So, if you weren't convinced the first time we danced around with our president on a major GLBT issue (gay marriage) perhaps you'll be convinced this time.
As a result of Bush's announcement for a consitutional admendment prohibiting gay marriage, there has been stepped up efforts to ban GLBT people from adopting kids. Indeed, 16 states have considering or have ALREADY banned gay adoptions.
This ought to hit everyone here hard because once you do the SRS, you're pretty much out of the child concieveing business (unless you had the foresight to freeze you eggs or sperm). Wanna adopt kids? You're outta luck unless you want to move or have big bucks to have attorneys argue that you're "not gay".
I am pretty much steamed by this development (see stories in Feb 21 2006 USA Today for background). For our own well being and freedom to be who we are, we cannot elect another Republican politican. Let me make this clear -- NO MORE REPUBLICANS!!!! Even if the President is a Democrat, a GOP-controlled Congress will make their own legislation or prevent the democrat President from undoing the conservative hate-GLBT gains. And even if we dump Bush and the GOP congress, we have to deal with the new conservatived-leaning Supreme Court -- they will be in power for a while, possibily ruling on gay marriage, gay adoption and who knows what decades from now.
Even if you know of a repectable republican, we CANNOT risk strengthing the GOP as long as its dominated by backward thinking selfish individuals who think they know whats best for us.
</rant>
ps: Of course I am open to any compelling argument as to why the GLBT adoption ban might be a good idea.
Alexandra,
Bare with me as I step up onto my soapbox...
Being a "respectable Republican," I would have to agree with you. The present iteration of the GOP has been shanghi'ed by what is popularly called "The Religious Right." I daresay that many of our brothers and sisters here would probably call them the "Religious Wrong."
I vote for candidates who support and have a track-record of following my idea of Republicanism.
1) Smaller Governement.
2) Strong Defense with well-paid, well-trained and well-equiped soldiers.
3) Whenever possible, use the Private Sector for services because they are usually more efficient. This leads to...
4) Reducing the Federal Budget.
5) Reduce needless regulations. This does NOT mean I support rolling back environmental legislation or drilling in ANWR! It DOES mean rolling back NCLB. (Have you detected a constancy in my position on this legislation?!)
6) Maintaining personal liberties.
A candidate who supports these general positions, regardless of political affiliation, will make my short list of who I would support in an election.
This means that we must VOTE! The entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate is up for election this year. We have the lowest voter turn-out in the free world. Get out and vote! Tell your family, friends, neighbors, enemies - EVERYONE! - to get out and vote!
Let me get off my soapbox bofore someone tries looking up my skirt....
Chuante
We have the same problem with voter turn out in Canada. Only 64% of registered voters voted in our last election in January so I think it was pretty low. I think one of the reasons is voter apathy, and a lack of viable choices, lack of inspired and inspiring leaders.
I always vote and I vote for the party who I feel will best represent my interests in government. Thankfully we don't have the problems that you seem to be experiencing.
Steph
Normally I don't like to talk about politics, but...
This is my understanding of republicans and democrats.
Republicans:
Their goal is to have a system in place that rewards the rich and working middle-class and leaves anybody who does not fit into their cookie-cutter idea of what a person should be to suffer out in the cold.
Democrats:
Their goal is to give everybody equal opportunity by allowing government funded services to anybody who is in need of them. This includes healthcare, low-income housing, disability, and food to people who can not work. If somebody has more money, then they have they can make use of private sector services for healthcare, housing and anything else they need.
Now a problem that has surfaced more recently in the US is the electoral college voting system where each state has a certain "weight" in terms of votes. As each state counts their votes a state is determined to be supportive of the democrat party, republic party, or other (such as Cassie). It is entirely possible (and has been happening) for there to be more voters overall to vote for one candidate and have the other candidate win because certain states with more weight, but less people voted a certain way. The problem with this system is that the statement "every vote counts" does not apply. You could be in a state that has 100000 voters who ALL vote for democrat and all other states have only 10 voters that year who ALL vote for republican. Although 100000 people voted democrat and 490 people voted republican, the republican would win. Really stupid system in my opinion.
Now you see why I don't like to talk about politics.
Melissa
Melissa,
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.
Being Republican does not mean that you leave non-cookie-cutter people out in the cold. That's the Religious-Wrong speaking. The GOP is pro-business and pro do-it-for-yourself, which can leave some people out in the cold if they fall flat on their face. You can make a good argument saying that the Democrats have tempered the Republicans. However, you can make a solid argument that the welfare plans of the Democrats "Great Society" encourages generational poverty. I have students who can't wait to get out of school so they can collect their welfare check - just like their parents and grandparents.
We need to find the median between these two extreams.
Yes, the Electorial College is cumbersome and the ranking of the various states is odd. However, it is no more odd than the population distibution across the US. The Electorial College gives smaller and less populated states a larger say in the presidential election than does a straight popular vote. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that JFK was elected because of a handfull of vote scattered across the country. These individual votes pushed the town Democrat, which caused the county and then state to go Democrat.
The last place I lived, there was a referendum whether to keep the villiage police or rely on the county sherriff alone. Only eleven votes seperated the Yea's and Nay's.
Every vote does count.
Chaunte.
I'm also disagreeing with Melissa.
The more one understands politics, the more the electoral college makes sense. Its a check system forcing Presidential candidates to go out and campaign in most of the states instead of focusing in the top 5 or 10 biggest cities in the USA. No small state is going to give up the strength they have now and give up the electoral college.
But here's the main thing -- the electoral college has been in existence for a long time -- everybody knows the EC rules long in advance of any election, and its how we elect Presidents. Why would any outcome be "a problem"?
The argument that one's vote doesn't matter is pure nonsense. In fact, it matters MORE with the electoral college since there are 51 opportunites out of 100 million cast ballots for one vote to decide an election as opposed to 1 opportunity out of 100 million if the EC was done away with.
Then there's the argument for "middle of the road candidates" . . . well guess what, regardless of all the talk, people in America don't want them and they're speaking with their ballot choices. In 1994 people had a shot for picking moderate Ross Perot. He was no where near a win. In 2000, 2 opportunites -- Ralph Nader and also John McCain in the Republican Primary. Both shot down. People by the virtues of their votes mostly went either right or left.
The people have spoken, its not the candidates fault -- they know moderates can't win. Blame the voters cuz they're not voting for any of them enough to win.
IMO some political reform is needed, but the electoral college is just fine.
Sure, politics can be tough and heated to talk about, but there is nothing more important than deciding who speaks for us. With me in particular, I don't like being told what to do in my life (or with my life) with that in mind, I find politics easy to discuss because I know exactly who I DON'T to represent me so that decision is easy. 8)
I'll give an example of a time when me voting didn't matter. In the 2004 Presidential election for George W Bush and Al Gore, I did not vote because I had moved and didn't renew my voter registration card. Our state won as a democratic vote, which I was intending to vote for anyway, but the Republican party one by a very small number of votes because of the EC system. However, by popular vote, Democrats would have won. If I had voted, it wouldn't have made a lick of difference because the state won what I was going to vote anyway.
Now keep in mind, my parents are Republican and my wife is a Democrat. Guess which one has been more supportive of me being a transsexual? My wife. It seems to be very common for republicans to mix religion and politics. Not a very good mix in my opinion. That's also one of the big reasons I am not a republican.
Melissa
QuoteIn 1994 people had a shot for picking moderate Ross Perot.
It wasn't Perot's moderate stance that lost him the election. He was doing very well and stood a good chance of winning. It was dropping out of the race on the pretext that his daughters wedding had been threatened by party operatives. Republican Democrat doesn't really matter. What mattered was he claimed some conspiracy plot against his family and quit then turned around and reentered the race. The damage was already done. That was what lost him the race.
Nader a moderate? I don't know what your definition of a moderate is but in my book Nader and is green party are not it. His party was too far left on the environment and perceived to be in league with radical environmentalists who are viewed by many Americans to be nothing more than amateur terrorists. Nader may be a great consumer advocate but we are judged by the company we keep. His candidacy was doomed.
McCain was perceived by many republicans to be a traitor to conservatisim hence he was not going to get the Republican nomination. Being moderate had nothing to do with it. IMO
Cassie
Quote from: Cassandra Anna Hefton on February 23, 2006, 03:40:28 AM
It wasn't Perot's moderate stance that lost him the election. He was doing very well and stood a good chance of winning. It was dropping out of the race on the pretext that his daughters wedding had been threatened by party operatives. Republican Democrat doesn't really matter. What mattered was he claimed some conspiracy plot against his family and quit then turned around and reentered the race. The damage was already done. That was what lost him the race.
Nader a moderate? I don't know what your definition of a moderate is but in my book Nader and is green party are not it. His party was too far left on the environment and perceived to be in league with radical environmentalists who are viewed by many Americans to be nothing more than amateur terrorists. Nader may be a great consumer advocate but we are judged by the company we keep. His candidacy was doomed.
McCain was perceived by many republicans to be a traitor to conservatisim hence he was not going to get the Republican nomination. Being moderate had nothing to do with it. IMO
Cassie
Another thing that cost Ross the election was his vice-presidental candidate. I wasn't convinced of his ability to lead the nation despite his background in the military. (He was an admiral, asn't he?)
I look at the VP choice as the first indication of the character of the presidential candidate. FOr me, the VP debate is muh more telling of the candidates. Ross' VP choice didn't even listen. He turned his two hearing aids off whenever he wasn't speaking.
I have heard the Green Party described as the Red Party wearing a different color. Nader was in bed with the wrong group to ever be accepted.
Chaunte
I'll yield to the argument that the green party may not be a true "moderate" party. 8)
However, I still stand by my argument that Americans don't want independent party moderates dominating politics. If they did, they'd all be in office and the conservatives and liberals will be fighting to regain seats lost to moderates.
I suppose the Ross bashing might have had some effect, HOWEVER, nothing compares to the bashing McCain got from Bush in 2000. If the Republicans didn't go for moderate Republican McCain in 2000, I don't see how how enough Republicans will abandon the GOP to vote for an independent party Moderate in 2008. An independent will have to draw mostly from the Democrats and with Hillary Clinton (darned close to a moderate by the way) leading the polls, I don't see many Democrats doing the same either.
IMO I don't think Ross had any chance -- he had an impressive start by getting guite a few people to abandon their parties early -- but they were already on the fence -- getting enough hard core Demos and GOP faithful to leave their party was not likely to happen.
I'll yield on one thing though . . . if Bush continues to stumble around and the Demos remain rather aimless in leadership as the election approaches, 2008 might be another good year for an independent -- perhaps 20 percent of the vote . . . but to win an election outright, I don't think so. I suppose its good all this is just my opinion! 8)
Posted at: February 24, 2006, 12:28:38 AM
Quote from: Chaunte Marie on February 23, 2006, 09:22:45 PM
Another thing that cost Ross the election was his vice-presidental candidate.
I'll agree there. That was a bonehead decision. Perot should have selected a wise and respectable "name" and the race would have been a bit more interesting.
Posted at: February 24, 2006, 12:31:50 AM
Quote from: melissa_girl on February 23, 2006, 12:51:15 AM
It seems to be very common for republicans to mix religion and politics.
Yes, many in the GOP tend to "use" God to get elected. Its been working quite nicely too. :(
Quote from: Alexandra on February 24, 2006, 12:34:20 AM
I'll yield to the argument that the green party may not be a true "moderate" party. 8)
However, I still stand by my argument that Americans don't want independent party moderates dominating politics. If they did, they'd all be in office and the conservatives and liberals will be fighting to regain seats lost to moderates.
I suppose the Ross bashing might have had some effect, HOWEVER, nothing compares to the bashing McCain got from Bush in 2000. If the Republicans didn't go for moderate Republican McCain in 2000, I don't see how how enough Republicans will abandon the GOP to vote for an independent party Moderate in 2008. An independent will have to draw mostly from the Democrats and with Hillary Clinton (darned close to a moderate by the way) leading the polls, I don't see many Democrats doing the same either.
IMO I don't think Ross had any chance -- he had an impressive start by getting guite a few people to abandon their parties early -- but they were already on the fence -- getting enough hard core Demos and GOP faithful to leave their party was not likely to happen.
I'll yield on one thing though . . . if Bush continues to stumble around and the Demos remain rather aimless in leadership as the election approaches, 2008 might be another good year for an independent -- perhaps 20 percent of the vote . . . but to win an election outright, I don't think so. I suppose its good all this is just my opinion! 8)
Posted at: February 24, 2006, 12:28:38 AM
I'll agree there. That was a bonehead decision. Perot should have selected a wise and respectable "name" and the race would have been a bit more interesting.
Posted at: February 24, 2006, 12:31:50 AM
Yes, many in the GOP tend to "use" God to get elected. Its been working quite nicely too. :(
Alexandra,
You make a number of good points.
If the Democrats don't get their act together, an Independant candidate could make 2008 ... interesting! You know, someone strong, wise, military background, rational... Sound like anyone we know? :D
Chaunte