[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 09-23 22:19, David L. Willson wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 17:40 -0600, Sean LeBlanc wrote:
> ...
> > I'm curious - how is moveon.org worse than lying our way into war? Who is
> > really playing politics with lives of soldiers - a group who criticizes how
> > a war is run, or the group that put the soldiers in harm's way for a lie?
> > Well, many lies, but who's counting?
> 
> I'm counting.  This is the N'th time that someone has accused GWB of
> lying us into this war, and AFAIK there is no proof.  Last several times
> I accused anyone of lying, I had proof.  

[deleted unnecessary reference to Clinton...we're talking about Bush here]

So you deny the goalposts on why we went to Iraq were moved? Did we find
WMD? Was there a believable al-Qaeda connection *before* we invaded? Why did
Bush's administration go so far as to commit treason (outing a CIA agent for
political payback) when someone pointed out that the yellowcake story was
bunk?

Here's how I remember the goalposts being moved:

1. We are going there to get al-Qaeda.
2. No, wait, we are going there to rid ourselves of a WMD threat.
3. Ooops, we meant that we are bringing and Freedom and Democracy (tm) to the Iraqis.
...
I admit it, I fell for it all in the beginning. When the shock and awe began
and I saw how slick the media presentation was (full animations being shown
that probably came straight from Pentagon and/or their contractors) I began
to feel shades of Desert Storm I and realized I had been duped...again. And
being intellectually honest, I had to realize I was wrong about Iraq and
Saddam.

And as for Clinton...sorry, I can't help myself - are you really arguing for
a moral equivalency between lying about sex (yes it was sex) with an intern,
even under oath, and lying about possibly the most important decision a
president can make - declaring war on a country? And killing at least
thousands in the process?

 
> Is "flag-burning" a stupid issue to a man who has risked his life to
> defend what the flag represents.  

Yes, and I'll tell you why I think so:

Politicians never do anything but talk about passing legislation because
they know it's unconstitutional - it's just a cynical ploy to get the base
all charged up. And it's just a symbol, and I think someone who has risked
their life in reality, can handle symbols being burned/descrecated after
facing real dangers. 

[...deleted abortion discussion...]

As for abortion, same thing, except this time, they know it's hugely
unpopular and will not ban abortion. If they did, it would only apply to
federal level anyway, and revert to the states just like pre-Roe v Wade. And
lastly, I doubt that some elite in the public spotlight that had an unwed
daughter that got pregnant wouldn't use that position of privilege to whisk
her away to a country that *did* have abortions if it ever was made
completely illegal in the U.S. Abortions would still be available for the
elite.  

We aren't going to solve either of these actual issues, obviously. I'm just
saying that both of them (along with the even sillier ones like "family
values" and prayer in schools and intelligent design) are hypocritical ploys
to garner votes. I'm sure I can think of Democrats' examples of this...I'm
sure they have them. It's just that the Republicans' stand out because they
are so stupid, and given the history, so painfully obvious.

 
> [...]
> > Anyway, this isn't aimed at you so much, Collins, I'm just faintly amused at
> > all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over an activist group like moveon.org
> > from the right-wing noise machine, while the conservative activist groups
> > (that if I remember correctly ) outspend liberal activist
> > groups 4 to 1....and yet seem to somehow remain almost invisible, at least
> > when it comes to the talking points. They also seem to have some very odd
> > ties, like the Moonies for one.
> 
> Conservative activist groups are NOT invisible.  I have never seen an
> anti-MoveOn bumper sticker, but I've seen plenty of the "Focus on your
> own damn family" stickers.  I would have to say that FOTF has not
> managed to "remain invisible".  Rush Limbaugh seems to be fairly
> well-known and broadly critiqued.  How about swift boat?  Not exactly
> invisible...

I mean, they rarely come in for the smear campaigns that a handful of
liberal ones get, even though I'd argue the conservative/libertarian ones
have much more sway. I'm talking about Heritage Foundation, Coors
Foundation, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Moral Majority,
Christian Coalition, American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute...and
that's just off the top of my head. Some of the members of these meet with
Bush weekly. And then, as I said, there are the moonies, who fund(ed) Bush
Sr. on some of his speaking tours and own the Washington Times. As I said,
these ties aren't mentioned very often and I wonder why moveon.org gets all
the flack, even when other outfits have odd ties like the Moonies and other
groups have ties to Paul Weyrich. I agree that when a group does something
especially stupid and toxic, they do come in for some notice, for instance,
when someone like Falwell makes a ridiculously hateful and stupid remark. 

Let's take for example, the "debate" as it took place in the media and the
political and public sphere (there is no real debate over evolution, of
course) over evolution vs. the new creationism, Intelligent Design. Unless
you dig a bit deeper on the web, or have a care about science being taught
instead of superstition in the classroom, you probably won't find out that
Discovery Institute is the group behind the ID movement. In a media doing
it's job, well, #1, they should have taken ID proponents behind the
metaphorical woodshed, but #2, they should have made sure to mention
Discovery Institute being behind this so-called grassroots movement at every
turn.

> > [...]I don't think if the rubber meets the road that Romney will get on
> > Republican ticket in any case...too many evangelicals start getting their
> > back up over Mormons, and when it comes down to brass tacks, there will be
> > too much friction over non-verifiable metaphysical belief systems, even if
> > the Mormons as a group are the Republican's best friends (at least when it
> > comes to voting). Just like Republicans will take Mooney money, they
> > probably wouldn't put one up for election - they'll take Mormon votes, but I
> > doubt they really want one in the White house.
> 
> Another request for reference material, here:  You said that
> Evangelicals get their backs up over Mormons, but I think that
> politically speaking, they kinda work together, so I need the
> back-story, if I may.

Oh, I completely agree that Mormons and evangelicals, esp. the
Christian fundamentalists, see eye-to-eye on almost everything politically.
It's when they start talking theology that things get heated - and I doubt
they would want a person in the White House who believes in a living
prophet. 

I honestly think that there is a large voting bloc in this country
could care less about the morality of a sitting president, but care very
much about his metaphysical belief system, and for fundamentalist Christians
(assuming we are talking about non-Mormon fundamentalist Christians) the
Mormon beliefs are incompatible with theirs. 

I believe this because Tiffany was raised Mormon, and I've seen the concern
on some people's faces and in their questions about that (they are people I
know are evangelicals, although not necessarily even fundamentalist).

I don't have any stats or reading material, this one is just flying on my
gut and past experiences. My grandparents, who for as long as I knew them
didn't go to church, were still pissed that Kennedy got into the White
House. Not over his platform or policies - on those, they probably agreed
wholeheartedly. Over what his belief system was...he was the "wrong" kind of
Christian - a Catholic. I find this kind of thinking utterly alien and
ridiculous, of course, but there you go.
 

-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at comcast.net  
http://sean-leblanc.blogspot.com/
And in the end it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in 
your years. 
-Abraham Lincoln