Iowa Caucus

[Lukas]

while i do believe that Bill misinterpreted information (whether on purpose or not) I do believe there is a battle between radical traditionalist and radical Progressives and it is heating up

It's the result of party politics. One party comes together in order to bully around all political rivals, and their political rivals in turn band together in retaliation, resulting in two parties that stand opposed to each other on any an all issues: the party, and the anti-party.

As for the NRA. . . Well, baring arms is one thing, but lately the NRA has become the base, not just for the 2nd amendment, but of corporate elitism and psychotic conservatism overall, so who they endorse means nothing to me.

yes but i also believe it is indeed a culture war and it goes beyond the whole "are you a democrat or Republican" spectrum
i am a traditionalist but I myself agree with some Progressive policies(mostly towards gay marriage and 'i don't support abortion but i don't care if you get one' mentality)
but Bill has done me some good, by being able to provide me to examine both sides and be aware of this war, i believe there should be stations like fox news, because I believe every yin needs yang, to balance out the left news networks, we have fox, we don't have the watch either one but i believe its best to watch both and form our own opinions in hopefully a modest light

[Dreamer]

while i do believe that Bill misinterpreted information (whether on purpose or not) I do believe there is a battle between radical traditionalist and radical Progressives and it is heating up

It's the result of party politics. One party comes together in order to bully around all political rivals, and their political rivals in turn band together in retaliation, resulting in two parties that stand opposed to each other on any an all issues: the party, and the anti-party.

As for the NRA. . . Well, baring arms is one thing, but lately the NRA has become the base, not just for the 2nd amendment, but of corporate elitism and psychotic conservatism overall, so who they endorse means nothing to me.

yes but i also believe it is indeed a culture war and it goes beyond the whole "are you a democrat or Republican" spectrum
i am a traditionalist but I myself agree with some Progressive policies(mostly towards gay marriage and 'i don't support abortion but i don't care if you get one' mentality)
but Bill has done me some good, by being able to provide me to examine both sides and be aware of this war, i believe there should be stations like fox news, because I believe every yin needs yang, to balance out the left news networks, we have fox, we don't have the watch either one but i believe its best to watch both and form our own opinions in hopefully a modest light

Well the problem is taht we don't really have any liberal news stations, as most of the so-called "Liberal media" actually takes more of a corporatist perspective (Which is bad in and of itself), and the only liberal news station is Air America which isn't really doing too well. Man, Al Gore or some other rich democrat needs to invest in creating some sort of liberal news network to counteract Fox News.

[Zombie]

Well, Ive considered myself a conservative for the past 15 or so years (I was oblivious about it all before) and no single candidate Ive ever seen in any election that i have participated in has shared a majority of my views. I have been forced to vote for a lesser of two evils, instead of a candidate that has a similar moral compass, and Im getting sick of it. While no candidate will be all things to all people (although they sure do like to try) Id like to vote for someone who shares a majority of values, and not be a single issue voter.

-Z

[RedEye]

I'd disagree about the lack of Liberal Media...they're there, but unless you actually keep notes, you don't see the bias.
It's what they Don't report on that's the key. Everyday there is a virtual blizzard of "news" occuring, but precious little of it makes it onto the Boob Tube. All one needs to do is choose the stories from the "left" side of the reporters' input world wide to present a seemingly balanced but really strongly partisan newscast. It ain't what you see: it's what you don't see that matters.
Personally, I listen to, and watch the BBC America News programmes. They are just as biased, but it's a different bias; with different values-and comparing what the BBC says to what NBC or CBS says gives one a small window on something that may be closer to the truth of the matter than either station presents.
And-Zombie! I've voted for the "lesser of two evils" ever since I could vote. Get used to it; the Candidates reflect the Partry; not the People.
Sheesh- it sounds more like China than here, doesn't it?

[Lukas]

I'd disagree about the lack of Liberal Media...they're there, but unless you actually keep notes, you don't see the bias.
It's what they Don't report on that's the key. Everyday there is a virtual blizzard of "news" occuring, but precious little of it makes it onto the Boob Tube. All one needs to do is choose the stories from the "left" side of the reporters' input world wide to present a seemingly balanced but really strongly partisan newscast. It ain't what you see: it's what you don't see that matters.
Personally, I listen to, and watch the BBC America News programmes. They are just as biased, but it's a different bias; with different values-and comparing what the BBC says to what NBC or CBS says gives one a small window on something that may be closer to the truth of the matter than either station presents.
And-Zombie! I've voted for the "lesser of two evils" ever since I could vote. Get used to it; the Candidates reflect the Partry; not the People.
Sheesh- it sounds more like China than here, doesn't it?

exactly, thats why i advocate looking into my little blog spot in my link, atleast the guy is actually a Iraqi and he tells us whats happening in his area of Baghdad, with little political bias

[Terastas]

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but isn't "liberal media" sort of being redundant?

The media is the business of exercising free speech, which for the longest time has been just as passionately protected by the Democrats as the 2nd amendment is by the Republicans (am I the only one that remembers when Cheney said he wished he could make it illegal to speak ill of him?). With the exception of individuals like Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter and other such political "meat puppets" sponsored by the far right, of course the media is going to lean to the left. The media leans to the left because the left leans towards them.

[Lukas]

The media leans to the left because the left leans towards them.

you said it yourself, along with red eyes post we see that even though there supposed to practice free speech and show all stories on a independent basis, red eye stated that some stories don't show up at all while the stories that do show up tend to make the Left look a little better(in my opinions both sides are just as bad as the other, they just do it in different ways)

[Midnight]

And-Zombie! I've voted for the "lesser of two evils" ever since I could vote. Get used to it; the Candidates reflect the Partry; not the People.
Sheesh- it sounds more like China than here, doesn't it?

At least yous get the chance to choose the lesser evil... the Chinese don't.

Looking from this distance, it seems to me that the American political system is flawed but fixable... like most other democratic systems. I don't think anyone's figured out how to make a democratic system work properly... but democracy is still, as Churchill is reputed to have said, the worst sort of political system - except for all the others.

[vrikasatma]

I was on Digg the other night, after the NH debate-o-rama. One poster said he was disgusted with the "Caucus-Primary" system and said it's a failed experiment (the cynic in me is thinking, "Probably because his candidate didn't make the cut").

The way the nomination process used to happen is that the party bigwigs would all go into the proverbial smoky back room, and a few hours later emerge gathered behind the nominee; and with very smug looks, say to the rank-and-file, "How are you gentlemen!! All your votes are belong to THIS GUY!!!"

That, to me, sounds more like the set-up they got in China. And the USSR. And more "democracies" throughout the world than I have the time, bandwidth or energy to enumerate...

No, the Caucus-Primary system, with Iowa and New Hampshire going first, is just ducky with me.

[Terastas]

Well, as I'd thought and feared, Bill Richardson is out.

That's the only problem with the current primary system: Regionally popular candidates like Richardson can be declared unpopular and eliminated before they have a chance to poll the states in which they are favored. Unless, of course, you're regionally popular in Iowa or New Hampshire, in which case an otherwise poor candidate like Mike Huckabee (no offense to his one Pack supporter) can be blown up to look like more than he is.

Oh well. Now it's only a matter of time to see who gets his endorsement I guess.

[MattSullivan]

It's good Bill Richardson is out. He didn't stand a chance anyway.

[RedEye]

My bet is on Hellary and Mc Cain for the Presidency. Two losers, no real issues, and again the People get the "threaded fastener".

Just keep in mind- We get what WE, the People, DESERVE. Not what we want; what we deserve for being lazy, indifferent, pass-the-buck, let the other guy do it, ooohlookit-Shiny!!! Americans.
We get Shiny Candidates with Shiny Campaign Promises.
Running a Republic takes work and involvement-that for the most part we don't want to do. We have "Important" things to take care of; besides- nobody would listen.
In bloody damn short, we're getting what we all deserve. Gods help us.

[Lukas]

but remember guys, New Hampshire and Iowa have very small electorial votes and just because they pick one person or the other does not instantly make them a winner

[vrikasatma]

That's right...Bill Clinton lost Iowa, too.

And Matt, I gotta object to that statement. We lost a good man and I really do believe he'd have done wonderful things for this country. We also have good word that if Richardson had gotten the nomination, the Republicans would have pretty much packed it in because he's nearly unbeatable. In the Zogby poll that asked "Who would you NEVER vote for?" Richardson came in dead last in the field. Both sides. You <i>want</i> to come in last in a poll like that. Contrast Hillary, who took the top slot.

Right now...I don't know who I'm gonna back. I'm reluctant to throw any passion or emotional attachment to anyone for fear of losing big. I got heavily involved in Kerry's campaign and when he lost, we all went through a limited form of classical, psychological mourning. I don't want to go through that again.

Part of me wants to keep stumping for Richardson. I'll vote for him in the Oregon primary and the state directors are passing the message to their delegates to caucus for the candidate of their choice. I get the feeling we'll still see votes for the Governor. I just wish he'd have stuck it out through Super Tuesday.

Part of me is leaning towards Obama. He accepted campaign money from NewsCorp, but pretty much all of them did. I'm also kind of leery about his gun control and illegal immigration stances and I'm not 100% on his health care plan, but he's running a clean campaign. No mudslinging, and his people are singing "Ac-cen-tu-ate the positive, E-lim-in-ate the negative." That's very worthy of support, and also one of the things I liked best about Richardson's campaign. Sincerity, optimism and openness are legal tender with me.

Also, his people and a number of Richardsonians are saying an Obama/Richardson ticket would be unbeatable in the general election. I'd be ecstatic if that happened.

I am not going to support Hillary. If she gets the nomination, , I'll growl and hold my nose while I vote, because I've had it up to here with Republicans in the White House. But hopefully it won't come down to that.

And as for Edwards, his health plan is unquestionably the best, but I worry about the business sector under his administration. He'd make things very hard for business and could well drive them even more offshore than they are now. I think he'd wreck the economy.

And in answer to Terastas, Richardson isn't endorsing anyone. He told his people to support whoever they want.

[MattSullivan]

So far, i'm voting on whoever promises to enforce immigration law. I've seen the unchecked spread of it lower wages and result in massive gang/drug violence along the souther border. ( Anyone living in California, at least as long as i did, has seen that town turn into the biggest armpit in america ) OVERPOPULATION is a largely unknown factor that contributes to making poor countries poorer, as people fight and scrap and tussle over fewer and fewer jobs. I don't begrudge those who want to come here for a better life, but at some point you have to recognize that we are financially UNABLE to support every poor and unskilled person in the world. ( We used to, before our population swelled to half a billion , but not anymore )

Dictators LOVE our unwillingness to enforce the border, because it means they don't have to kick the poor people out of their country, because they're leaving anyway!

Believe it or not, you used to be able to LIVE on minimum wage jobs in America. A MC-job, as bad as it was, USED to be enough to put food on the table and rent in the mailbox. but now with every cheap worker that comes in, the wages stagnate, and only the TOP TIER corporate emplyess benefit. The workers certainly don't.

So, i'm waiting to see who gets nominated, and pick whoever's policies are closest to mine.

[Zombie]

The thing is, where are the true conservatives? I think Im a fairky good example of what a traditional conservative Repiblican is (except for 1 issue) but how many candidates of any party share these values?...

I am pro-gun
I am pro death penalty
I want secure borders (south AND north!)
I want to be on offense on the war on terror
I want victory in Iraq and Afghanistan
I want independance from forign oil (I support drilling in the Gulf of Mexico- if it can be proven it will stand up to a F-5 hurricane with negligable to no spillage, and the building of more fuel refineries and nucular power plants, coupled with wind turbines. ANWAR should stay off limits...for now...)
I do not want a redistribution of wealth. If someone works hard and saves, they deserve to keep what they make.
I like tax cuts
I do not support any program for non-citizens
Id like to increase military pay for enlisted soldiers (I know how much an E-1 makes- not enough!)

And the issue that seperates me from other "normal" conservatives- I do not have an opinion, one way or another, on abortion.

But, if I have to be a single-issue voter, Im always going to support the pro-gun candidate. The bad news is that all of the Dems are REALLY anti-gun, and Guliani, Romney, and McCain are all gun-grabbers too. Ive never seen more anti-gun republicans that these guys before, and the bad part is, these guys are considered "front runners". If a grabber gets the nomination, Im seriously considering abstaining from the next presidential election, but will still support local and state pro-gun candidates. The 2nd Ammendment is something I take very seriously, and Id like it to be around and used long after Im dead and buried. If you really get down to it, all the gun controll laws since 1934 have been unconstitutional, but thats a subject for a different debate all together...

-Z

[MattSullivan]

Thank you Zombie, i forgot to add North AND south.

[Terastas]

And the issue that seperates me from other "normal" conservatives- I do not have an opinion, one way or another, on abortion.

You forgot two. Gay marriage and separation of church and state. Oh yeah, and even though it's not political, a "normal" conservative can fit "family values" into the equation somehow too.

Oh, and for the record, I like tax cuts too. . . When they're for people that actually payed taxes in the first place! Really, how many people here can honestly say they felt the tax burden come off of them?

[MattSullivan]

i'd actually like to keep gay marriage illegal. I just think kids need a mother and a father. Not saying 2 men or two women couldnt raise kids, but that's just how I feel. and yeah, keep church and state waaaaay seperate.

[Aki]

My bet is on Hellary and Mc Cain for the Presidency. Two losers, no real issues, and again the People get the "threaded fastener".

Just keep in mind- We get what WE, the People, DESERVE. Not what we want; what we deserve for being lazy, indifferent, pass-the-buck, let the other guy do it, ooohlookit-Shiny!!! Americans.
We get Shiny Candidates with Shiny Campaign Promises.
Running a Republic takes work and involvement-that for the most part we don't want to do. We have "Important" things to take care of; besides- nobody would listen.
In bloody damn short, we're getting what we all deserve. Gods help us.

Relevant (de)motivational pic:




(Yes the text in the pic is hard to read - bad compression. I also censored it because it had a 'bad word')

Believe it or not, you used to be able to LIVE on minimum wage jobs in America. A MC-job, as bad as it was, USED to be enough to put food on the table and rent in the mailbox. but now with every cheap worker that comes in, the wages stagnate, and only the TOP TIER corporate emplyess benefit. The workers certainly don't.

While I won't dispute the fact that the whole "lots of cheap workers screw us over" thing contributes, there's other factors that screw over the American dollar too.

Like the whole war that's left us several trillion dollars in debt and all. Or that our gas prices are causing us to spend more money keeping warm and keeping are cars moving.

i'd actually like to keep gay marriage illegal. I just think kids need a mother and a father. Not saying 2 men or two women couldnt raise kids, but that's just how I feel. and yeah, keep church and state waaaaay seperate.

If one were to make gay marriage illegeal on the basis of kids "needing a mother and a father", then what of single parents? I mean, if a kid needs a mother and a father, what's he to do if one ran out on the remaining parent or got killed?

Not really getting the logic here.

[MoonKit]

...and yeah, keep church and state waaaaay seperate.

Agreed.

[RedEye]

Actually, the First Amendment, unless picked up by a state's constitution only says there shall be no National Church...Like (example only) the Church of England. Kind'a obvious, isn't it?

So, what's so bad about a National Church? Simple: it gives the appearance of authority to someone who hasn't been elected to public office. An "Official Church" effectively undermines the principle of self-government. What's the point of passing a law if some Heirarch (sacred ruler) can unilaterally overrule it by making it "Unacceptable to Believers"?

Why then do we have the words "In God we trust" on money and coins (some of them)? It was a 1950's thing; a response to the "Rooshins and their Godless Comminist ways". Personally, I read it as a credit policy: "In God we trust; all others pay cash."

Why do the Republicans get so close to the Neanderthal X-tian Church? They have money and they vote. So would you, in their place. Silly fact: Bush has ignored most of the X-tian right, saying they're all "just crazy like nuts" (can he turn a phrase or can he?). At least I can agree with the man on that point.

But, now-this thread is on the Iowa Carcass (oops!) Caucus. Let's get back there, shall we?

[vrikasatma]

Well, since the Iowa Caucus is over and done with, maybe we can make this thread into a "reaction/discussion of the caucus/primary season?"

So long as we continue to keep the discussion civil?

[RedEye]

Done!

[MattSullivan]

No way! I WANNA TALK ABOUT IOWA FOREVER!!!!! yawwwrgggh!

*ROLLS OVER ON THE GROUND, FOAMING*