There's always been a desire to vote for the most likely winner, but the 2008 presidential race has accelerated this inane trend, thanks in no small part to media coverage that validates determining an early winner (maybe it's cheaper to cover one candidate than six?). The New York Times, endorsing Hillary Clinton in the New York primary, openly stated in its editorial that it did not consider endorsing John Edwards because he was a "long shot." (Never mind that he might not be a long shot if the Times endorsed him, or the paper's conscious--and unconscionable--role in reducing his chances.)
Funny, I was under the impression that we were supposed to vote for the best candidate, and let the election returns fall where they may.
Click on the cartoon to make it bigger.
"let the election results fall where they may" unless, of course, the candidate believes in something Ted does not. That candidate must be stripped of their right to run and their party must be barred.
ReplyDeleteHey A.,
ReplyDeleteYou've assumed distinctly troll-like habits. Future redundant posts will not be approved, so be warned.
That said, the GOP should be banned, not because I disagree with it (I disagree with Democrats, too) but because it has proven itself unwilling to govern in good faith.
Hey -- it's your site! Ban me if you think it warrented. Won't even carp about free speech and free expression'cause it doesn't really apply to private things like personal web sites (something many people on both sides of this rhetorical civil war would do better to rememeber btw) -- you're totally within your rights to do so. I wouldn't even be offended.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I'm sorry if I seem like a troll. All I can say is that wasn't my intent. As I understand it Trolls are folks who post things just to piss people off or start arguments (forgive me if I have the meaning wrong there).
Again, not what I was trying to do. Everything I've posted here (under whatever "name" I've used)has been genuine belief and opinion.
As I see it, (and PLEASE note the subjective nature of that phrase) this country is being pulled apart by too much intolerance of the beliefs, opinions, and faiths of others with whom we disagree. (Resisting with all my puny might hauling out the old Voltaire chestnut here)
Maybe I've lived too long, but I can't get past the subjective nature of all politics (Hell, all morality when it comes down to it), and I just can't stomach the vitriolic partisanism that's swamping us all.
We need to to talk to each other! But even more than that, I think we need also to LISTEN to each other. Listening is a multi-step process, and we need to ATTEND to what we're saying and try with all our might to find a way to coexist.
As you've pointed out, many (but by NO means all - imho) republicans are unwilling to do that. That's why I don't even waste my time posting on rightie blogs. I've come to not expect any better from them.
But I've come to expect more from the left. Maybe I was wrong there too. I hope not, but in these increasingly depressing and dispiriting times, who knows?
Pluralism and an inclusive society aren't things that should be denied by either side. If the rhetoric is different but the tactics are the same it's just different lyrics to the same despotic tune.
Again, if you decide not to approve this I understand and I won't darken any of your doors again. It'll just be another piece of my own personal faith in our system withering and dying.
Well, that last was a bit too melodramtically over-the-top. Suffice to say that, believe it or not, I agree with you far more often than not, and maybe that's why when I don't I tend to lash out.
In this divisive time, when voices of reason begin to sound (seemingly) unreasonable notes where to we turn?
Should we never interact again I sincerely wish you nothing but the best!
Hey Ted
ReplyDeleteDo you believe the media hype about Bill and Hillary injecting race into this campaign, cause I just don't see it. To me it seems like many in the media are so enthused at the idea of a black president, that even being critical of Obama is considered to have racist under tones. His own campaign staff released a memo to voters pointing out what they considered racist remarks from the Clintons, but yet that doesn't make him responsible at all for fanning the flames?
Obama has accepted massive amounts of money from Rezko and bought his house from him, and did so knowingly even while he was under federal investigation. To me, this sort of serious lapse in judgment is almost on par with Hillary's idiotic Iraq vote. Yes, many politicians get involved in shady deals, but Obama has built his entire image on being against these practices! Yet, there are people who try to defend him for this by saying it's bringing race into the debate by saying the word "slum lord". The reason why he's falling behind amongst white and Hispanic voters is because people are starting to resent the notion that you can't criticize him without being considered racially motivated.
Obama's supporters are borderline fanatics. Many have said they would vote McCain if the race was between Hillary and McCain simply because their first choice Democrat nominee didn't get the nomination--never mind the fact that McCain has been open about keeping our troops in Iraq for 100 years if need be. How do you communicate with this kind of thinking? This is madness! lol
Anyway, sorry for ranting. It just seems to me that many in the media are tripping over themselves to support a black candidate, even if it means ignoring his flaws and their rationalizing everything by saying "We're not behind him just because he's black. On the contrary, YOU'RE THE ONE whose obsessed with his race".
Here's an interesting notion to chew on: perhaps had the media DONE THEIR JOB and covered this Rezko controversy in the weeks earlier, it wouldn't have surfaced so late in the campaign? Just a hunch.
At the risk of also being a troll, albeit an agreeable troll, I agree with Ted here, both with regard to the GOP being banned and the media manipulation of elections.
ReplyDeleteOn the first point, The GOP has shown a revulsion of 'governance,' and their main candidates over the past 30 years all insist that 'government is the problem,' as well as yielding themselves to an authority higher than the laws of the state and international institutions (the imaginary friend inside their head telling them they're right so violating laws doesn't matter as long as they BELIEVE they're right).
To me, those two characteristics demonstrate a failure to read the job description of public office, which is to serve the laws of society and to GOVERN, rather than gut our public institutions for the sake of private sector interests.
This wouldn't lead to a single party system, as Americans love competition and other parties would emerge to challenge the Democrats on ideological and competence grounds.
On the second point, this reminds me of a short article I read yesterday about how James Dobson is refusing to endorse a candidate because it's too early and he doesn't want to pick 'a loser.' He's not sure Huckleberry or Romney will win so he doesn't want to give an endorsement. In fact, he's actually only ever endorsed one candidate, GW Bush in 2004, when he was running unopposed in the primary.
That's like me waiting until the fourth quarter of next week's superbowl to predict that the Patriots will go undefeated this year.
Americans love winners and hate losers. In the process they completely forget to keep tabs on the government officials they've hired to GOVERN, and make sure they a) do an adequate job of governance, and b) do what they said they would when begging for the job.
Ted, good point in this cartoon. People who deride my voting choice because of their self-fulfilling prophecy style of "logic" always piss me off.
ReplyDeletebtw, are you aware links for your blog archives for 2007-2008 are not apparent?
I've heard some convincing arguments from people that the Obama campaign is the one playing the race card and making themselves out to be victims of the Clinton campaign. I think it's a clever strategy, albeit a double edged sword. I do think it's disingenuous as well.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a lot more fervor over gender than race, and think Clinton has a harder time. Part of this is because of her husband having been President.
On being tactical with voting, I don't really think it's a problem to be calculating with who one chooses to vote for. Historical evidence suggests that a candidate's policy stances are not a very good indicator of what policies they will get enacted once in office. This is beyond simply the pandering of politicians to get elected. Even candidates who have a very clear goal of what to do and strive to accomplish it when in office rarely get a substantial amount of what they intended.
I don't place blame on the calculating voter, but in the structure of our electing system. Winner take all systems naturally reduce in this way, which is why the more representative style of electing parliaments is superior.
That we have an executive branch at all is problematic.
I agree with aggie dude whole heartedly on the fact that barring the republican party wouldn't end the two-party system (though is that so bad? I think we need at least four parties 'round here). I'm just not so sure on how condtitutional or even democratic such a barring would be. As much satisfdaction as such a move would give us (and it would give me at least some), how are we to realistically know that what would rise to replace them wouldn't be much much worse? Besides, they're not republicans anymore. Not really. The party, which was once admirable if miss-guided, has been hijacked by neocons and religio-nutbars. I know plenty of good-hearted old-school republicans who can't stand what their party has become.
ReplyDeleteAs for letting the media pick the candidates for us? That's just the nature of the modern neast I think. Pandora's media box is already wide open (and getting wider all the time -- this blog and comment board just a single case in point -- isn't Ted a member of the media. Indeed, when we post here aren't we all, in a way at least, mass communicating?). Short of a repressive dictatorship (headed f45from EITHER side of the poly-sci specturm) how do we realsitically and constitutionally put those sometimes malevolent sometimes benevolent media rays back in the box?
These are not rhetorical questions, but neither do I expect anyone to ever come up with an answer that will satisfy everyone, or at least anyone really.
Seemingly in love with parentheses,
A
Hrumph, and so Theadore, you finally show your true colors. After being derided, defiled and consistantly threatend. Your final answer is "people died for my right to vote". And of course without saying it includes people in the armed services. Respect and gratitude for thier sacrifices. The sacrifices of the many anti war people. The many voting rights activists of the 50's and 60's. This is a recuring subject of your writings. For readers it's quite apparent where your loyalties lay. God bless America,(whatever god you claim, or not) Long live Ted, and others like him. Raise a toast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe curse of having to be considered electable before being elected affects lots of political contests especially intra-party battles. When I was younger I attended a leadership convention in Ontario.
ReplyDeleteThere were only 4 candidates. The candidate that won was the worst, , most incompetent, most right wing, most narrow minded and lost the party the next election and control of government. The best candidate was a man who eventually became chief justice, he was knocked out first.
Sometimes when parties focus on getting the "most electable" candidates rather than the best people real dogs are voted in via group think.
Ya know, I was all about Kucinich till I read about his fundraiser with Larry Flynt.
ReplyDelete