Hometown: San Diego/Ca/Nuevo Pacifica
Home country: U.S. of A.
Current location: Planet Earth
Member since: Mon Aug 20, 2012, 04:39 PM
Number of posts: 4,322
Hometown: San Diego/Ca/Nuevo Pacifica
Home country: U.S. of A.
Current location: Planet Earth
Member since: Mon Aug 20, 2012, 04:39 PM
Number of posts: 4,322
parties change over time. Until WWI, the Democratic Party was not liberal. By the time of Truman, when Blacks were allowed in the Party, we had moved to a center left, with a strong racist southern constituency. Northeaster Republicans were more socially liberal than many in the Democratic Party. When Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he lost the South. Nixon's Southern strategy brought Southern Democrats into the Republican fold and Reagan completed that process, turning Reagan Democrats into a Republican South. With Reagan, Northeastern socially liberal Republicans began to move to the Democratic Party. This process ended with Obama as the North East is heavily Democratic and socially liberal.
The entire country shifted right from Nixon through Bush. Even Jimmy Carter was a Social liberal fiscal Democrat a bit to the right of Johnson. Clinton was to the right of Carter. Oh, he tried a few liberal things higher taxes, and bringing gays more into the mainstream. (At the time, don't ask don't tell was considered an abomination in the sight of God. I lived through it, in the military. It lasted too long.) But Clinton's fiscal policies and deregulation were comfortably Reaganist.
2006 began the move back toward the left in reaction to massive Bush and Republican mismanagement. Obama is not a liberal in classic political terms, or even compared to Johnson or Kennedy. But he has moved us back a bit to the left in social issues. The Affordable Care Act, (a thoroughly Republican plan circa 1990), revealing that the Republicans had moved so far right that they could not even agree with solid Republican Policy of the 90's. He was slow to accept gay marriage, but finally ended Don't Ask Don't Tell and does not defend DOMA. He has appointed center left Justices. He continues the Imperial policies of Bush (foreign wars,war on terror, interventionist, spying on American Citizens) and has claimed the right to kill American Citizens without due process.
He sits, I think, at the center of American Politics, which would be center right under Bush, more than Center Right under Clinton, Right under Reagan, etc. etc. The momentum of the American public is left now. President Obama can slow that down by fighting it or help it along by going with the public.
He is still limited by what will pass the most right wing Republican Party in history. This isn't going to change until, at least, January of 2015, and only if we elect a Democratic Congress.
He was the only choice. Even if Hillary Clinton won the nomination, there would have been little difference. Republicans would have been as intransigent under her as they have been under Obama. No more liberal candidate was in the running.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:27 PM (0 replies)
What some call the "battle for the head of the party" (Republican party that is), and others a "civil war" has an interesting front, the attempt to re-brand their party.
Yes, yes, I know it won't work hear, but they don't give a damn what we think and know it wouldn't work anyway. You can see this re-branding effort with people like Jeb Bush (don' laugh! All right, laugh and get out of your system). Now that you've cleaned off your screen and cleansed your drawers of the residue of mirth, just give me a moment. The Bush's actually tried to attract Latino voters to the Republican Party and did not stand four square behind shipping all those foreigners who fail the white test back over the border. People like Jeb Bush, Christie (don't let his gratitude for the President's work at getting help for Ne Jersey fool you.), Rick Perry, and hispanic Republican Latinos, and especially Marco Rubio will be at the center of re-branding Republicanism to make it a more attractive lipstick embellished pig for Latino voters.
This will require shit-canning, actually concealing under a lot of lipstick, the tea-party contingent.
How well this will go is anybodies guess.
But it is a process that we should all watch, with popcorn and interest.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:08 PM (0 replies)
Hirono defeats Lingle in US Senate race in Hawaii
HONOLULU (AP) — U.S. Rep. Mazie Hirono has defeated former Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to become Hawaii's next U.S. senator, prevailing in a race many believed key to shifting power dynamics in Congress.
Hirono ran on a platform of stopping Lingle as a representative of national Republican interests. At every turn in the race, Hirono linked her opponent with well-known GOP names including Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and George Bush.
Hirono held court for Democrats in a state known to support the party. President Barack Obama topped the ticket for Democrats in his birth state in his bid for re-election.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Wed Nov 7, 2012, 12:22 PM (1 replies)
Walked to the the polling place and voted at 1015, and though I went with my voter guide and research, there were a couple of local races that surprised me because they just were not there.
Many races are non-partisan. Partisan hacks still run for them, and you can not look at a name or a job description (nurse, constitutional lawyer, etc.) and know. (Side Note: I have noticed that everybody billing themselves as a "Constitutional Lawyer" is associated with the Tea Party, but there may be exceptions I have not met.)
Used the browser in my cell phone to determine who to vote for in those exceptional cases. An extra five minutes of research and I am convinced I voted for those who are the best from the available candidates.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Tue Nov 6, 2012, 01:38 PM (0 replies)
Low those many moons ago (you know, June and July) talking heads waxed eloquent over the failure of Romney to pivot to the center. He was hostage of the Tea-Party, the Koch Brothers, and other assorted nefarious persons who forced Ryan upon him and kept him from doing the natural politically expedient thing of moving back to the center after a short trip to etremistvile in order to win the nomination.
His base forced him to take so many stands on the far right that his balance forever shifted out of reach of independents and centrists.
This debate changed that. Like in a bad mission impossible prologue, he disavowed knowledge of his previous right wing promises and left all those Tom Cruise ideas to die a painful death in freeperfile. He denied his tax plan. Hell, he actually reveled in his record as a governor and Romneycare, something that the Republican Primary would not let him do lest he alienate his base blogging from their mother's basement.
But is it real or did we witness a Chameleon change the direction of its color?
In Massachusetts, he was governor of a state with an 87% Democratic majority. Democrats set the agenda and Romney guided a bit, but went along for the ride. Should the unthinkable happen, and America elect "Zelig" Romney to the White House, he will have a very different legislative branch. It appears his new found centrism is a Pivot Fake to the Center.
Should Republicans maintain their hold on the House they will drive the agenda. Romney is certainly friendly to their wet dreams and can hold a pen with the best of them.
His sudden embrace of those years in Massachusetts, his new found love of his inner-liberal, is just a Pivot Fake to the center to retake independents. Will it work? Watch the polls. How will he poll with independents, who are more fickle than Olive Oil in Popeye Cartoon is anybody's guess.
But whether it works or not, it is an illusion. Romney is a Chameleon who will fake anything to get elected and in a world where a sucker is born every minute it might work.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Thu Oct 4, 2012, 11:19 AM (0 replies)
with a narrative of myth.
As human knowledge filled the holes those places where God brought such comfort have disappeared. We know that the world is ancient. There is no scientific argument that counters an ancient earth.
We know that lightning is caused when masses of air rub together until the energy exceeds the capacitance of the atmosphere that the sparks over the resistance in the atmosphere. We know that thunder is caused by lightning. We can not make a theological argument that God, angels, Thor, or Bael Hammon are the cause.
We have considerable evidence that Planets condense from stellar clouds with the stars the orbit. They are not revealed by the parting of waters or vomited up by cosmic turtles.
With mathematics, we can even glimpse creation of a universe from nothing.
There are fewer and fewer places where God fits.
But because we as a species evolved with God and religion, many need the comfort of God and deny science so they can keep those places in the framework of their experience for God to fill. For those people, science may explain but never comforts, and needing comfort rather than explanations, they deny science and hold to myth.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Mon Oct 1, 2012, 03:35 PM (2 replies)
Take a trip over to FR and you will see they are giddy as school children because it is a very close reelection
They quote the Daily Swing State tracking poll that looks at "Swing States." This poll is for September 09.
To them it's a razor thin election because the swing states, at least according to Rasmussen, are all within a point.
Democrats are looking at a broader view, Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll. This is also for September 09.
This is the same data, looked at from different points of view. One seems constructed to appeal to Democrats so they believe Obama is winning comfortably. The other way of looking at the polls is to put it together to bolster Republican view that it is an incredibly tight election that they can buy our suppress to victory.
Which one is accurate?
Well, none of them are because the data is put together in such a way to appeal to different markets. Rasmussen is selling himself to everyone by giving them massaged results.
Rasmussen is a whore who will sell himself to everyone.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Sun Sep 9, 2012, 12:22 PM (0 replies)
and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
That is a beautiful sentiment, but it is end of the word gobbledygook. I was born seven years after the end of WWII. My father was a veteran of WWII and Korea.
I am anti unnecessary war, which is to say I am not a pacifist but am opposed to the use of war for political, territorial gain, resources, or because some leader wants to get a one up on his daddy. I do think the use of the military to aid people who are seeking to throw off a real tyrant busy murdering his people is a legitimate use of power.
WWII was a necessary war that was brought to us. Some here will disagree. Korea was political, part of that post WWII period when the U.S. and Russia were fighting proxy wars and encouraging proxy wars to see had the who was boss. We interfered because had we not, the whole Korean Peninsula would be like North Korea is today; a tiny, starving nation, lead by a dynasty of isolationist zealots. If we are going to complain about South Korea's political laws, we should seriously consider North Korea's Laws.
Vietnam was similar to Korea, though it had a long history of war, having with China, the French, Japanese, and the U.S. Still, I oppose getting involved because it was never necessary to our national survival.
Panama was essentially a police action using the military. Norriega was indicted, so we went, we arrested him, we left. Would our nation have survived if we left that petty dictator in place? Yes, so it wasn't necessary in that way, but we could have hardly sent in U.S. Marshals and arrested him.
Because the perpetrators of 9/11 were terrorists and not nation states, I felt they should have been pursued as criminals rather than sending the military to kick ass and take names. We fought Iraq because we stupidly thought we could create a Jeffersonian Democracy that would make the middle east love us, and to gain control of their oil. Both of those goals were unmet. It was a stupid waste of time, resources, and a monumental waste of lives.
Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. Fighting there is stupid. We are not going to make them like us and they will pretty much go back to the way they were before we or the Russians, or the British were there. It was a war fought stupidly in its beginning a pointlessly as it winds down.
Libya, I supported it because the people asked us to help and we did not have to invade and occupy to do it. My view of the war is tainted by my sense that a great part of our reason to help them was because Europe benefited with Libya's oil. If we did the same with Syria, I would think better of the exercise, because the Syrian people are being treated the same way the Libyans were. The difference is that the Russians don't want us playing in their pumpkin patch, so it is a political standoff while Syria murders its citizens. It appears to me, that it will cause the death toll to go higher, but the government will change as demanded by the people. They have the right to change their government.
So clearly, I am not anti all war, and I do not buy the notion that at the end of times some deity will come and force us to play nice. I am anti-unnecessary war, and feel the military is a legitimate tool to aid others who are being abused by their government if they ask for help.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Tue Aug 28, 2012, 05:30 PM (1 replies)
I was 17 and thought it was cool. My grandfather sat around making disparaging remarks. He was a Rockefeller Republican and did not think Nixon could polish Eisenhower's shoes. My grandmother, a Democrat true and blue, supported Senator Eugene McCarthy against Hubert Humphrey, especially after several local boys we all knew died in Vietnam. That convention was what led to the adoption of binding primaries and zero surprises. But it was also surrounded by riots outside and Dan Rather was roughed up inside when he attempted to talk to a delegate. Walter Cronkite called them thugs.
I was unaware of any of what went on behind the scenes at those conventions. The pageantry of the whole thing was a hell of a spectacle. I remember Goldwater from 1964, because he appeared at our school and handed out cans of "Goldwater" soda, that tasted like Orange Crush.
I find the current Republican National Convention, with the Party elite attempting to push out Paul's delegations, and even Texas in one report, to be interesting and telling concerning the fight inside the Republican Party between Party big business Corporate Conservative leadership and the Teaparty and radical Christian insurgents. But I read reports only and don't watch. I get enough political advertisements on regularly scheduled television to last me a lifetime.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Tue Aug 28, 2012, 02:12 PM (0 replies)
For first time, Californians will be able to register to vote online
Anything that makes it easier to register and vote is a benefit to citizens.
I'll be the very idea of this Chaps Republican's arse.
Remember, if you know anyone who is not registered, the article says that October 22 is the last day to register to vote in California.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Mon Aug 27, 2012, 02:38 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1