To me, one of the saddest aspects of the current political landscape is that we end up choosing the best politicians rather than the most effective legislators. Pull off a snappy one-liner in the middle of a contentious and substance-less debate and you'll pull ahead in the polls. Actually work with people from both parties to forge an effective piece of legislation and you'll earn no points with the media and consequently the general public.
This is why I am so passionate about Newt. Look, he has even worked with Hilary Clinton to try to create a viable solution to our national healthcare mess. It takes some serious guts and humility to talk to someone who had been your most bitter rival in search of any positive aspects from the plan you worked to defeat.
And then there's my favorite issue: social security reform. I still feel nauseated when I recall the scene of Democratic Congressman rallying around the statue of FDR and collectively putting their heads in the sand and refusing to consider any of President Bush's proposals for desperately needed reform. If you would actually like to see a well thought out presentation on the problems of and solutions to the Social Security crisis, click on the link above.
Newt probably would not win an election. But he has some excellent legislative ideas that he is offering to anyone from any party that will listen. I hope others will follow his approach.
10 comments:
Good, Steve's posting about politics again. I was getting tired of all his 'music' posts :D . I mean, c'mon, Green Day? Talk about bottom of the barrel...even my love for Chris Cornell and his political nonsense in Audioslave is better than that XD .
Your listeners have spoken.
To be on topic, I have a feeling that this next presidential election is going to be the most horrid collection of miscreant morons running for office, with no moral standards. I mean, sure, it's easy to poke fun of Bush and say he's dumber than a bag of hammers, but at least I know where the guy stands morally. I actually LIKE the fact that he clashes with his party, because I think his party sucks. So does the alternative party, for that matter.
I think Obama is winning. He's solid, not a flaccid loser/lawyer like Edwards, he's not an ignorant loudmouth like Hillary, and...well, I haven't even heard about the Republican candidates. But they're probably not all that strong. I think it'll be a miracle if they can follow up on Bush, he was the Republican Party's magnum opus.
Obama's only hitch is that he isn't white.
Obama's only hitch is that he has no record and little experience. The man won't even finish a full term in the Senate until 2010.
Oh and that he's a Senator. Senators don't win Presidential elections.
Hynes,
Did you just called John Edwards a flaccid loser/lawyer?
To prove he isn't a loser:
1. He grew up sweeping cotton mill floors in North Carolina to buy his books for college.
2. He's been in what appears to be a faithful and happy marriage to his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, also a lawyer and a breast cancer survivor, for decades. (She's not a doormat like Laura or Hillary. I'm sorry but if my man a. cheats on me with his intern or b. invades a country without legitimate cause and embarrasses me in front of the entire WORLD he will be one seriously miserable man.)
3. He cares about poverty (he's currently running NC's Center for Poverty) and advocates for the less fortunate. Christ cared about the poor.
4. He lost his oldest son in a tragic car accident when the kid was 17 and as a result of that tragedy is far more more compassionate to family loss (such as soldier death as a result of war) than other individuals.
He's not flaccid:
He is from the south, North Carolina specifically. No one can resist our accent. You know it. The American Idol judges know it. Steve certainly knows it. I dare you to ask him about it. When John Edwards says, "We're sorry we invaded. We're sorry we didn't come up with a good plan. We're sorry there were no weapons of mass destruction." People will listen. Why? Because he sounds cool and he isn't bad to look at.
Why being a lawyer is not a bad thing:
1. You want politicians who understand this amazing document known as the Constitution.
2. You want politicians who understand how words on legislation will effect the machine that is the American legal system.
3. You want politicians who are somewhat intelligent indicated by a law degree, and I'm sorry, but George W. Bush is an idiot. K-Fed could run this country better than he could, in fact, I would have voted for K-Fed in 2004 before I would have voted for Bush and that was prior to K-Fed deciding to become "a rapper."
4. Lawyers do more good than most professions. Who do battered women call when they are being hurt? Who do people call when their spouse is cheating on them? Who do people call when their dead beat ex-spouse is failing to pay child support? Who do people call when their doctor amputated the wrong leg? Who do people call when the negligence of another individual caused them irrepairable harm such that their lives will never be the same? Who do people call when some form of Constitutional right has been violated? THEY CALL THEIR FREAKIN' LAWYER!! Individuals who want to label lawyers as boring or evil truly do not know anything about the profession.
Also, it's just bad form in general to try to spar with someone who has been academically and professionally trained in the art of debate and who gains experience in it every day... about some concept like "lawyers = losers." We will eat you for lunch!
1. Good for him. Other people also have worked hard to earn their education. That's nothing special.
2. That's great that his wife would make a wonderful 'non-doormat' first lady, but how do you know that Laura Bush is a 'doormat'? W has mentioned her chewing him out over stupid things he has said...Just because she doesn't publicly humiliate and undermine her husband doesn't mean she doesn't bring him in line. Marriages are something in which the two people become unified and support each other. That doesn't mean they don't criticize or make suggestions, but it does mean that they do not behave in a vicious or vindictive manner.
3. That's easy to do when you're NOT running the most powerful nation in the world and you're a multi-millionaire. Not that being a multi-millionaire is bad, but he has the resources to do that stuff, and he is a philanthropist. That's not an unusual combination. Also, your comparison of John Edwards to Christ made me giggle. Remember, he's just a man, my dear. Even if he is from...what is that south-of-Delaware state you're from again :D ?
4. Am I supposed to be sympathetic? Tragedies happen to lots of people, not just John Edwards. That's great that he can be empathetic. The difficulty with that is that he can become too close to the problem, and not be able to make tough choices. A commander can't dwell on the deaths of the men under him, it destroys his ability to do what is necessary. And the President of the United States is the Commander In Chief.
5. Mr. Edwards' accent has nothing to do with his competence as a leader or as a president. All it means is that when he speaks, people are more likely to nod their head. Charisma /= Good leadership, other than for aesthetic reasons. Bill Clinton was charismatic. Hitler was charismatic, in his own way. Were they good leaders? My point isn't that John Edwards is Hitler incarnate (which would be quite the non-sequiteur ;) ), but that the melodious sound of his voice doesn't mean crap in the real world where the politics meets the road. If this is the basis for your political opinions, then I pity you.
Furthermore, if you and Steve are an item due to your accent, then Steve has a lot to think about. A LOT to think about. Like, would he love you still if you had, say...a New Joisey accent.
Your defense of lawyers:
1. One doesn't have to be a lawyer to understand it. It does take a lawyer to exploit it. But you must also understand that the Constitution is NOT God. So if you think that the Constitution supersedes our divine mandate as Christians, than you need to remove your head from the...sand. AND, if that is what you are about to argue, I don't want to hear another word from you about how the South is so awesome because they have a church on every street corner.
The Constitution and the law of the United States of America do not exist in a vacuum. I have to balance my love of this country with my love of my God and my religion. And my religion ALWAYS supersedes my country. I may not like how Mr. Bush implements this belief, but I can understand it and respect it as a fellow American/Christian.
2. Conceded. The definition of terms is very important, legally or otherwise.
3. Your personal attack on our current president does nothing to justify Mr. Edward's candidacy. Looks like your debate training is failing you, because you just threw out a Red Herring. Maybe you shouldn't get so emotionally caught up in your arguments?
4. No, people call the POLICE. Then they call their lawyer.
Rhetorical Question: If your husband turns into a wifebeater, are you seriously going to call a lawyer instead of the police after an incident? I don't think so. Lawyers can't function without evidence, and police do the work in that regard. Not to mention it's going to be Officer Smith that saves you from your husband by taking him onto custody, not Mr. Smythe the Prosecutor of the State. Although, it is true that it is the Prosecutor who will be putting hubby in jail for a long time (provided hubby's defense lawyer isn't better than yours).
5. As though your academic credentials mean anything thing to me. I have met some utterly idiotic educated people, and know some incredibly wise uneducated people. So your touting your theoretical capability as as a hot-shot debater means zilch.
I called John Edwards a loser because he IS a loser POLITICALLY speaking, and he lost in front of every person in America, including the Democratic Party. I'm curious as to whether or not the Democratic party overall is willing to entrust him with their next presidential campaign.
About the only thing I think he didn't do to worsen his 'loser' status was cry like John Kerry did, and I'm not even sure of that.
Some people (actually, just you, as far as I know) think that a candidate being a lawyer is some kind of benefit. I really don't see what is so special here. A lawyer is a job, just like anything else.
I respect Prosecution/Plaintiff lawyers and Defense lawyers. There is nothing more honorable than putting criminals in their place, and Defense lawyers are necessary so that the Accused have no excuses left if they are found guilty. What I don't like is when they exploit the system (read: Torts, Appeals) to do things like get a few million bucks from Mickey D's because some bimbo spilled coffee on herself, to delay the impeding execution that they have been proven deserving of.
I'd wager the only reason you're bothering to defend this guy is because he is from 'the South' and you want someone of a similar demographic in office. An understandable desire, no doubt, but it nevertheless taints your argument, to the point where you're singing the praises of his ACCENT, as though that had any value in terms of his theoretical competence as a leader of a nation.
Steve, watch what you get yourself into...it's no fun to have a spouse that cancels your vote out every year. Ask my grandparents :D .
Oh yes and there goes the classic argument: "Marriages are something in which the two people become unified and support each other. That doesn't mean they don't criticize or make suggestions, but it does mean that they do not behave in a vicious or vindictive manner."
Why is that anytime a woman dare say anything remotely resembling "I will not tolerate that from my husband." We automatically argue that she will in turn "undermine her man" or "behave in a vicious or vindictive manner?"
Obviously one should not publicly humiliate their spouse... kind of the way one shouldn't engage in extramarital sexual activity in the White House with an intern and then have the entire world find out? It's one thing to obviously not humiliate your husband publicly. It is another for his behavior to be so flagrantly shameless that the entire WORLD, literally, already knows, and actually stand up for yourself and all individuals who have had their spouse cheat on them. Same way with the war - the entire WORLD, literally, knows about it. It isn't like she'd be outing him. I'm also not arguing that Laura Bush engage in any form of public outcry against her husband. I just think they need to have a long, long, LONG dinner conversation.
"The difficulty with that is that he can become too close to the problem, and not be able to make tough choices. A commander can't dwell on the deaths of the men under him, it destroys his ability to do what is necessary. And the President of the United States is the Commander In Chief." - That statement just plain scares me. I'm sorry, but concerning yourself with the massive death of American as well as Iraqi's is something that should be pondered and taken into consideration. Had it been considered a bit more pre-invasion we may not be in the gigantic mess we are in right now?
I'm not even going to go there with most of your anti-lawyer argument as those are the sentiments lawyers hear every single day, tire of quickly, and generally ignore. Hence, I shall ignore. However, I will answer this:
If your husband turns into a wifebeater, are you seriously going to call a lawyer instead of the police after an incident?
UM, my last job that happened at least once a month. Sometimes women are afraid to call the police because they have called them before and they haven't done anything. Sometimes the wife beating man with a license to have a firearm 24/7 is a police officer. I've had women call before and ask if there is any way they could flee to another state in the middle of the night with their children and what the legal ramifications of said action would be. So yes, people frequently call their lawyers before they call the cops.
One more comment I forgot... my brain started to rot when you actually started to argue that I would argue that the Constitution would supersede God, which it obviously does not...
"What I don't like is when they exploit the system (read: Torts, Appeals) to do things like get a few million bucks from Mickey D's because some bimbo spilled coffee on herself, to delay the impeding execution that they have been proven deserving of."
1. That "bimbo" was actually an elderly retiree who suffered third degree burns on her inner thighs and had to be endure skin grafts as well as a three day hospital stay as a result of her coffee spilled burns (the coffee was over the boiling point of water when it was served to her).
2. The attorney on that case merely asked the judge for compensation for her medical expenses and punitive damages. The judge decided that punitives would equal the equivalent sale of 24 hours worth of international McDonalds coffee sales and had no idea at the time that that amount would equal, I believe 1.6 million dollars.
I don't call it exploitation to get an elderly woman who had to be hospitalized with serious burns compensation for her medical bills nor an unexpectedly high amount of compensation because McDonald's doesn't understand how to use a thermometer. That taught them how to regulate temps. That is also why Starbucks and places now give you the piece of cardboard to hold your coffee with...
Much like your rivetting analysis of the First Amendment, you clearly have no idea what truly happened in this case.
Congratulations.
" 'Obviously one should not publicly humiliate their spouse... kind of the way one shouldn't engage in extramarital sexual activity in the White House with an intern and then have the entire world find out?' "
I'm glad that you are capable of grasping both sides of the issue.
I never assumed that women having standards of behavior for their husbands was a bad thing. However, know that men have standards for their wives as well. It's a two way street.
Also, you are assuming two things: One, that the war is unjustified, and two, that she has not already had a 'long dinner' with him about it. The former I am not going to argue with you here, as that is not the topic at hand, and is irrelevant to whether or not Mr. Edwards is actually capable of winning the primary. The latter is something you have no knowledge of, nor do I.
Really, this whole thing of Mr. Edwards having a 'good wife' means nothing for his ability to act as a president. I am sure Mr. Clinton and Mr Bush both had 'good wives', too, until they did something that you didn't like, of course.
"That statement just plain scares me. I'm sorry, but concerning yourself with the massive death of American as well as Iraqi's is something that should be pondered and taken into consideration. Had it been considered a bit more pre-invasion we may not be in the gigantic mess we are in right now?"
Roosevelt, I am sure, pondered the possibility of American casualties in a war. And then he declared war of Japan, and then later on Germany. Ponder all you want about casualty figures. Casualties happen. A good leader understands the grief, but does not allow it to impair his judgment. Jones and Smith might be dead, but Hill 101 still needs to be taken nevertheless. Your argument again relies on the assumption that the war is 'a mess' and so on. And, again, I am not going to debate that here.
The bottom line of your argument: Mr. Edwards has feelings, which helps him understand what grieving families go through.
My bottom line: That's awesome. I'm glad he is capable of sympathizing with a dead soldier's family. That does not make him a good leader. What makes him a good leader is his ability to pass judgment on a situation without letting a disproportionately small tragedy get in the way of what needs to be done.
"UM, my last job that happened at least once a month. Sometimes women are afraid to call the police because they have called them before and they haven't done anything."
While I believe that, I would bet that the majority of people (not women! PEOPLE in general) call the police first.
"Who do people call when some form of Constitutional right has been violated?"
This was your initial point. I would be curious to see statistics on this. After all, violent crimes happen often, and are very much a violation of the law, or 'one's rights'. I would be curious as to how often the police are out-called by lawyers in terms of initial contact and explanation of the situation. Meaning, the first 'authority' you call after having witnessed the incident.
"I'm not even going to go there with most of your anti-lawyer argument as those are the sentiments lawyers hear every single day, tire of quickly, and generally ignore. Hence, I shall ignore."
What comments? That you don't necessarily have to be a lawyer to understand the constitution? That being a lawyer doesn't give someone some kind of special status above another? That some lawyers exploit the law for frivolous reasons?
All of those statements I made, which were in my previous argument, are true. The last one is a cliche, but nevertheless occurs. Cliches tend to have a basis in fact, even if it may be a rather sparse or rarely occurring one it does.
As far as my example goes for a bad tort (which sounds like something you leave in the fridge and forget about :D ), I retract it. However, I would encourage you to look at the spirit of my comment, which was that lawyers tend to be put in a bad light because of stupid
lawsuits.
While Mr. Edwards being a lawyer may be neither an advantage (in my opinion) or a disadvantage (yours), I think that politically, it has the feel of being a disadvantage that many people see, in much the same way that you think his accent is an advantage.
"One more comment I forgot... my brain started to rot when you actually started to argue that I would argue that the Constitution would supersede God, which it obviously does not..."
Good. I felt the need to nip that in the bud. Why? Because in a previous argument, I seem to recall you felt the need to argue the validity of abortion as a legal course of action simply because the Supreme Court said it was OK. I wasn't sure if you had ceased placing judges and legal documents like the constitution above your alleged personal beliefs.
"Much like your rivetting analysis of the First Amendment"
I always like to create excitement in the lives of others. You spelled 'riveting' incorrectly, by the way :D .
My comments about Mr. Edwards being both a loser and a lawyer having a negative impact on his bid for the presidency are on a political, not a factual basis, which is how most elections operate (sadly). Being a lawyer may not be any better or worse than being a welder, but that isn't how a lot of people would view it. Or, at least how the media will spin it. In the world of the media, lawyer often means bad, and Edwards IS a loser politically, there is no way that you can argue that, because it actually HAPPENED.
My initial comments were made off-hand. You wanted to posture about it and pick a fight, so I assumed the stance, and now that we've done our little debate-duel-dance, we're back to square one. The bottom line is that POLITICALLY, the guy is a risk. I doubt his party will give him a chance. Time will whether suspicion over Obama or hatred of Hillary will yield him the primary.
I ask you: What is this man's position on matters which are critical to your beliefs? Does he countermand them? What about the agenda of his party? How will they pressure him? Because if any of those things don't match up, then there is not reason you should be defending him.
After spending an extensive period of time recovering from the Black Death (see my blog) and from responding to Steve's question re: John Edwards (see the Hillary Clinton post)...
1. "What makes him a good leader is his ability to pass judgment on a situation without letting a disproportionately small tragedy get in the way of what needs to be done."
And how do you know he wouldn't be a good leader or do just that? A certain element of being a good leader is also considering what you stand to lose and who your actions stand to hurt. I find your FDR/Bush comparison absolutely disgusting. Does anyone else think it is just a sin to compare those two men?
2. I'm fairly certain Laura Bush has not has a long dinner with him and if she has it was obviously unproductive. Trust me, my husband would have not have let this situation get so out of control and would at least be listening to Congress at this point rather than publicly stating "I am the final decision maker on Iraq."
3. "While I believe that, I would bet that the majority of people (not women! PEOPLE in general) call the police first." a. That raised our old majority/minority is it really relevant argument and b. Why are you bringing gender into this? There are a male abuse victims (10% of heterosexual domestic violence cases) who frequently call their lawyers before the police. Lawyers can also do a lot without evidence. Granted, we can do a lot more with it, provided that the police, if they were called, have collected it properly and given us good stuff to work with...
4. "I retract it. However, I would encourage you to look at the spirit of my comment, which was that lawyers tend to be put in a bad light because of stupid
lawsuits." No, lawyers tend to be put in a bad light due to stupid people who do not understand the fundamental tenants of case law, the rules of confidentiality, or the basic facts of cases. YOU CALLED THE GRANDMOTHER WITH THIRD DEGREE BURNS A "BIMBO." THAT IS NOT EASILY RETRACTED. For future reference, don't make arguments you have to retract.
5. "While Mr. Edwards being a lawyer may be neither an advantage (in my opinion) or a disadvantage (yours)" ... wait? so his being a lawyer is an advantage in your opinion. It is an advantage, not a disadvantage in mine, so are we on the same page with something? :-)
6. "Because in a previous argument, I seem to recall you felt the need to argue the validity of abortion as a legal course of action simply because the Supreme Court said it was OK."
Um, not because the Supreme Court said it was okay (even though it is constitutional the way the document is written whether anyone likes it or not... that's what the paper says) but because God gave us the freedom to choose whether we want to sin or not and whether we want to follow Him or not. That's that whole Garden of Eden thing.
7. "You spelled 'riveting' incorrectly, by the way :D ." Red herring.
8. "What is this man's position on matters which are critical to your beliefs? Does he countermand them? What about the agenda of his party? How will they pressure him? Because if any of those things don't match up, then there is not reason you should be defending him." Please see the list on the Hillary Clinton comment on Steve's blog... I think it is below this one.
Post a Comment