Pangloss

Of course, and I don't mean to suggest that superficial judgementalism is the way to go with anything of the level of importance as one's presidential vote. But I think you might have missed my point there, and that may be my fault for not being clear. The point I was trying to make was that as a medical doctor he should have understood that it was a bad idea to step into that quagmire. The notion that they needed to throw the brakes on in order to collect more information is ludicrous. He's probably seen and/or read about (in the professional sense) hundreds, if not thousands, of similar cases. His decision had nothing to do with his medical experience -- it was a wholly political move, and a calculated one at that. And as I say, he realizes now that it was a mistake to step in, and has apologized for doing so. How can you view that in any light other than "he messed up"? Do I think that condemns the guy on every level? Of course not. But why you're defending his position on this is beyond me. Why not just admit that you agreed with his first decision, on ideological grounds, and disagreed with his apology, and just leave it at that? Why defend the guy on this issue when he isn't even defending himself? Are you expecting perfection? Just as a side note, and this isn't aimed entirely at you (up to you whether this shoe fits), but this gnaws at one of my pet peeves: My definition of a partisan is someone who holds double standards on the same issue depending on who the political affiliation of the person under scrutiny. If you think that's okay for him to have made that mistake because he's a Republican, but would feel differently under similar circumstances for a Democrat then what's the point about debating the particulars? Why bother bringing up the details and arguing about the various subpoints? What difference could it possibly make, given that there are no circumstances under which you would change your mind? Is one here to listen, or solely to convince? If it's the latter, IMO that's a waste of both my time and yours.

Of course not. I've discussed other political positions before on these boards, as well as my Libertarian vote for House of Representatives in 2004, and why I felt that vote actually carried weight as opposed to being an empty gesture. That question says more about you than it does about me.

It's true that baldly insisting that a moderate position is best, without supporting that position with reasoned discourse over time, amounts to the same thing as an ideology. There are plenty of people in this country, for example, who run around proclaiming that all Democrats and Republicans are evil and corrupt, and you can't trust any of them. They don't KNOW that's the case, they simply assume it, for the same poor reasons that others condemn all Democrats or all Republicans. That having been said, there is a difference between someone who has an open mind and refrains from easy conclusions and simple answers, and someone who jumps on every bandwagon proferred by their fellow partisans. While I believe that open-minded people can exist as a moderate, a Democrat, or a Republican, it has been my general experience that the further one gets from the center, the less likely the person is to be objective and open-minded. Can I prove that? Nope. But here's the real point: I'm open to the possibility. Can ideologues say the same?

Quite right, gcol, well said.

Jim, as a doctor he should have known better. Apparently, in hindsight, he agrees, because he's apologized for making the decision that he did. Which is pretty brave given the fact that his one and only chance is to play to the religious-conservative base. So no, it's not an example of "leftist rags on the web distorting the facts" (well maybe the masturbation thing, I can't speak to that issue, knowing nothing about it). He just plain screwed up. That apology, and a story down here about Frist last year stopping on Alligator Alley and saving the life of an accident victim, do carry weight with me. I'm more or less convinced that he's a genuine human being who's just caught up a bit in the power politics of Washington. But he represents a base that I'm not a member of, and he has this HCA/insider trading thing hanging over his head. So unless he handles that and moves rather dramatically back to the center on a number of issues, I won't vote for him. But hey, I'm all for making vague, undefined promises to the far right and then pulling the rug out from under them once in office. (Oh, you didn't think Bush did that by accident, did you?) ;-)

As with Bascule's position on Hillary, a Nancy Pelosi nomination would pretty much guarantee my Republican vote in the next election. (And a long shower afterwards if that vote went to Bill Frist.)

If you're looking for some basic background materia, the Wikipedia has some pretty good write-ups on the two predominent American political parties. Try these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29

I know what it was. I was trying to forget that I ever voted for Walter Mondale. That was it.

Well many are stupid enough to continue voting Democrat because that's what they're expected to do, so I don't know why there wouldn't be some sort of surge in that direction.

The ideological left won't vote for McCain either, which leaves their only option at not voting. Interestingly, having McCain in the race also leaves the far right without an option. That's one of the intriguing things to me about a McCain-Clinton race -- it may leave the partisan base on both sides at home where it belongs. That's my dream scenario, though, which is weak in a number of areas. For example, we may no longer exist in a political environment which allows the base to stay at home under any circumstances. Of course, in that scenario, the far left votes Hillary and the far right votes McCain, lacking a better choice, which returns equanimity -- but there would remain a question of which base would be better motivated (which was a big question in the 2004 campaign as well). But golly, imagine that -- with the bases equally nullified, we could see a national political race based on issues and debate and open-minded flexibility, rather than partisanship and prejudice and demogoguery. What a novel concept!

Ideologues are generally more motivated by negative than positive factors. The real issue with "the base" is always not whether they may vote for the wrong party, but whether they'll show up to vote at all. So with regard to Hillary, the question is not whether they'll vote for her instead of her Republican opponent. The issue simply won't come up. The question is whether Republicans will put up a candidate that will drive those liberals to the polls. Looked at another way, the greatest gift Republicans could give Hillary Clinton right now would be to make Bill Frist the front runner. The question of whether Hillary has opposition within her party becomes, then, irrelevent. Which is how it should be, by the way. The voting opinions of intransigent ideologues should always be irrelevent. If they want to obviate their franchise by being closed-minded partisans, that's their prerogative, but the only reason it should matter to anybody else is in determining how best to manipulate and/or ignore them. (Right, left, doesn't matter -- same deal.)

It's funny I'd forgotten that, because it was at least part of the reason I voted for Mondale. Thanks for the reminder. Jim, there are always positive spots, but I guess the real question is whether any of them would be memorable as having been effective. Let me give it some thought.

Interesting observation.

An example of one does not serve to tell us anything about society as a whole. Mike, do you have anything to offer this debate other than an endless chain of pointless, distracting, face-saving, subject-changing straw men?

Some of that actually plays in her favor in the form of sympathy. But you're probably right in your general observations. I do think it's possible for her to win. Both parties seem to be struggling to work out a front-runner at this point, but over the history of elections that's not really all that unusual this far out.

Effective in the positive sense as well? Long as we're on Dukakis, Willie Horton is one I remember having a big impact. "There you go again" from the Reagan-Carter debates, which bled over into some very effective advertising. "It's the economy, stupid"

Maher always cracks me up.

The filing threshold isn't the only factor. There's a much higher number below which you're filing and dealing with "withholding", but you still get it all back. I don't know what that number is off the top of my head.

(grin) I'm afraid so. I'm not quite old enough to have voted for Carter, but I remember debating Carter v Reagan as a freshman in high school. Ironically, I was for Carter. Got whipped by a girl, too!

For a moment there I thought you were describing Jimmy Carter. He doesn't miss that mark by a whole lot, you know. (chuckle)

Exactly. We may indeed have a poverty problem, and if we do I want it solved -- I'm not hard-line right-winger, telling people to fix it on their own. I'm a moderate conservative who wants public money spent on strong safety nets and public outreach programs to help people help themselves. What I'm not okay with are politically-correct assumptions and guesswork guiding the spending of trillions of my hard-earned dollars. (Yeah I'm a trillionaire. Or maybe just a poor gramatician.) (grin)