Re: Midcon; 5/23/2009 12:39 PM –

“…my write in vote gets me just about as far as your vote for Bob Barr…”

Which doesn’t deflect from my earlier point. (*SHRUG*)

Re: Ktward; 5/23/2009 12:46 PM –

“See? midcon demonstrates that I’m not the only one annoyed by your, uhm, ’style’.”

Never! (*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)

Re: Midcon; 5/23/2009 1:46 PM –

“I admit barker’s style makes his posts a little more difficult but if he can’t snort then I won’t be able to!”

Ah-ha! (*WINK*) (*STICKING MY TONGUE OUT AT Ktward*)

Re: Midcon; 5/23/2009 2:00 PM –

“…he does maintain a degree of civility which is sorely lacking from so many other posters.”

(*NOD*) (*BOW*)

“Although my one wish would be eliminate some of the spacing between snorts and sentences. That affects the readability more than anything.”

Midcon. Think of my posts as speeches. Read them as such. (Seriously… try it… try reading aloud.)

Re: Franco; 5/23/2009 2:23 PM –

“The only thing I don’t understand is the SNORT reference.”

Really…?!?! Hmm… perhaps it’s a regional thing. I’m a New Yorker, how’bout the rest of you. We snort. (*SNORT*) = “…you dumb bastard…” but in a rueful sort of way – amused rather than angered.

BILL

Re: Midcon; 5/23/2009 10:58 AM –

“…I’ll enjoy the majority position of being able to swing elections whichever way we independents decide… ‘

But that’s just my point, Midcon – YOU don’t speak for “we” independents anymore than I do. (*SHRUG*)

Re: Sinz54; 5/23/2009 11:57 AM –

Quoting Rush: “Cross species evolution, I don’t think anybody’s ever proven that.”

Well…??? Have they…??? Serious question… I last took biology in 10th grade. In any case, if you’re reading this you’ve already read my response to Chekote posting the link in the first place.

Re: Ktward; 5/23/2009 12:18 PM

“…do tell, why are you registered as a Dem?”

It was the most powerful protest gesture I could think of to demonstrate my disgust with the RINO Congresses of 2001-2006 (I actually filed the paperwork in early ‘06, months and months before the elections) and post-re-election Bush. I went so far as to vote for Democrat “Leftist” John Hall in ‘06 in order to fire Sue Kelly (the incumbent RINO congresswoman).

Re: Ktward; 5/23/2009 12:25 PM –

GOOD CATCH! Thanks for posting that link.

* To be contined…

BILL

(*CHUCKLE*)

Allow me to address a few comments that were addressed to me the other day:

Re: Sinz; 5/23/2009 10:24 AM –

“barker13: The Dem base would reject me…”

They’d try. That’s besides the point, though. I’m talking about what I’d like to see and I’d like to see more folks like you active in the Democratic Party. (You do realize that’s not an insult to you; it’s actually a compliment; your presence would make the Democratic Party a more conservative Party and thus from my perspective a better Party.

Re: Chekote; 5/23/2009 10:32 AM –

Thanks for the link to the transcript. The way I read Limbaugh’s comments, he wasn’t so much pooh-poohing evolution as he was making the case that evolutionary theory still has lots of holes and this latest find doesn’t fill each and every “hole” to the point where were understand evolutionary science any more perfectly than we understand all facets of climate change. Perhaps Rush doesn’t believe in evolution, but I’ve never heard him say that in so many words. If Rush was asked directly “Do you believe God created Adam out of nothing and then Eve from Adam’s rib and then out of their union the entire world was populated?” my guess is that he’d say no, that he’d basically make the case for “intelligent design.” I could be wrong. Still, until something that direct is brought to my attention where Rush flat out denies evolution… I’m sticking with my doubt that he denies it.

Re: Chekote; 5/23/2009 10:34 AM –

Fair enough. Basically we agree. (*SHRUG*)

* To be continued…

BILL

Are you saying there is no subset of independents who vote this way? Did you take a poll at your independents meeting ? Is it somehow in the charter rules that independents can’t act like normal human beings ? And I do contend they are more likely to vote for style over substance if they have such a shallow sense of the differences between candidates. I.E that competence trumps ideology. I agree with your assessment of McCain and I withheld my vote for reasons I wrote about in the Colin Powell thread, but in retrospect can you see how Obama’s plan comes from ideology and that competence in steering the ship in the wrong direction is even worse than floundering around?

You are also revealing to me what I consider some political naivete or perhaps ignorance of the realities of political parties and ideological goals. If you knew more about leftism, socialism and communism you might be a little more reticent to vote for the competent “liberal” as you call them.

(I don’t like to contribute to the destruction of language – leftists are anything but liberal. They are the opposite of liberal in the literal sense. They are for State control and State power.)

There are other factors besides ideology when choosing whom to vote for. One is basic command of the issues–does the candidate know what he’s talking about? Will he be able to hit the ground running on his first week in office? And there is basic character too.

I would rather vote for a competent liberal than an incompetent conservative. I would rather vote for an honest liberal than a corrupt conservative.

Of course McCain was closer to my views ideologically than Obama. After the GOP convention, he was actually ahead of Obama slightly in the polls. (Which is pretty good, given the public’s disgust with Bush at that point.)

But when the financial markets seized up and the U.S. economy went south, McCain didn’t seem to know what to say or do. He bounced around aimlessly. Plus, we voters remembered that McCain had said for most of the 2008 primary campaign what a strong economy we had. So did his economics adviser, Phil Gramm. And that turned out to be false.

Those things took precedence over ideology.

I’m glad this thread continues and you’re still here. Holidays and all.

First and foremost, please know you have my genuine, personal best wishes for your health recovery. Very often, the rhetorical dynamics on blog threads mimic the characteristics of driving in one’s car: both are insulated from personal connection, so we will ’say’ things we would never say to a person standing in front of us. I do my utmost to keep this in mind, which at times means, in my car, I must keep my one-finger salute to myself.

Having said that, allow me a thoughtful but realistic response:

Wanda Sykes is an actor/comedian. Unlike Rush, she’s not considered a spokesperson nor representative voice by ANY political Dem/Left entity. Her ‘I hope his kidneys fail/20th terrorist’ remarks at the WHCD re: Rush were, in fact, thought by many on the Left to be crudely over a decency line, including [gasp!], Olbermann:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnFtLRatiI

Your quote:

“I saw no conservatives taking pleasure in Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer, or Senator Ted Kennedy’s cancer.

“But I saw leftists all over taking pleasure in the deaths of Milton Friedman (a gentle soul if there ever was one), William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan, and indeed just about anyone who was or is right of center.”

There are perverse voices, gross minorities, within both L & R extremes–the very point I was originally making, I believe. I am personally unaware of joyful comments (as you characterize) from the credible Left regarding the deaths of these Conservative individuals. Please kindly back up your contention with links, if you would.

With all due respect, the blanket demonization of either ideology is, ultimately, dehumanizing to a significant part or our population. And gets us nowhere. We are better served to stick to substantive issues, and ignore volatile partisan distractions the likes of Sykes and Prejean.

There are factors that are impossible to control or understand when talking about self-identified independents and I take this into consideration when looking at these polls.

Further there was reason independents went for Bush over Gore and Kerry. It is perfectly logical that self-identified independents would break in 2006 and why they would want to vote for Obama.

As someone who has principles, do you ask yourself, “How can someone who has a choice between two opposite world-views fluctuate between the two election to election”?

These people fall into two distinct categories. They are people who call themselves independents but vote the same way R or D every year, we can exclude those, because they don’t change. Then there are these oscillating independents being non-ideological, or ideologically ignorant, would be prone to vote for style over substance and/or be prone to voting on time-local issues. And wouldn’t these independent types be enamored of someone like Obama?

There were many Democrats and independents who simply thought that Bush was better on terror (time-local issue re 9/11) and some who didn’t quite want to run away from Iraq with our tail between our legs. Both of those issues were for practical purposes gone by 2008. Bush was a better candidate than Kerry and Gore.

In the case of 2000, that was a “change” election, and Gore was seen as more of the same. 2004 was about Iraq and terror.

So this explains specifically why it may not be a trend and trying to use these elections as evidence of a trend is highly questionable. It is impossible to conclude this is a larger trend when you consider the very different candidates and surrounding current events.

Write off the Independent vote as just a bunch of Democrats in sheep’s clothing, and you write off all future elections.