoritarian asshole. If you want a real candidate who is genuine and has convictions that he can stand behind, you should look at Ron Paul. He never voted to raise taxes. He's for a non-interventionist foreign policy. He wants to protect our privacy from the government.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego 

Woah. Hold the phone.

What about nominating people to the Supreme Court?

That's a good point. I probably shouldn't take past ineffectuality and assume future ineffectuality.

Now I personally think Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional (Tenth Amendment),

Now here you're freaking me out. A Supreme Court decision is unconstitutional? And based on the 10th amendment? You'll have to explain that one.

[Dakarʒ]

I think this thread tells you all you need to know about Guliani: He generates buzz from the wrong side of the aisle.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Now here you're freaking me out. A Supreme Court decision is unconstitutional?

That's my opinion. I think they made the wrong call. It's still the law of the land though, I'm not disputing that.

I think they made the wrong call about the 2000 election too. That's tough-o for me. Once they make the call it's end of discussion until another relevant case comes up.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

And based on the 10th amendment? You'll have to explain that one.

Is it that wacky?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

It's not in the Constitution (unless you want to make a 9th amendment claim), hence this is a state's rights issue.

Note I would support an amendment that codified the right to choose, but until that passes, it seems to me that the above interpretation is following the rules as written, which is how we're supposed to be doing things. If it's wrong, we have the means to fix it (i.e. another amendment). As it stands, I think the SC tried to fix it, which is explicitly not their job.

Also note that I'm not fond of dicking around with the Constitution, it's damn good as it is. This is one of the only situations where I would offer an amendment as a solution.

Further note (if you ain't tired of me and my notes already ), that since it's been the law of the land for so long, I think there are some big issues with all of the sudden getting things "right" and yanking that rug out from under everyone.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's my opinion. I think they made the wrong call. It's still the law of the land though, I'm not disputing that.

I'm inclined to agree that it's a bad decision, but it just struck me as odd to call a Supreme Court decision "unconstitutional."

It's not in the Constitution (unless you want to make a 9th amendment claim), hence this is a state's rights issue.

The 10th amendment says that a power of the federal government not specified in the constitution is reserved to the states or the people. Abortion being legal isn't a power of the federal government, it's a right of the people. Only a law that attempted to give the federal government the power to regulate abortion, like the "partial birth abortion" law signed by Bush, could fail the 10th amendment test.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The 10th amendment says that a power of the federal government not specified in the constitution is reserved to the states or the people.

How can it be a power of the federal government if it isn't specified in the constitution?

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Abortion being legal isn't a power of the federal government, it's a right of the people.

On what grounds?

Seems to me there are plenty of grounds to say it's a state issue. Every other aspect of health care (excepting drugs, and don't get me started on that) is dealt with at the state level. Doctors and hospitals are licensed and regulated by the state. It's the state that says what you can and cannot do with everything else related to health care, why not this?

Let me make clear again that I think the freedom to choose whatever damn medical treatment you want should be a federal issue, but the way that happens is through an amendment.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego

How can it be a power of the federal government if it isn't specified in the constitution?

Exactly.

subego, Roe v. Wade made abortion a constitutional right by broadly interpreting the 14th amendment and the bill of rights. Do we agree on that? The decision did not grant additional authority to the government. Right? When people talk about 10th amendment violations, they're talking about the federal government taking for itself powers that are not provided for in the constitution, like outlawing abortion, as the "partial birth abortion" law does. But I don't see how a supreme court decision that does not grant any powers to the federal government could conflict with the 10th amendment. Maybe you could provide me a quick link with a little bit of legal opinion on that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Exactly.

subego, Roe v. Wade made abortion a constitutional right by broadly interpreting the 14th amendment and the bill of rights. Do we agree on that?

Yes. Mainly the 14th Amendment.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The decision did not grant additional authority to the government. Right? When people talk about 10th amendment violations, they're talking about the federal government taking for itself powers that are not provided for in the constitution, like outlawing abortion, as the "partial birth abortion" law does. But I don't see how a supreme court decision that does not grant any powers to the federal government could conflict with the 10th amendment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't how one answers this question wholly dependent upon one's opinion of the various court decisions involved? If you're happy with the SC decision, then no, it didn't grant additional authority to the government. If you think its farkatke (like I do) it does in that it's barring individual states from determining their own law on the issue.

To put it another way, even if you think the SC decision was correct, it doesn't apply retroactively. Previous to the decision, states had the right to determine their own law WRT abortion. This right was based in the 10th Amendment. The SC decision took that away from them.

Does it make sense that if one doesn't buy the SC decision, the amendment that is ultimately being violated is the 10th, even though the decision itself is based in the 14th?

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Maybe you could provide me a quick link with a little bit of legal opinion on that.

Well I can give you a slew of links on how it's a screwy take on the 14th, but that's not what you asked for. That the decision cites an irrelevant amendment makes the criticism of it cluster around that amendment. Likewise, I think the conclusion of those criticisms is obvious enough to make explicitly stating it redundant (i.e. if the decision is overturned and states regain the right to make laws on this issue, it should be obvious which amendment gave them the authority to do so in the first place: the 10th).

So the short answer is I have no linky.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I think this thread tells you all you need to know about Guliani: He generates buzz from the wrong side of the aisle.

Exactly. He makes a poor Republican but a interesting Democrat. Personally, I'm suprised he hasn't switched parties yet. He would chew up Hillary and poop her out afterwards, and then a McCain vs. Giuliani general election would be fun to watch.

Especially since he's the most fabulous candidate in the field!



(for the record, although I like Giuliani, I would not have voted for him for Senator. He excels in any field where you can substitute "boss" or even "God-like emperor" on the job description, and Senators actually need to Play Well With Others, so that job would have been bad for him. Prosecutor, Mayor, President, Mob Boss, Pope.... these are good jobs for him!)

[macintologist]

Why vote for a cross-dressing, freedom-hating, authoritarian asshole when you can vote and support Ron Paul, a man who loves freedom, who wants to keep government spending under control, who doesn't want to police the world, who wants to follow the constitution?

[BRussell]

Wait, isn't Ron Paul a cross-dresser too? Or am I thinking of someone else?

[macintologist]

Just because the media thinks Ron Paul isn't a serious candidate, doesn't mean he isn't.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Why vote for a cross-dressing, freedom-hating, authoritarian asshole when you can vote and support Ron Paul, a man who loves freedom, who wants to keep government spending under control, who doesn't want to police the world, who wants to follow the constitution?

Ron Paul looks like the only American in the running.

[andi*pandi]

hasn't guiliani backpedaled on his abortion/gay stands? I thought he was trying to pass as more conservative.

[ink]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

hasn't guiliani backpedaled on his abortion/gay stands? I thought he was trying to pass as more conservative.

If so, I wonder how AM radio talkshow hosts will frame such an act. Is he a [queue organ music] FLIP FLOPPER??? (oh noes!!)

[typoon]

Originally Posted by ink 

If so, I wonder how AM radio talkshow hosts will frame such an act. Is he a [queue organ music] FLIP FLOPPER??? (oh noes!!)

Well other than maybe the Bushbots in the AM media there will probably be a few that will criticize him for these things.

While I like what Giuliani did for NYC I don't think he would make a good president. I think he is way too liberal on several issues. THAT is why he would never get the conservative vote.

Then again if it was Giuliani vs Hillary I would either vote for the thrid party candidate or Giuliani. I don't think America could withstand another 4 years of Hillary running the country.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Honestly, if I had to have a Republican president, I'd almost rather have a socially conservative one than one who fancies himself Mr. Terror Fighter. Republican presidents rarely do anything on abortion or gay rights anyway, but, as we all know now, they can do a lot on war and spying and treatment of detainees and such, and not all for the good.

... because as we know, war and spying, alleged mistreatment of detainees, and such are all exclusively Republican Presidential traits and particularly those only of the last few years.

excruciating. As long as we insist that these are not traits of government powers, but only those of a specific party- we will be duped time and again. It just never ends...

That said, I don't think we have a candidate to choose from. The media does not take Ron Paul seriously because Ron Paul is too abrasive. You can have the most solid platform in the universe just as you can have the most talent in the world. If no one wants to work with you, you will likely not succeed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ink 

If so, I wonder how AM radio talkshow hosts will frame such an act. Is he a [queue organ music] FLIP FLOPPER??? (oh noes!!)

I'm curious, how has Guliani back-peddled? It seems to me he's done nothing more than explain his reasonings. i.e. he finds abortion reprehensible, but to ensure it is safe, etc...

Sounds like Clinton's "safe, but rare..." commentary. It is an explanation of a stance, not a new stance right? Flip-flopping would be encouraging legislation or action in one direction, then later encouraging legislation or action in the other.

[andi*pandi]

I can't find it online now (possibly it's old enough to be a paid article) but I recall reading in the Boston Globe a month or two ago that compared the top republicans, it basically said both guiliani and romney were flipfloppers.

[Dakarʒ]

I haven't heard the term 'flopper' used, but I have heard the accusation that Romney is pretty much reinventing his positions for his run.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I haven't heard the term 'flopper' used, but I have heard the accusation that Romney is pretty much reinventing his positions for his run.

Unfortunately, this is the norm. You must first solidify your base which means pandering to either the far-right, or far-left. Then, as election day approaches there is a massive run on the center. I'm not saying this is a good thing to be certain, but then I'm guessing most would agree that "politics" are not.

To your point, I've heard this about Romney too and some compelling examples exist. My spider-senses peak just listening to him anyway.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

a man who loves freedom

I hate this phrase... It's not like there are people that dislike freedom.

The problem with Ron Paul to me is that his free market thinking goes too far. We need regulation of some markets. The refining/oil companies in this country are making record profits on a product that is absolutely essential to us like the products the regulated utility companies provide.

We also have health costs which are just absolutely insane! Canadians pay about $500/year in taxes for their health care. That's what some people might spend in a month here! This market also needs regulation and controls to prevent greed from running amuck.

I do like Ron Paul though, I just disagree with his free market solves everything viewpoints.

[besson3c]

My position on abortion and gay marriage: it is simply none of the federal government's business. Why should it be? These are personal decisions that should be left up to the people. These are not decisions which really affect your neighbor, so why should it be of concern to the government?

What's funny to me is that there was a time when Republicans would have shared this more Libertarian sort of viewpoint.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... because as we know, war and spying, alleged mistreatment of detainees, and such are all exclusively Republican Presidential traits and particularly those only of the last few years.

excruciating. As long as we insist that these are not traits of government powers, but only those of a specific party- we will be duped time and again. It just never ends...

As long as people deny that party matters at all, nothing is going to change. Listen to the rhetoric. Listen to the debates. Look at the votes. There is a huge difference between the parties on their approach to terrorism, torture, detainees, wiretapping, habeas corpus, etc. This idea that "they're all the same" simply muddies those very clear waters.

Let me also say that it's really great that you've discovered non-partisanship. I just find it interesting that I didn't hear any of this when the Republicans held all power in Washington, all I heard was pure, rah-rah, we-can-do-no-wrong partisan Republicanism.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I can't find it online now (possibly it's old enough to be a paid article) but I recall reading in the Boston Globe a month or two ago that compared the top republicans, it basically said both guiliani and romney were flipfloppers.

I really don't think there's any comparison. Giuliani has basically stood by his positions, while Romney has just blatantly reversed them. For example, Giuliani still maintains that he is pro-choice, Romney says he is now pro-life.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

As long as people deny that party matters at all, nothing is going to change.

Conversely, as long as people insist that their identity is defined by nothing more than the letter after their name, they'll similarly lack any depth in their reasoning.

Listen to the rhetoric. Listen to the debates. Look at the votes. There is a huge difference between the parties on their approach to terrorism, torture, detainees, wiretapping, habeas corpus, etc. This idea that "they're all the same" simply muddies those very clear waters.

I disagree. Most people are down the center. The silent majority. Most politicians appeal to their base, then move toward the center to meet people where they are. I think you put far too much weight on "rhetoric". Voting patterns in fact, show a collective much more aligned with one another than any party-line. There are differences in ideals to be sure, but enlightenment includes the acknowledgment of diversity as opposed to merely trying to silence it with divisive rhetoric.

Let me also say that it's really great that you've discovered non-partisanship. I just find it interesting that I didn't hear any of this when the Republicans held all power in Washington, all I heard was pure, rah-rah, we-can-do-no-wrong partisan Republicanism.

You're illustrating perhaps better than any point I could make, that you're filtering facts through a partisan presupposition. I've complained about a lacking immigration policy, mismanagement of our actions in Iraq, out of control spending, this Administration's focus on Federal acts aimed at denying the rights of homosexuals to marry while ignoring actual problems, Bush's use of a defensive tone as if he's still trying to convince himself, and this Administration's overall inability to communicate openly and effectively to the American people. Of course, none of this fits the neat little mold simpleton's find necessary to construct.

I suppose I could assuage your suspicions of me by calling those who defend aspects of this Administration "Bushies" or "racists" and "bigots", but I'm not willing to be this intellectually lazy simply to gain your approval.

[BRussell]

ebuddy, do you think I don't know your posting history? You have been as close to a 100% Bushie in the years you've been posting here as one can get. To now claim non-partisanship, when the failure of this administration is apparent to everyone and Bush is the most unpopular president ever, after years of trying to convince us all that what he's been doing is just great, is transparent and disingenuous.

On whether parties matter, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But again, I find it telling that you've been a full-bore Bushie Republican, and then when the tide turns, it's time to forget about parties.

[Kevin]

He is also Pro letting the states choose on their own. Which is what is important. When it's that way, it doesn't matter what HE is for.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Rudy is just another shilling manufactured candidate. He's an authoritarian asshole. If you want a real candidate who is genuine and has convictions that he can stand behind, you should look at Ron Paul. He never voted to raise taxes. He's for a non-interventionist foreign policy. He wants to protect our privacy from the government.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

And he has wacko ideas about 9.11 and foreign policy...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I hate this phrase... It's not like there are people that dislike freedom.

But there is besson. Saying they don't exist doesn't make it so.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My position on abortion and gay marriage: it is simply none of the federal government's business. Why should it be? These are personal decisions that should be left up to the states.

Fixed one word, and we agree.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

ebuddy, do you think I don't know your posting history? You have been as close to a 100% Bushie in the years you've been posting here as one can get. To now claim non-partisanship, when the failure of this administration is apparent to everyone and Bush is the most unpopular president ever, after years of trying to convince us all that what he's been doing is just great, is transparent and disingenuous.

On whether parties matter, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But again, I find it telling that you've been a full-bore Bushie Republican, and then when the tide turns, it's time to forget about parties.

Hyperbole. Picking fun of anti-Bush zealots does not make one a fanboy.

I post in many other forums. Many times I've posted anti-Bush threads.

It's just in this forum it's just so thick of anti-Bush BS zealotry nothing REAL can be discussed.

I've seen him make many VALID complaints about Bush.

There is a difference between being a fanboy, and voting for the lessor of two evils. I used to make fun of the anti-Clinton zealots too. And made fun of the big deal that was made about the BJ more so than the lying.

If we get a Dem president in here, and there are anti-whoerver he or she is just to be anti that person rest assured I will be there to make fun of them too. And I am sure ebuddy will be there with me.

There was no difference between the Anti-Clinton zealots vs the anti-Bush ones. Same brain-dead shilling. Same no care what. Just make sure "our side" wins.

I thought for SURE Rudy would run on a Dem ticket. I told my old lady I'd vote Dem if/when he did. I was wrong, but hey. Me and ebuddy usually share the same beliefs politically.

[BRussell]

Right Kevin, "making fun of the anti-Bush zealots." Those unhinged crazy America-hating liberal fascists who said Bush was lying about WMDs, and the war in Iraq was a terrible idea and that Bush didn't plan for the occupation, and Bush's tax cuts would run up the deficit, and his social security plan would worsen its solvency. Frame it as "making fun of anti-Bush zealots" if you want, but however you frame it to yourself, you and ebuddy have been defending Bush's policies for the past 6 years. For him to come out now, after years of taking one side of these very clear inter-party debates, and claim that parties don't matter, would fool only you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

ebuddy, do you think I don't know your posting history?

It's not about whether or not you're familiar with my posting history. It's about your inability to address dissenting opinion without forcing people into neat little packages. I remember a "where are you politically" survey a few years back that attempted to measure political ideology. I posted my result of that survey which indicated that I am just right of center. I mean "just". I do not abandon common sense contingent upon arbitrary definitions of political assignment or whether there's an (R) or (D) after someone's name. I've been entirely consistent throughout my posting history.

You have been as close to a 100% Bushie in the years you've been posting here as one can get.

You've found out somewhere that I'm a registered Republican and that's enough for you. You've immediately formed a little box to place me in and nothing I say will convince you otherwise. You lodge this moronic indictment while using the same third grade rhetoric I railed on in the post you replied to. What's most telling of all this is your notion of integrity based on the importance of intellectually rigidity.

I've been a staunch supporter of our action in Iraq. This makes me as much a "Bushie" as Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman. I'm pro-life, anti death penalty, pro civil union and I support our right to own and bear arms. I believe far too many are incarcerated for marijuana and I believe "isolationism" as a foreign policy is not foreign policy at all. I believe we live on a volatile globe and that we will eventually come to a head of ideals. While flawed, I believe our system of governance is the most successful model among human kind. At the end of the day I will generally defend the above and I've been saying the same things for years.

With the above, take into consideration the number of threads authored discussing the above topics of discussion. Creationism vs Evolution? There was a time where I was caught in the intellectual trap of "needing" to take a side. I've since abandoned that notion because I couldn't logically address the points I was reading. I've credited those who helped educate me on this and several other issues on many occasions. Death penalty? Rarely comes up, but when it does I oppose it regardless of what company I keep. Abortion? When it comes up, I oppose it regardless of the company I keep. Gay rights? I support gay rights when it comes up regardless of the company I keep. Legalization of marijuana? When it comes up I support it regardless of the company I keep. Iraq, 9/11, and military action in general? Naturally, these comprise the lions-share of subjects touched by this forum and it happens that because of my ideals, I'm most commonly found defending aspects of our actions in Iraq. I do so regardless of the company I keep. This alone coupled with the fact that you've found out I'm a Republican and you've convinced yourself that I'm some kind of apologist for George W. Bush. Believe it or not, there's more to this country than George W. Bush.

I'm quick to correct those who appeal to bumper sticker talking points because I find them annoying. I will say that you will most commonly find me addressing those with whom I disagree philosophically, but this should not be construed as support or opposition to one man or party. I think I've represented myself better than this. I'm not here for a circle jerk of partisan, automaton hand-cymbal clapping for approval. Particularly yours.

To now claim non-partisanship, when the failure of this administration is apparent to everyone and Bush is the most unpopular president ever, after years of trying to convince us all that what he's been doing is just great, is transparent and disingenuous.

bullshit. What's transparent is the partisan chip on your shoulder that filters everything that attempts to penetrate your thick-assed cranium. Grow up.

On whether parties matter, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But again, I find it telling that you've been a full-bore Bushie Republican, and then when the tide turns, it's time to forget about parties.

... and you continue to repeatedly illustrate my points. We may agree or disagree on my posting history, but one thing that has certainly been consistent is your inability to address dissenting opinion without first employing that simpleton, partisan filtration of yours. I understand that few have the constitution to endure the pain of introspect and thought, but sometimes you'll have to abandon the party line to do it. I've not given you much credit over the past couple of years, but you've been consistent. So... you're mule-headed. Congratulations.

[BRussell]

ebuddy, you responded sarcastically to my thread that "...because as we know, war and spying, alleged mistreatment of detainees, and such are all exclusively Republican Presidential traits and particularly those only of the last few years." I never claimed they were exclusively Republican for all history. But, right now, there is a significant policy difference between the two parties on that issue. It's essentially the platform Republicans have run on for the past several elections. Most of the Republican candidates at the debates were falling all over themselves to talk about how toughly they'd interrogate detainees and how they'd not only keep Gitmo open, but expand it.

Let me ask you: Do you believe there is no difference between the parties on their approach to terrorism? I don't believe that voting for a Democrat won't change things 180° overnight. But I believe the difference between the parties on this issue is quite apparent, and therefore, if you support the kinds of things Bush has done on that front, you should vote for people from his party that will carry on his agenda, and if you disagree with what he has done, you should vote to change that. I don't really see what's so hard to believe about that, and I strongly disagree with your suggestion that the parties are the same on this issue.

There are some issues where there isn't much of a difference - both parties right now are fundamentally free-trade, for example - but not this one.

[BRussell]

I also want to say that I do apologize for coming down so hard on you personally. If you're more independent than I claimed, I'm sorry for mischaracterizing that. I appreciate independence. As partisan as I am, I have no problem voting across party lines, and I've done it many times. I voted for Republican Dick Lugar when I lived in Indiana because I thought he was a good, serious senator. I voted against Baucus, my Dem senator in Montana last time he was up. I posted many times during 2004 about how much I disliked Kerry (1, 2).

If you care, I'll explain to you where my frustration comes from: Saying "I've never liked Bush" is a trend I've seen in a lot of conservative editorials and pundits ever since Bush has become unpopular, and it's ticked me off, because they supported virtually every thing he did, they called people who disagreed with him traitors and America-haters and all the rest, and they did everything they could to get him reelected. But now, when the consequences of his policies come to fruition, they wash their hands of it. It's hypocritical and pisses me off. That's where it comes from. But I shouldn't blame you for what others have done to tick me off, and I did.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

ebuddy, you responded sarcastically to my thread that "...because as we know, war and spying, alleged mistreatment of detainees, and such are all exclusively Republican Presidential traits and particularly those only of the last few years." I never claimed they were exclusively Republican for all history.

Originally Posted by BRussell

Republican presidents rarely do anything on abortion or gay rights anyway, but, as we all know now, they can do a lot on war and spying and treatment of detainees and such, and not all for the good.

You referred to President(s) plural and finished by referring to "they". This seemed like a blanket statement on the history of Republican Presidents. Truth be told, I'm not even denying this is the case. The only point I'm trying to make is that issues like "rendition" were not started during this Administration, but the last. I've also been stating that I think it is naive to assume treatment of detainees is somehow different now than during the prior Administration or even in regards to history in general.

But, right now, there is a significant policy difference between the two parties on that issue.

In rhetoric, yes. This has been part of the indictments I've read from others regarding Cheney's comments on torture; calling it something less. It's all about rhetoric, this is what politicians do to pander to their base. What have we done under a dominantly Democratic House and Senate? Augment troop levels and ensure we've funded them for an indefinite stay. To be clear, I support that decision, but I'd be willing to guess that a great many votes went left last election to send a message and I'm not sure the message was "let's send more troops".

It's essentially the platform Republicans have run on for the past several elections. Most of the Republican candidates at the debates were falling all over themselves to talk about how toughly they'd interrogate detainees and how they'd not only keep Gitmo open, but expand it.

I think defining their rhetoric regarding war, spying, and mistreatment of detainees as a "platform" is a little dishonest. They're not running on this platform any more than Democrats are running on a platform of entirely socializing healthcare and abortions for all. War? Maybe, but then this is not exclusive to Republicans. Spying and mistreatment of detainees? Show me a candidate running on this platform and I'll show you a candidate who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning an election. IMO, we need tough interrogations. I think you do more harm than good by confusing the issue with "kind-hearted" rhetoric. Make the policy clear so when you place these servicemen and women in despicable conditions and place the weight of national security on their shoulders, you'd better make damn sure they know what they can and cannot do. Otherwise, we set them up for failure by following "back-door" orders.

Let me ask you: Do you believe there is no difference between the parties on their approach to terrorism?

Yeah, the differences basically come down to a reactive posture or a proactive posture. The ones advocating a proactive posture are already talking about Iran and the ones advocating a reactive posture are talking about "understanding terrorists". WWIII either way. Where does that leave the mad middle? Mad. I also think it depends too often on polling data quite frankly. What you say outside of office and what you do inside the office are too often entirely different things. This is the nature of politics. I don't place a lot of weight on rhetoric and I trust most of these people as far as I can throw them. I believe often times one party will ask you to kindly bend over the counter because you'll be pleasantly surprised and the other will tell you to drop your pants and bend over so he can place a dollar in your wallet. At the end of the day, you've been screwed either way.

I don't believe that voting for a Democrat won't change things 180° overnight. But I believe the difference between the parties on this issue is quite apparent, and therefore, if you support the kinds of things Bush has done on that front, you should vote for people from his party that will carry on his agenda, and if you disagree with what he has done, you should vote to change that.

... or you may vote for neither. Unfortunately, we're not able to "line-item" vote. If I happen to agree with 65% of a platform, I may find it acceptable to vote their way while acknowledging that I'm having to abandon a significant portion of my distaste in so doing. Sometimes I'm able to appreciate honest conviction on issues even if I don't necessarily agree with them. As long as their interests are conducted with integrity, I may even sway their direction. One of the things I find most distasteful about this current Administration is the degree of corruption rampant and an inability or in some cases complete unwillingness, to communicate openly with the American people. I voted Democratic recently with this in mind. There is no perfect candidate and our current selection of them leaves me with a particularly bitter taste in my mouth.

I don't really see what's so hard to believe about that, and I strongly disagree with your suggestion that the parties are the same on this issue.

I believe they are different particularly in rhetoric and most rush the center at election time. Why? Because that's where most of the votes are. I believe both parties in their own way, will place American sovereignty at risk. While they have different ideals on specifics, the agenda does not differ and IMO the outcome is inevitable.

There are some issues where there isn't much of a difference - both parties right now are fundamentally free-trade, for example - but not this one.

In light of CAFTA, I think one is hard-pressed in saying this Administration is "fundamentally opposed to free trade". For one thing, there is almost no such thing as "free trade", but essentially "managed trade". For example, tariffs or moderately oppressive restrictions are imposed on agricultural goods and the the effects on domestic growers must be considered. Also, one must manage trade with its own competitive edge in mind and for the general welfare of its workforce. As with anything, there is a disciplined approach that IMO often gets lost in rhetoric. It seems to me a balanced trade is the most disciplined approach to the issue, but I'm no economist. The Walmart model of economics may work well for retail, but it doesn't strike me as sound governance.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I also want to say that I do apologize for coming down so hard on you personally. If you're more independent than I claimed, I'm sorry for mischaracterizing that. I appreciate independence. As partisan as I am, I have no problem voting across party lines, and I've done it many times. I voted for Republican Dick Lugar when I lived in Indiana because I thought he was a good, serious senator. I voted against Baucus, my Dem senator in Montana last time he was up. I posted many times during 2004 about how much I disliked Kerry (1, 2).

If it's any consolation to you, had it come from someone else I might not have been this offended.

If you care, I'll explain to you where my frustration comes from: Saying "I've never liked Bush" is a trend I've seen in a lot of conservative editorials and pundits ever since Bush has become unpopular, and it's ticked me off, because they supported virtually every thing he did, they called people who disagreed with him traitors and America-haters and all the rest, and they did everything they could to get him reelected. But now, when the consequences of his policies come to fruition, they wash their hands of it. It's hypocritical and pisses me off. That's where it comes from. But I shouldn't blame you for what others have done to tick me off, and I did.

Apology accepted. I understand your frustration with this, but that's what pundits do right? If there are 10 aspects of an Administration and I support 6 of them, I'm not a shill. If I do so while claiming those who oppose 8 of 10 policies of this Administration are traitors and terrorists, I'm not making an argument from logic nor am I using any introspect whatsoever. I'm just compelled to defend the party line. i.e. I'm a shill. In most cases when I see these accusations I suspect they are simply stress-behaviors. This President is unpopular primarily because of Iraq. I support the move to address Iraq and I believe we need to render the insurgents as morons wearing silly, white, conical hats and robes under the cover of night around a burning cross. This is not a popular opinion, but I support it regardless of the company I keep.