Comments on: Will to power

By: Pixelkiller

Pixelkiller — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:01:52 +0000

Hey, there’s a ways to go before the election. I’m looking foreward to each in turn to trip over his/her own d__k and become “disqualified”.
Different subject: how about a debate between Newt and Allen? Make it 2 hours, no interuptions. I’d watch! (Sorry. I thought of that this morning on the way to the range).

By: Buck

Buck — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:14:42 +0000

…or there is such ideological purity that it doesn’t matter which suit gets stuffed…

You’d have to be fairly paranoid about the Democrats to believe that. Unfortunately, I’m “that guy.”

There’s little-to-no difference amongst the Top Three Dem candidates, with the possible exception of Edwards and his “class-war” rhetoric, which is a lot more strident than Hillary’s or Obama’s. Not that the us vs. them stuff doesn’t exist in Obama’s or Clinton’s ideology, it’s just not as prevalent. Or as loud.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:51:57 +0000

As much as I hate what our political process has evolved into it still beats the alternative. That said, it sure would be refreshing to find a worthy candidate to support rather than ride this mess out and end up voting for the lesser of all evil.

By: Ron Snyder

Ron Snyder — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:24:20 +0000

The sad part is that far too many people consider their involvement, in an event that is only held once every four years, in the vital political process as meeting their civic obligations.

By: rt

rt — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:10:14 +0000

they nominated kerry because he was ‘electable’.

thank the Lord who put us on this green earth that 51% of the american public thought otherwise.

By: Flea

Flea — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:14:28 +0000

If this is how Democrats are thinking they are sensible to do so. Yes, ideological purity plays a role – these are people who would not admit to “wasting” energy in polite society – and ideas arguably are not terribly important to people who think an imaginary change in the weather means the sky is falling. But there are commonplaces amongst Republicans which are equally foolish, I am thinking especially of that part of the Republican establishment that will literally hold hands with Saudi Arabia while claiming to fight a war on “terror” (much as FDR fought a war on blitzkrieg, presumably).

Still, supporting a candidate who can be elected is perfectly sensible given your system of government. Both parties are made up of coalitions which cut across regions, socio-demographic lines and factions thrown together more by historical accident than common sense. It may not make sense for Jews who support Israel or socially conservative blacks to keep voting Democrat given the party’s track record (though the same might be said for the President at Annapolis and his wobbly support for key issues important to socons). I expect sticking with your coalition makes sense in terms of lobbying and resources until something happens to make the whole voting bloc jump to the other coalition and continue the process there. The best example of such a swift would be the move of southern Democrats to the Republicans and the continuing adjustments as this new alignment settles in. Mike Huckabee – with the Democrats on almost everything except gay marriage and abortion as are, apparently, many of his supporters – is as good an example of anyone on the other side of the aisle for the apparent non sequiturs of factional interests thrown together as monolithic political parties.