# Is this wrong? Should it be?



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

This past Monday I was driving through Au Gres, MI, and spotted a p/u truck parked at one of the local fast food establishments, which was displaying a bumper sticker that read; "Save the Republic" and just under that was a vanity license plate lettered with; "KO Bama." While I am not a fan of the 'give the farm away' approach to governing employed by the Obama Administration, I think the bumper sticker/license plate messages illustrated are certainly in poor taste and could possibly represent a veiled threat. Do any of you see it that way or, is my 'political correctness' meter overreacting?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree that extreme rhetoric like that on either side is really damaging. I suppose it is part of the price for our Freedom of Speech, but that rhetoric is really destructive whether it is the left or the right indulging in it.


----------



## sowilson (Jul 27, 2009)

He's just marking himself as a target just like the idiots with W bumper stickers.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

An Auburn fan perhaps? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

maybe it has something to do with knocking out Obama?


----------



## Pr B (Jan 8, 2009)

*Protection of the President*

I believe it is (or was) a felony to threaten the President. The US Secret Service investigates such threats.

When I was in the Air Force, during the Reagan and Bush (the Elder) years, we were briefed on this annually. Seemed like a big deal.

I read that threats to the current President are up 4x over the pervious one.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Pr B said:


> I believe it is (or was) a felony to threaten the President. The US Secret Service investigates such threats.
> 
> When I was in the Air Force, during the Reagan and Bush (the Elder) years, we were briefed on this annually. Seemed like a big deal.
> 
> I read that threats to the current President are up 4x over the pervious one.


*
Try up 400 %!!!*


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

There are/were probably dozens of bumper stickers, banners, signs, etc, that were outrageously offensive and even explicitly threatening against Bush, especially during his last term. Things that would have the public, the press, and certainly Pelosi and Carter and their ilk, going absolutely bonkers if they were being directed against Obama today. They wouldn't be able to arrest people fast enough, were that the case.

I'm not exactly sure what to make of the tag. You say it could imply a veiled threat. Yeah, maybe so, but ... _could... imply... veiled_ is about as strong as it could realistically be stated, and that's still pretty subjective, not to mention rather weak. I'd label that tag simply childish/foolish.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> An Auburn fan perhaps? :icon_smile_big:


That was my first thought. Living in the South I'm used to everyone referring to Alabama as Bama.

Cruiser


----------



## Pr B (Jan 8, 2009)

*Math*

I find the stats in that and other articles muddled.

Here's how I play with the numbers. If the number of threats currently is over 30/day: 30+ threats/day * 365 days/yr = 10,950+ threats/yr.

If G.W. Bush had 3,000 threats/yr, then the factor increase from 3,000 to 10,950 is 3.65x. Rounding and such would give us a 4x increase.

On a percentage increase basis, it represents a 265% increase (={[10950-3000]/3000}*100). While substantial, still not 400%, even with rounding for ease of communication. I understand math is often not a strength of journalists, but this is frustrating.

I keep Googling up the 400% figure, and the 30+ threats/day figure. CNN seems to be the original source. ... I can't make the math work!

Regardless, it is a substantial increase over threats against the G.W. Bush.

...

I understand the US Secret Service is required to investigate all threats. A minority are easily dismissed, yet majority of the threats necessitate personal investigation (e.g., interviews).


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Howard said:


> maybe it has something to do with knocking out Obama?


That's what I thought...

And I think I know that plate owner from another forum!! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Do any of you see it that way or, is my 'political correctness' meter overreacting?


Ding ding ding ding ding ding!!

ic12337:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> An Auburn fan perhaps? :icon_smile_big:





Cruiser said:


> That was my first thought. Living in the South I'm used to everyone referring to Alabama as Bama.
> Cruiser


I'm not sure there are a lot of Auburn fans, that far north in Michigan. However, if such should prove to be the case..."War Eagle!" 



WouldaShoulda said:


> Ding ding ding ding ding ding!!
> 
> ic12337:


In this instance, I sincerely do hope you are right!


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Who knows _what_ the message on the bumper really means or meant. Could have even been referring to the Republic of Kenya.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

No doubt politics are rough. That being said American politics, in Washington, have become a sick game extreme partisan rhetoric.

Just so you can't label me I have told my father for years that the only thing I dislike more than a Republican is a Democrat.

All I want national leaders to do is follow the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that is my political party.

Right now my heart goes out to the man Barack Obama. He is talented and I believe he wishes only to help our county.

How can he even begin to make any *realistic* meaningful difference when he can stir up bile on the right by wanting to tell the children of the United States that *we*, as a country, are depending on them to educate themselves and do well in life? (not a rhetorical question) Since when is it controversial for a child to listen to what The President of The United States has to say? Should we teach our children that if Presidents are not members of the political party that Mommy and Daddy are they are not worth even listening to?

Even though there are many shades of citizens in the U.S.A. our political process is now owned wholly by wealthy special interests. We have formally legalized bribery disguised as "free speech." (Except to freely speak to a politician of interest one must *pay*, and pay big.)

*No*, I don't see any threat, implied or otherwise to Obama. He's the President of The United States and he's going to have to take much worse than that kind of thing from Putin.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> *
> Try up 400 %!!!*


400% is 4x. Good thing you're not a math major.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/figurative


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Pr B said:


> I believe it is (or was) a felony to threaten the President. The US Secret Service investigates such threats.
> 
> When I was in the Air Force, during the Reagan and Bush (the Elder) years, we were briefed on this annually. Seemed like a big deal.
> 
> I read that threats to the current President are up 4x over the pervious one.


I like the thought that it could just be he is an Auburn fan. Also, I'm sure that Wi is like Ca in that vanity plates have to be "approved" if the state gave the "ok" to the plate then it is fine. People are entitled to their opinions and even if those opinions denounce the president, that is their right. KO doesn't imply "taking out" it could just mean Knock Out Obama out of office.


----------



## Pr B (Jan 8, 2009)

*Math, Part II*

Point of clarification:

If Y were twice as big as X, we would say Y is 2x X. Or we could say Y is 100% bigger than X.

If Y were thrice as big as X, we would say Y is 3x X. Or we could say Y is 200% bigger than X.

If Y were four times as big as X, we would say Y is 4x X. Or we could say Y is 300% bigger than X.

One of those confusing things commonly confused.

...

I think we can agree whether it is 4x or 400% or whatever, the point remains, this is a significant increase over the amount of the threats against G.W. Bush.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> 400% is 4x. Good thing you're not a math major.


^^
| |

DITTO


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*A-L Obama were taken*

Surely one of the three black people in Au Gres would object were this really an anti-Obama statement.

Also, my take on vanity plates is that after being raped by the government, you gave a reacharound. Who voluntarily pays more for a display of governmental oppression?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> ^^
> | |
> 
> DITTO


You said "up 400%" which I interpreted to mean "up to 400%" which would be the same thing as 4x.

On the subject, I don't see how "KO Bama" or "Save the Republic" were threats on the President's life.

I bet they are racist though....


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> 400% is 4x. Good thing you're not a math major.


:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

*Go Auburn!*


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

It's a pretty poor play on words anyway.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That's what I thought...
> 
> And I think I know that plate owner from another forum!! :icon_smile_big:


or maybe it has something to with Alabama?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

127.72 MHz said:


> No doubt politics are rough. That being said American politics, in Washington, have become a sick game extreme partisan rhetoric.
> 
> Just so you can't label me I have told my father for years that the only thing I dislike more than a Republican is a Democrat.
> 
> ...


I would find much more credibility if you would also recognize the problems on the left. Accusing anyone who disagrees with the health care plan of racism is not accurate and is an attempt to demonize those who disagree. The folks out of bounds on the right who are using "Hitlerized" photos of Obama, etc. are just as repulsive.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

First off, the OP is way too sensitive. 

As for you other yahoos Alabama really means ROLLTIDE YA'LL!!! WOOT, WOOT, WOOT! FEAR SABAN.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> On the subject, I don't see how "KO Bama" or "Save the Republic" were threats on the President's life.


Yeah, you wouldn't. What a surprise.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Surely one of the three black people in Au Gres would object were this really an anti-Obama statement.
> ...


Sir, you give Au Gres far too little credit. Why they actually have two, count em, two traffic lights within the city limits. 



Beau said:


> First off, the OP is way too sensitive.
> 
> As for you other yahoos Alabama really means ROLLTIDE YA'LL!!! WOOT, WOOT, WOOT! FEAR SABAN.


LOL! If you think I was sensitive on this issue, wait till you see how I react if Michigan defeats Penn State on the football field, this season! Jeez, then I'll have both forsbergacct2k and my wife to listen to...oh my!


----------



## Prisoner of Zendaline (Dec 8, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> 400% is 4x. Good thing you're not a math major.


It always makes me feel terrible when I throw out percentages during instructions and people's employees get panicky. Several times, and always with females, just saying something like _"...and that one at 80% of the original..."_ has had someone fighting back tears. Teachers must not do much of a job relaying the critical basics of math language.

But as to 'KO Bama". It could mean "knock out (you know who)"...or not. And if it does, 'knock out' has so many meanings, currently, It could be construed to mean 'defeat', 'depose', or 'impeach'.

To me, 'Bama' means Bama Guava Jelly _(no longer available)_. As kids, we'd get that on Latkes, with Yogurt and cinnamon. Yum.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Fundamental right*

I don't really think a bumper sticker on the back of a pick up truck constitutes a threat to the president. Complaining about the liars, crooks, thieves, and whores who find their way to Washington has to be a fundamental right of Americans.

Best two politicians in the country: Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan. Why? Because they are both dead and can no longer harm the country. Does that mean I want to kill Congress? No, but I would be in favor of locking all of them up in Angola prison for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Pr B (Jan 8, 2009)

*Freedom of Speech, and all that*

Concur, probably no more "wrong" than those rude and obscene bumper stickers with blatant sexual "plays on words." (You gotta wonder what a father must think when his daughter's date shows up in a car with those....)

However, having said that, I suspect the US Secret Service doesn't have that luxury of readily dismissing it. Such "inputs" are the stuff that, when ignored, can come back to bite you in the rear after something happens....

In military circles, such flooding of the C4I (command, control, communication, computers, intelligence) systems is a tactic for weakening your enemy's defenses. There's my conspiracy theory de jour.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
If I were a betting man, my money would be on the side of the Secret Service having already checked out the joker in Au Gres, with the cute bumper sticker/vanity plate combination. Those Secret Service types are a pretty thorough, but like-able group!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Maybe the Bama was short for Obama,you never know.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> Yeah, you wouldn't. What a surprise.


Yeah, turns out bumper stickers that aren't threatening are covered under that little, raggedy-old piece of paper called The Constitution. Imagine that.


----------



## KennethB (Jul 29, 2009)

Pr B said:


> On a percentage increase basis, it represents a 265% increase (={[10950-3000]/3000}*100). While substantial, still not 400%, even with rounding for ease of communication. I understand math is often not a strength of journalists, but this is frustrating.


Thank you for correcting this. There is even an online explanation with a percent increase/decrease calculator: https://www.marshu.com/articles/calculate-percentage-increase-decrease-percent-calculator.php

Suggest it to any journalists considering performing their own math


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> Yeah, turns out bumper stickers that aren't threatening are covered under that little, raggedy-old piece of paper called The Constitution. Imagine that.


Always funny to watch people that defended the suspension of the Constitution for the past 8 years - waking up in 2009 to stand up for it when it suits them.

Ah consistency.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> That was my first thought. Living in the South I'm used to everyone referring to Alabama as Bama.
> 
> Cruiser


In Mississippi, we refer to them as Bummer or the Fightin' Gumps.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> Always funny to watch people that defended the suspension of the Constitution for the past 8 years - waking up in 2009 to stand up for it when it suits them.
> 
> Ah consistency.


You're right, because you know my political position over the past 8 years...

You know there are more political ideologies besides blind partisan support for the democrats or republicans. Of course a shill for the dems wouldn't understand that.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> You're right, because you know my political position over the past 8 years...
> 
> You know there are more political ideologies besides blind partisan support for the democrats or republicans. Of course a shill for the dems wouldn't understand that.


Democrats and Republicans are always willing to use the Constitution as toilet paper, if it suits their purposes.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> You're right, because you know my political position over the past 8 years...
> 
> You know there are more political ideologies besides blind partisan support for the democrats or republicans. Of course a shill for the dems wouldn't understand that.


You are right...I dont know you or how you feel about every possible issue.

But when you walk like a duck, and quack like a duck....people think you're a duck. And you seem to do a whole lot of quacking for the right out here.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I think 'KO Bama' is an Auburn fan, but that's just me.


----------



## Bernard T. McManus (Sep 23, 2009)

The vanity plate is definitely an example of bad taste.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> This past Monday I was driving through Au Gres, MI, and spotted a p/u truck parked at one of the local fast food establishments, which was displaying a bumper sticker that read; "Save the Republic" and just under that was a vanity license plate lettered with; "KO Bama." While I am not a fan of the 'give the farm away' approach to governing employed by the Obama Administration, I think the bumper sticker/license plate messages illustrated are certainly in poor taste and could possibly represent a veiled threat. Do any of you see it that way or, is my 'political correctness' meter overreacting?


Extremely poor taste undoubtedly - arguably constitutionally protected under the Court's current approach to "clear and present danger" standard.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Always funny to watch people that defended the suspension of the Constitution for the past 8 years - waking up in 2009 to stand up for it when it suits them.
> 
> Ah consistency.


mrkleen, I think you agreed to stop making these types of unsubstantiated comments directed to no one in particular?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> mrkleen, I think you agreed to stop making these types of unsubstantiated comments directed to no one in particular?


Yeah, sorry. Old habits die hard.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> You are right...I dont know you or how you feel about every possible issue.
> 
> But when you walk like a duck, and quack like a duck....people think you're a duck. And you seem to do a whole lot of quacking for the right out here.


That's because I'm a libertarian, and the left wants bigger government. I am more than willing to call out Republicans for being large government. I only voted McCain because he was the lesser of two evils.

Point to an example of me defending an abuse of the Constitution.



agnash said:


> Democrats and Republicans are always willing to use the Constitution as toilet paper, if it suits their purposes.


Who said I was either? I think almost all of them belong in prison.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> That's because I'm a libertarian, and the left wants bigger government. I am more than willing to call out Republicans for being large government. I only voted McCain because he was the lesser of two evils.


You like smaller government, yet you voted for McCain who's party presided over the largest expansion of the Federal Government in history?

Gotcha. :idea:

BTW...didnt your "party" have a candidate?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> You like smaller government, yet you voted for McCain who's party presided over the largest expansion of the Federal Government in history?
> 
> Gotcha. :idea:
> 
> BTW...didnt your "party" have a candidate?


Bob Barr? Please.... and Obama is doing his best job to expand government faster than President Bush... We're going to be over a trillion dollars in deficit this year without health care. Like I said, I only voted McCain because I figured he was the lesser of two evils.

In the primaries I voted for someone else even after he had already secured the nomination.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> Bob Barr? Please.... and Obama is doing his best job to expand government faster than President Bush... We're going to be over a trillion dollars in deficit this year without health care. Like I said, I only voted McCain because I figured he was the lesser of two evils.
> 
> In the primaries I voted for someone else even after he had already secured the nomination.


 This is the very problem with "unenrolled" or supporters of other so called "third parties"

You rip apart Obama left, right and center&#8230;.yet when someone mentions that GW ran up massive debt and deficits, you conveniently say "well I am not a republican either.

You get to play both sides of the fence, without taking anything other than some theoretical stand.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Or you recognize that there is a vast middle ground between the two ridiculous, destructive extremes.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Or you recognize that there is a vast middle ground between the two ridiculous, destructive extremes.


That is a theoretical position. In practice, while you might be able to *play* the "middle ground", it simply does not work in the world of politics.

Here is an excerpt from a very well written opinion piece by scholar Stanley Fish in the the NY Times: https://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/against-independent-voters/

Floating independently above the fray and inhabiting the marketplace of ideas as if were a shopping bazaar rather than a battlefield is an unnatural condition. The natural condition is to be political. To be political is to believe something, and to believe something is to believe that those who believe something else are wrong, and after all you don't want people who believe (and would do) the wrong things running your government. So you organize with other like-minded folks and smite the enemy (verbally) hip and thigh. You join a party.

What do independent voters do? Well, most of all, they talk about the virtue of being an independent voter. When they are asked to explain what that means, they say, "I can't stand the partisan atmosphere that has infected our politics" (forgetting that politics is partisan by definition); or "we like to make up our own minds and don't want anyone telling us what to do (as if Democrats and Republicans were sheep eager to go over whatever cliff the leadership brings them to) or (and this was a favorite of those interviewed in Iowa and New Hampshire), "We vote the person rather than the party."

Now, voting the person rather than the party is about the dumbest thing you can do for a reason ("Parties Matter"). The party affiliation of a candidate tells you what kind of appointments he or she is likely to make. Do you think that regulations of industry stifle productivity and damage the economy, or do you think that unregulated industries endanger the environment? Do you think that illegal immigrants are just that - illegal - and therefore should be deported when detected, or do you think that we should figure out a way to legitimize their status and make the best of what has already happened? Do you think that Iran poses a threat that must be countered before it is too late, or do you think that military action should be resorted to only after every avenue of diplomacy has been exhausted, even if it takes years or decades?

If you feel strongly about these and other matters, it is incumbent upon you to take into consideration the positions of the two major parties, for the successful candidate can be counted on to appoint to the offices responsible for answering these questions men and women whose views reflect the party's platform. Voting the person, however attractive or impressive he or she may be, could very well get you four years of policies you detest. In other words, policy differences are party differences, and it is hard to see how you could be a responsible voter if you held your nose at a whiff of party politics. If you are really interested in the way things should go in the country, come off the high pedestal and join the rest of us in the nurturing (and, yes, dirty) soil of the partisan free-for-all.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> Who said I was either? I think almost all of them belong in prison.


Actually, I was agreeing with you. In other posts I have suggested long stints at Angola for any elected Democrats or Republicans.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> You like smaller government, yet you voted for McCain who's party presided over the largest expansion of the Federal Government in history?
> 
> Gotcha. :idea:
> 
> BTW...didnt your "party" have a candidate?


Bush was a really horrible president, but I think you can find far better examples of the expansion of the Federal government. You might have to take a little longer view of U.S. history than CNN. Compared to FDR or Johnson, Bush was really small potatoes. A terrible president, but still not in their league.

The Libertarian candidates cannot win, so the best bet is a government so evenly divided that is paralyzed by partisan bickering. Inaction is better than the action that either party is liable to take, given the imbecility of their platforms.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

agnash said:


> The Libertarian candidates cannot win, so the best bet is a government so evenly divided that is paralyzed by partisan bickering. Inaction is better than the action that either party is liable to take, given the imbecility of their platforms.


Before the Democrats took a filibuster proof majority That may have been the case on big bills and issues. But lots of smaller (often even more important issues) are decided by the party in power - enough so that whether you agree 100% or not with a party, the party you agree with "most of the time" is the one you should be supporting.

Take the Supreme Court as an example. Whether you think President Bush was good or bad, if you believe in conservative principals, gun rights, and potentially overturning Rowe v Wade - you should have supported GW Bush. If you believe the opposite, it was important to vote for President Obama.

So even in your political paralysis example, SOMEONE is making important decisions, and you would be best served to vote for the party that best represents the majority of your views. Whether you take sides or not, there still are winners and losers...so you might as well step up and pick a horse in the race.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Stanley Fish will think and vote as he chooses. I will think and vote as I choose.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> This is the very problem with "unenrolled" or supporters of other so called "third parties"
> 
> You rip apart Obama left, right and center&#8230;.yet when someone mentions that GW ran up massive debt and deficits, you conveniently say "well I am not a republican either.
> 
> You get to play both sides of the fence, without taking anything other than some theoretical stand.


So criticizing high spending is a bad thing? I don't understand why I have to choose a party and not an ideology.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> So criticizing high spending is a bad thing? I don't understand why I have to choose a party and not an ideology.


 You don't have to announce your choice, but sooner or later, you will choose a side.

Whether your decision was based on a belief, a principal, or you call it a choice for the "lesser of two evils" - in the end it is a choice and you are how you vote.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

The premise of Fish's piece of course is that we aren't smart enough to make policy choices of our own - we need to delegate to a political party. So, choose your poison - the party that wants to control your labor (Ds) or your morals (Rs). (Or, in Fish's case, your speech as he's a major proponent of speech codes, arguing that free speech is an illusion).

Having worked in politics my entire life (as opposed to being an English professor who dabbles when it suits him), I can tell you that Fish is generally a crank. Fish states that the natural condition is to be "political"? Not from my experience talking with constituents. Their natural condition is to care about their families, their jobs, their sports teams, etc - not politics.

Fish's theory also falls apart in assuming that people are all ideologically aligned with parties. For example, some people who want fairly easy, legal immigration ALSO believe that Iran represents a threat to be put down. There's no natural party for such people. The notion that people align with the "left" or "right" on each position (as opposed to sometimes taking a position on one side on one issue and another on the next) is laughable.

For those of you unfamilar with Fish, his seriousness as a thinker can be summed up in one episode. For those of you not familiar with it, Fish was the editor of a scholarly journal who accepted the completely made up article in question and published it as a serious piece of scholarship, not realizing that the person who wrote it considered it nothing but pretentious babble.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

DCLawyer68 said:


> The premise of Fish's piece of course is that we aren't smart enough to make policy choices of our own - we need to delegate to a political party. So, choose your poison - the party that wants to control your labor (Ds) or your morals (Rs). (Or, in Fish's case, your speech as he's a major proponent of speech codes, arguing that free speech is an illusion)..


 That's one way to interpret it. Another is to say that as long as we have a two party system, all of the "I am an independent" or "unenrolled", or "I vote for the man not the party" - means nothing unless you eventually choose a side (or withdraw from the process and vote for Bob Barr or Ross Perot - which is a wasted vote)




DCLawyer68 said:


> Having worked in politics my entire life (as opposed to being an English professor who dabbles when it suits him), I can tell you that Fish is generally a crank. Fish states that the natural condition is to be "political"? Not from my experience talking with constituents. Their natural condition is to care about their families, their jobs, their sports teams, etc - not politics.


 You don't think people naturally take sides on issues? The need to belong to a group of like minded people is fundamental to being human.




DCLawyer68 said:


> Fish's theory also falls apart in assuming that people are all ideologically aligned with parties. For example, some people who want fairly easy, legal immigration ALSO believe that Iran represents a threat to be put down. There's no natural party for such people. The notion that people align with the "left" or "right" on each position (as opposed to sometimes taking a position on one side on one issue and another on the next) is laughable..


 Even if there were a "third party" to emerge at some point in the future, do you really think they would have anyone vote for them if they flip flopped back and forth on positions?

It sounds great to say you are a free thinker and are pro life and anti death penalty, or believe in helping the poor, but favor limited government - but how many American will come along with that as a platform? Furthermore, how much would this third party have to compromise to actually get anything done in Washington?

In the end, you can either pick the party that is closest to your core principals and become involved- or you can disengage completely. But to try and straddle the fence between two parties and think you have any chance of really effecting change in either, is the only thing that is truly laughable.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> That's one way to interpret it. Another is to say that as long as we have a two party system, all of the "I am an independent" or "unenrolled", or "I vote for the man not the party" - means nothing unless you eventually choose a side (or withdraw from the process and vote for Bob Barr or Ross Perot - which is a wasted vote)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mr. Kleen,

Respectfully, I think we'll have to disagree.

First, there are many independents who DON'T feel the need to join a political party. Many who do are loosely affiliated (for example, my affiliation is based on my living in a closed primary state, but I don't let that label dictate who gets my vote in the general). Further, choosing a position on an issue doesn't really lead me to one party or another. I won't support stringent limits on abortion because I prefer small government for example. I don't expect a third party to emerge who reflects my views. People may feel the need to belong, but many are happy to belong to a church, country club, etc rather than a political party.

Again, my experience has led me to believe that both parties have merit on some issues and meritorious members of Congress (and not so as well). Neither party has a monopoly on ethics, which for me is a sine qua non. If you're not ethical in my view, I won't vote for you regardless of what you think about the war in Iraq, the estate tax or the rights of homosexuals to marry.

Finally you seem to think a third party would naturally be inconsistent "flipped" on the issues. I disagree. I will support candidates who are first and foremost honest and forthright, and then (assuming each meets this criteria) on those who will, overall, promote my views on the issues. But don't assume that this means voting for one party or the other because my policy preferences cross party lines and to me are far more consistent than either party's platform, which aren't dictated by philosophical consistency so much as by horse trading among the interest groups that dominates the party's politics.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

DCLawyer68 said:


> Mr. Kleen,
> 
> Respectfully, I think we'll have to disagree.
> 
> ...


I concur that we very well may not come to any agreement here, which is fine. I am not questioning your decisions making, on voting for the person that you think best represents your beliefs - no matter that party.

I am saying that cannot logically separate the party as a whole from your decision&#8230;as the party is the engine that the Congressman or Senator in question hitch their car to.

Lets say you generally believe in Republican principals, but there is this exceptional young Democrat that is running in your district and you really like him as a person. He is moderate (enough so that he will certainly get some Republicans to consider him), fair and has a strong track record earned on the local and state level. You vote for him and he is elected.

While you very well may have voted for him for who he is at face value, you have to acknowledge that when he gets to Washington - he is generally going to vote the party line. And if that party line includes Universal Healthcare, more stiumlus spending, and voting with a President who will strengthen Rowe v. Wade by adding several pro choice Justices - you better well be in favor of those things, if you are voting for him.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> I concur that we very well may not come to any agreement here, which is fine. I am not questioning your decisions making, on voting for the person that you think best represents your beliefs - no matter that party.
> 
> I am saying that cannot logically separate the party as a whole from your decision&#8230;as the party is the engine that the Congressman or Senator in question hitch their car to.
> 
> ...


You assume I'd be opposed to many of those latter positions even though I had supported him based on his support for certain Republican positions and that's where you'd be wrong. Further, many Democrats don't support more stimulus or a health care reform with a public option (liberals in this town are far more upset at moderate Ds than Rs - FAR more).

I'd say its far more irrational to support a set of principles cobbled together by the interest groups of a political party than one that emanates from certain basic principles.

Finally, I think implicit in your position is that either one party or another will control the political system, but I think the post war record of voting shows general happiness with divided government, with people happily voting for Members of Congress who believe one thing and a President who believes another. I'm sure you think those people must be nuts, but I see a logic to the preference for divided government.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

DCLawyer68 said:


> You assume I'd be opposed to many of those latter positions even though I had supported him based on his support for certain Republican positions and that's where you'd be wrong. Further, many Democrats don't support more stimulus or a health care reform with a public option (liberals in this town are far more upset at moderate Ds than Rs - FAR more).
> 
> I'd say its far more irrational to support a set of principles cobbled together by the interest groups of a political party than one that emanates from certain basic principles.
> 
> Finally, I think implicit in your position is that either one party or another will control the political system, but I think the post war record of voting shows general happiness with divided government, with people happily voting for Members of Congress who believe one thing and a President who believes another. I'm sure you think those people must be nuts, but I see a logic to the preference for divided government.


 Not at all, I not saying one party control is the norm, nor is it the ideal. I am saying that politicians are ultimately and eventually driven by the central platform of their party - especially on the big issues like taxation, immigration, abortion etc.

I am saying that if you think you can cherry pick who you vote for by claiming to be "independent" - you better make sure you can live with your man on the big issues as that is the way he is going to vote when push comes to shove.

As an example, even if the Democrats in my state nominated a real bum for Senator, unless the Republican candidate was pro choice and pro healthcare reform - I simply could not in good conscience vote for him, as those issues are much more important to me than whether he is a "good man" or not.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> ...
> 
> I am saying that if you think you can cherry pick who you vote for by claiming to be "independent" - you better make sure you can live with your man on the big issues as that is the way he is going to vote when push comes to shove.
> 
> As an example, even if the Democrats in my state nominated a real bum for Senator, unless the Republican candidate was pro choice and pro healthcare reform - I simply could not in good conscience vote for him, as those issues are much more important to me than whether he is a "good man" or not.




Fair enough - I think I can do the former with a clear conscience. As to the latter, it's a pretty core disagreement between us and I appreciate your crystallizing it.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> You don't have to announce your choice, but sooner or later, you will choose a side.
> 
> Whether your decision was based on a belief, a principal, or you call it a choice for the "lesser of two evils" - in the end it is a choice and you are how you vote.


I make my decisions based on an ideology. The problem is that neither party fits that ideology. I tend to vote Republican because I want the freedom to make economic decisions.



mrkleen said:


> That's one way to interpret it. Another is to say that as long as we have a two party system, all of the "I am an independent" or "unenrolled", or "I vote for the man not the party" - means nothing unless you eventually choose a side (or withdraw from the process and vote for Bob Barr or Ross Perot - which is a wasted vote)
> 
> In the end, you can either pick the party that is closest to your core principals and become involved- or you can disengage completely. But to try and straddle the fence between two parties and think you have any chance of really effecting change in either, is the only thing that is truly laughable.


That kinda thinking is what prevented Perot from winning the election. He received almost 20% of the vote and prevented George Bush from winning as a third party. Everyone likes to talk about Nader helping George W. Bush from winning with his 2-3%, but Perot made a huge impact, and many of his ideas were at least debated and some implemented.

Why do we have to decide on a party? That's like saying pick love or fear.


----------

