tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post199559065820948009..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Between the she-devil and the deep blue seaRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29337014532124767872007-10-07T11:44:00.000-04:002007-10-07T11:44:00.000-04:00Shamgar said:"The man just doesn't seem to be capa...Shamgar said:<BR/><BR/>"The man just doesn't seem to be capable of generating the kind of excitement a campaign needs. His laconic manner just doesn't seem to do it."<BR/><BR/>He has been disappointing so far, as I said, and what you're referring to is one of the reasons. But he did get reelected to the Senate when he ran, and he's been an actor. You'd expect him to be able to run a campaign sufficiently, especially with an opponent who has the weaknesses of Hillary Clinton. He may turn out to be disappointing, but sufficient. As I said, we'll have to wait and see how he does in his first debate (later this week) and in the polling that follows. He'll also have other opportunities to improve. We'll see what happens.<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/>"And eventually, his past is going to catch up with him regarding his poor record on conservative issues."<BR/><BR/>I never thought much of his record. But I think it's significantly better than Rudy Giuliani's, Mitt Romney's, or Hillary Clinton's.<BR/><BR/>As I mentioned in a discussion with you in another thread, I have a low view of the American people. They have some good characteristics and are right on some issues, but they're also wrong on some issues and have made poor use of the many advantages they've had (access to the gospel, political freedoms, etc.). Having somebody like Fred Thompson in office rather than Hillary Clinton is likely to do more good than giving a larger minority percentage of the vote to a candidate or party with little potential for future growth.<BR/><BR/>I agree with some of the comments you've made in the past regarding the corruption of many modern politicians, including Republicans. But I think you're underestimating how corrupt the American people are.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52725341979529852432007-10-07T01:43:00.000-04:002007-10-07T01:43:00.000-04:00I still think that Thompson has the best combinati...<I>I still think that Thompson has the best combination of conservatism and electability.</I><BR/><BR/>You should probably check out his record. I really don't think he has what it takes to win. That's not just because I prefer another candidate - but an objective assessment even if my preferred candidate wasn't running.<BR/><BR/>The man just doesn't seem to be capable of generating the kind of excitement a campaign needs. His laconic manner just doesn't seem to do it.<BR/><BR/>(And eventually, his past is going to catch up with him regarding his poor record on conservative issues. It already has among the hard core, but it's going to become a lot more public as the race heats up.)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18343310535708699841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49201862374113124982007-10-07T01:40:00.000-04:002007-10-07T01:40:00.000-04:00*gasp*Amen!*falls over dead*We may disagree on how...*gasp*<BR/><BR/>Amen!<BR/><BR/>*falls over dead*<BR/><BR/>We may disagree on how we choose to resolve this issue - and on the issues we find important but if you'll allow it, I'd just like to celebrate agreeing with you on this post. :-)<BR/><BR/>This is mostly what I've been trying to say re: the lesser of two evils argument.<BR/><BR/>(Though, I should note, that there have been some interesting applications of game theory on this topic that you might find interesting. If I can remember where I read about them at I'll post it later.)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18343310535708699841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38992778917628211882007-10-07T00:38:00.000-04:002007-10-07T00:38:00.000-04:00I've come out of my non-voting position and decide...I've come out of my non-voting position and decided to vote for Ron Paul, a political candidate who I think takes both his oath to uphold the Constitution and his commitment to limited government seriously. Though he may not be a 'front-runner' (he pulled 5.08 million in the 3Q), I see Ron Paul as the only non-fascist candidate running in the Republican field. <BR/><BR/>He's known as Dr. No in Congress and once told an audience filled with NASA employees that he had consistently voted against their programs. I thought that was quite impressive for a politician. <BR/><BR/>Besides his mormonism, I think Romney is terrible: <BR/>see his debate with Ted Kennedy <BR/>and the video 'Mitt Romney on Ted Kennedy' <BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYXV9SbyKLo<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4r9dMP21hMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89151632440473292052007-10-06T10:46:00.000-04:002007-10-06T10:46:00.000-04:00IMNSHO, in every election, since one is voting for...IMNSHO, in every election, since one is voting for/against humans, the choice is always for the lesser evil, howsoever one determines that to be. This choice is no different from any other choice. We choose what we think is best for us at the time we make the choice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89601176742315934422007-10-06T10:15:00.000-04:002007-10-06T10:15:00.000-04:00Many conservatives continue to underestimate the s...Many conservatives continue to underestimate the significance of the errors of Mormonism. For example, Kathleen Parker writes in a recent column, which National Review has linked:<BR/><BR/>"The only hitch: He's a cultist. Or so some Christians think. Even though Romney shares their belief in Jesus Christ as God, other doctrinal differences tied to his Mormon beliefs apparently cause deep conflicts for evangelicals. The crafters of push polls are no doubt working overtime, especially in South Carolina, where nobody goes broke baiting fear and phobia. If they could convince racist voters in 2000 that McCain's adopted Indian child was African-American, they won't have much trouble advancing the idea that Romney is a closet polygamist -- despite the fact that he's the only leading Republican candidate who has had just one wife." (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/KathleenParker/2007/10/05/christians_for_self-defeat)<BR/><BR/>John Hawkins also underestimates the problems with Mormonism, but he takes a more realistic view of Romney overall. I recommend reading his entire article. Here's one of the best parts of it:<BR/><BR/>"And this is not just about abortion, where Mitt's position seems to have radically shifted, it's about a whole host of issues. He used to try to disassociate himself from Ronald Reagan and the Contract With America, but now he assures us that the Gipper and the Contract are close to his heart. He used to be pro-gun control and wanted nothing to do with the NRA, but now he's against gun grabbers and thinks the NRA is peachy. He came across as a member of the open borders and amnesty crowd whose position wasn't much different than that of John McCain on illegal immigration -- until it became a hot political issue -- and now he's running ads that make him sound like Tom Tancredo on the subject. Then there are the Bush tax cuts, embryonic stem cell research, and the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. There have been so many flips that the flops are still running about two blocks behind, trying to catch up." (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/10/05/the_conservative_case_against_mitt_romney)<BR/><BR/>Hillary Clinton has been doing better in the polls lately, but I still expect her to lose the general election. The Republicans are likely to be more united around a candidate in the future than they are now, Clinton's Democratic challengers aren't criticizing her nearly as much as the Republicans will next year, and the current anti-Republican sentiment should lessen with the passing of time. Not even a year has passed yet since the 2006 election. I think the public probably has a more negative view of the Republican party now than they will in November of 2008. The Republicans haven't had any major opportunity to change their image since the 2006 election, but they will have an opportunity during the campaign next year. If the Republican candidate distances himself from the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress to some extent, then that distancing combined with the passing of more time should help significantly.<BR/><BR/>I still think that Thompson has the best combination of conservatism and electability. He's been somewhat disappointing so far. His poor handling of his dispute with James Dobson is a recent example. But all of the leading candidates are significantly problematic. I don't think that Thompson's problems are as bad as the problems that Giuliani, Romney, and McCain have, so far. We'll see how Thompson does in his first debate and in the polling that follows.<BR/><BR/>It's far too early to conclude that only Giuliani would defeat Clinton. I think that any of the four leading candidates should be able to defeat her. She has a lot of weaknesses. She's too liberal, and she often comes across as insincere. If her recent healthcare ad would run during the general election campaign next year, I imagine that the reaction from the voters would be more negative than positive. When you hear a term like "universal healthcare" in an ad that keeps putting pictures of Hillary Clinton on the screen, that may help Clinton in a Democratic primary, but I think it would repulse more voters than it would attract in a general election campaign. I think that the doubts about Clinton's electability that we heard so much about earlier this year are more accurate than the more positive view of her electability we've heard recently. There are some things going for her now that won't be going her way later.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72540129223081822692007-10-06T05:00:00.000-04:002007-10-06T05:00:00.000-04:00Great post, Steve! CMAGreat post, Steve! <BR/><BR/>CMAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25475006279495432812007-10-05T21:39:00.000-04:002007-10-05T21:39:00.000-04:00What about Romney? Well, for one thing, he’s a Mor...<I><BR/>What about Romney? Well, for one thing, he’s a Mormon. For now, I’m not saying if that should be a deal-breaker. However, there are (conservative?) pundits who act as if his Mormonism shouldn’t even be a liability to evangelical voters.<BR/><BR/>Well, I disagree. Personal beliefs invariably affect one’s policy judgments. So it does make a difference. We can debate how much of a difference, and we can debate whether his brand of Mormonism is better or worse than Hillary’s brand of Methodism—but it’s a valid issue, and a serious issue at that.</I><BR/><BR/>1. This issue really gets some "evangelicals" show their colors. Romney has been advised, as I recall, by Richard Land to downplay his Mormonism, so if you talk about this issue, some evangelicals will try and shut you down.<BR/><BR/>2. I say "" to evangelical above, because I've read far, far too many lately among the rank and file in the pew who go right along with pretending Mormonism is just another version of Christianity.<BR/><BR/>3. And if you dare point that out, you're "bigoted."<BR/><BR/>4. But this highlights an inherent problem if we vote for Romney - Mormons will use this as pretext to aid their evangelistic efforts. That and (2) are both blatantly dishonest moves, and if we're going to impeach Clinton for not telling the truth, then why vote for Romney?GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.com