U.S. election races...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Canadian Bacon. With John Candy.

It was stupid, IMO, because the book was published as an autobiography. To qualify for this non-fiction label, the events have to actually be true, and have to have actually happened to you.

The book was really a fiction novel based on the author's life - definitely not an autobiography.

Oprah, and the publisher, were duped into thinking this was a legitimate autobiography, even though they should have known better IMO. (Especially the publisher.)

The other reason recommending the book was stupid, again, IMO, is because it's an absolutely awful book. I've read excerpts. The prose is hideous and the grammar is non-existant. It's not exactly book club quality.

Aaaaanyways. Presidential candidates. Yeah.

I hope the Democrats field someone competant this time.




Abortion has a middle ground!? What is it?

There really isn't any middle ground ; but when in MIDDLE TN, a pro-choice Democrat is a non-entity. Even TN Dems tend to be conservative on the issues of abortion and gay marriage...if they don't, they're either: from Memphis (as Ford is), or a non-entity that nobody knows about.

...I actually like Ford. I'm sure he's middling with us, but he seems to be very different from his dad and uncle (both caught with their hands in the cookie jar ). A black girl from my church (she's Orthodox now, but her dad is a Baptist preacher ), knows him- apperantly the two families have known each other for a while...
He also bought a book from a Catholic bookstore (he's NOT Catholic)...and guess what, they don't exactly sell Marxist propaganda there...now THAT tells you something... , IMO.

But I like Bob Corker too...made his way to the top from, well Eight Thousand and a pickup truck, as he put it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Abortion has a middle ground!? What is it?

How about Bush's style; say you're opposed to abortion, but squeal like a sat-upon pig if it actually gets outlawed.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

How about Bush's style; say you're opposed to abortion, but squeal like a sat-upon pig if it actually gets outlawed.

I can't see why he would...on the other hand, I'm starting to suspect his appointees to the Supreme Court. I have a feeling they're in league with Ginsburg...maybe she blew lovedust at them?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

How about Bush's style; say you're opposed to abortion, but squeal like a sat-upon pig if it actually gets outlawed.

One very important thing to note is that being president doesn't mean you can do everything. The US isn't Russia. President Bush had the votes to take out the partial-birth abortion, so he did. He also got a highly qualified conservative elected to the Supreme Court. He hasn't solved everything, but he's not in a position where he can. There are checks and balances to power.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

How about Bush's style; say you're opposed to abortion, but squeal like a sat-upon pig if it actually gets outlawed.

So the middle ground is to tick off both pro-Choice and pro-Life groups?

I think the phrase you're looking for is "stuck pig."

[Spock]

My fear is that the masses will vote based upon the plethora of scandals involving those who were of the republican party and not vote on the issues the congress has or has not addressed.

Knee jerk reaction to jerks can send this country further off the tracks than it has been.

[The Gaffer]

Watching this unfold from afar, the issue seems to be the cover up, rather than the fact that this bloke was a nonce. That, and the plethora implies some sort of systemic failure of the way the GOP chooses people to stand for high office. I suspect the democrats will try to tie this in with croneyism, e.g. in FEMA. Or they would if they had any sense.

[Spock]

every party chose the person they thought best-this year the republican foibles have been exposed, another year it is the dems.....nobody deliberately puts flawed people forward for office

[hectorberlioz]

Let's not deny: Foley's case was known about a long time ago...the question is; did both parties know? It seems to me that the dems and ABC let this cook up (that and perhaps they were reluctant to pull the curtain on a gay man...) to make it worse for the GOP come time for the congressional elections. The dems knew about it at least two years ago.

Back to another issue; if the dems are so righteous and indignant about these type of things, why have they not crucified Robert Byrd, a former KKK member and recruiter?; and yet they make a big deal out of George Allen's alleged racial remarks? This needs to be pointed out for the Allen race.

it'd also be nice if the Republicans would be smart and say: the buck stops with Hastert, he'll resign. This is not the whole party's fault. Because, IMO Hastert SHOULD do it for the sake of the party, instead of being indignant and keeping his greedy job which he'll be out of in half a year anyways...

Also, the Republicans shouldn't stretch the hypocrisy issue of the dems to far: everyone expects the dems to get away with driving into a river and leaving your girlfriend to die...the Republicans are not expected to get away with it.

[Spock]

...sigh.... ....often emotion obscures the issue ......

[hectorberlioz]

Hmmm.....how long before election do you have to be registered? I want to vote for Corker, every little bit helps

[Spock]

Absentee ballots-too late.

Normal registration-too late

[Insidious Rex]

So what ever happened to that "moral revolution" back in 04?

[Spock]

IMO, the "R" party lost it's steam when Newt left. And that was a sad day as HRH got more $ and no flack at all.

[Insidious Rex]

Wow does this article have it right… Must reading…

'Values' Choice for The GOP

By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, October 10, 2006

It's possible that the Mark Foley scandal could finally end the phony, trumped-up "culture war" that the Republican Party has so expertly exploited all these years -- possible, but not likely. I'm afraid the Foley episode will be remembered as just another bloody battle, one with lots of collateral damage.

The Republicans wouldn't be where they are today -- in control of the White House and all of Capitol Hill -- if they hadn't portrayed themselves as the stalwart defenders of moral standards and painted Democrats as a bunch of anything-goes libertines. Republicans promised social and religious conservatives that the values they treasure would not only be respected but written into law. Even if they didn't deliver on these promises, or even try very hard, Republicans paid enough lip service to moral issues to keep "values voters" inside the tent.

It was a political masterstroke, but it required creating and sustaining an illusion -- that Republican officeholders themselves not only talked the talk but walked the walk, that in their own lives they adhered to these deeply conservative moral standards. Human nature being what it is, there was no way this illusion could be sustained.

So for a party that crusades against gay marriage and welcomes voters that consider homosexuality a sin or a disease, headlines about a gay Republican congressman lusting after underage male congressional pages are a problem. The emerging outlines of a coverup -- allegations that the Republican speaker of the House, or at least his aides, got wind of Foley's little problem months or years ago -- are an even bigger problem.

And it will come as a surprise to some religious conservatives that so many Republicans involved in the scandal are gay -- Foley; his former aide Kirk Fordham; a former clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl. The Post reported yesterday that Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, the one openly gay Republican congressman, saw "inappropriate" e-mail correspondence between Foley and young pages as long ago as 2000.

It comes as no "October surprise" to the Republican leadership that there are gay men -- and, yes, lesbians, too -- working on Capitol Hill, some in high-ranking positions. Before the Foley scandal runs its course, we will probably learn of other gay staff members on the Hill. These people are good at their jobs, and their sexual orientation is, of course, irrelevant. The understanding, in these years of Republican hegemony, reportedly has been something akin to don't ask, don't tell.

But some conservative activists are irate that the "values" party would allow such an arrangement. Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, a conservative watchdog, thundered on the group's Web site yesterday that "House leaders permitted homosexuals to infiltrate and manipulate the party apparatus while they publicly postured as friends of family values and traditional marriage. The facade is now in ruins."

In other words, Republican House leaders secretly harbored fairly modern attitudes toward homosexuality. How inexcusable.

The culture war is supposed to be about morality, but really it's a crusade to compel Americans to follow certain norms of private behavior that some social and religious conservatives believe are mandated by sociology, nature or God. Republican officeholders have paid lip service to this crusade, all the while knowing that the human family is diverse and fallible. They know that the gravest threat to marriage is the heterosexual divorce rate. They know that Republicans drink, swear, carouse and have affairs, just like Democrats. They know that homosexuals aren't devils.

Most Americans know all of this, too, by the way. Main Street hasn't been Hicksville for a long time.

But Republicans positioned themselves as our national Church Lady and were rewarded with the support of the staunchest religious conservatives, who now feel betrayed. Faced with the spreading Foley scandal, the party has a choice.

The party can look America in the face and say, "Folks, we're all just human, and while we should strive to adhere to the highest moral standards, this whole idea of writing a specific, narrow, fundamentalist Christian view of morality into law is really not a good idea. Even those of us who thought that way when we came to Washington realize we were wrong. Condemning others just because they are different doesn't make us stronger or better, it makes us weaker and poorer. As Barry Goldwater would have said, live and let live."

Or the party can purge its gay staffers, maybe symbolically burn a few at the stake, and continue to pretend that you can legislate what is permitted to reside in American hearts and minds. Unfortunately, that's where it looks like we're headed.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Wow does this article have it right… Must reading…

It makes some good points.
-----------------------
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -- George Orwell.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

One very important thing to note is that being president doesn't mean you can do everything. The US isn't Russia. President Bush had the votes to take out the partial-birth abortion, so he did. He also got a highly qualified conservative elected to the Supreme Court. He hasn't solved everything, but he's not in a position where he can. There are checks and balances to power.

What does being able to do everything have to do with it? We're talking about protesting anti-abortion laws passed in South Dakota.

Hector, it's already happened.

IR, the article says a lot of true things about the GOP.

The culture war is supposed to be about morality, but really it's a crusade to compel Americans to follow certain norms of private behavior that some social and religious conservatives believe are mandated by sociology, nature or God.

However, that is the same thing.

[hectorberlioz]

Or the party can purge its gay staffers, maybe symbolically burn a few at the stake, and continue to pretend that you can legislate what is permitted to reside in American hearts and minds. Unfortunately, that's where it looks like we're headed.

This can be disputed though, because the Republicans have their share of gays too.

Now that last sentence, I just have to laugh.. It is most definitely NOT where we're headed...quite the opposite, IMO.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Hector, it's already happened.

Little Ginsburg-Alitos running around?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Nope:

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I can't see why he would...

Also:

Hmmm.....how long before election do you have to be registered? I want to vote for Corker, every little bit helps

Huh? What is this "vote"?