Jackson Free Press

In the few days since the Nov. 4 election, we've heard a lot of anger and consternation from readers. Many are wondering how in the world the blatant GOP use of the race card could be so successful in 2003. We have two responses.

First, none of the victors surprised us (although the Anderson loss is vexing), and yet we find amazing hope in the outcome of the election. Put it this way: The national GOP machine (with friends like the national Chamber of Commerce) swept in like a Star Wars starship and shot laser cannons of money at their perceived voter stronghold. If it was lying dormant, they'd wake it up with phone banks using fake surveys, glossy mailers about the "Musgrove-Blackmon" ticket, Colonel Reb wedding cakes and Oral Roberts University students (imported from Oklahoma) going door to door.

But you know what? The machine barely won. Barbour, one of the country's most powerful influence-peddlers, only got 54 percent of his home state. There was a large white turnout, and yet the GOP barely netted a majority in statewide races, and didn't pick up the seats in the Legislature it had hoped for.

The GOP in its current state is in trouble. The Southern Strategy is peaking—there are just not many more votes for them to unearth. However, there are more votes on the flip side—for a candidate who isn't afraid to be fiscally conservative but interested in social progress. That means a candidate who supports local business, public education, and who wants to be smart on crime and not just "tough" on it. We encourage progressive candidates such as Sherman Lee Dillon, whether running as Democrats or independents, to mount campaigns for local office and for the state Legislature—offices they can win, with duties that they can fulfill effectively. And we'd love to see statewide candidates willing to run to the left of the Far Right.

On Civic Journalism
On Election Day, The Clarion-Ledger accused the candidates with getting away with "half-truths." The paper editorialized: "It is a product of voter apathy that such tactics are used, (sic) in order to galvanize anger or resentment toward an opponent rather than build support based on well-thought-out positions, policies and issues. So, to 'blame the victim,' so to speak, the public invites such tactics to some degree."

OK—it's our fault. Oh, and it's the candidates' fault. But … isn't there a missing link here?

That link, of course, is the media. Mississippi's media, most of which is corporate-owned, offers little but "horse race" election coverage. That means voters hear about the tactics, the polls, the sound bites, the campaign stops, the nastiness—but seldom, if ever, about the candidate's actual, detailed issues. Horse-race journalists will quote, for instance, Barbour saying he wants "discipline in the classroom" without ever asking him to explain what that means and what policy he is supporting. (No one in the media ever did, according to his spokesman, a refrain we heard often from candidates.) This issue-less reporting was epidemic this season.

Vapid reporting breeds negative campaigns. Candidates jockey sound bites back and forth. Voters don't even know the records of the candidates, and just end up arguing about the latest bombshell. Why? Because that's all they hear and read about.

We found it intriguing that Clarion-Ledger publisher Bill Hunsberger brought up "civic journalism" in the first sentence of his column in his newspaper's "Changing Face of Jackson" series (which, oddly, took up critical October space where issues-oriented election coverage could have run). He declared that the paper desires "a firm civic journalism presence."

In journalism circles, "civic journalism" has a specific meaning. Civic journalism requires media to go much further than Mississippi media did during this election cycle when all we saw reported was a negative race to the finish line. Jan Schaffer, the director of the Pew Center for Civic Journalism, said in a 1999 speech: "[R]ather than treating elections merely as a contest with winners, civic journalists focus on the decisions voters have to make: Who do they want to hire to run their government?" Civic journalists don't just repeat sound bites; they research the truth of candidates' statements. They focus on issues that matter to voters. They report information about candidates we wouldn't have otherwise.

In our view, The Clarion-Ledger violates "civic" tenets constantly—sensational Jackson crime coverage is front-page news for a statewide paper, the reporting often lacks context and, in our experience, many of the reporters and columnists don't spend enough time interacting and connecting with the community they write about. The "Changing Faces of Jackson" was a decent start, but it's also the sort of reporting we should read every day in the "paper of record," not once every nine months.

In Portland, Maine, the daily paper convened a group of 40 citizens a full year before the 1996 elections there in order to develop a slate of community issues to use while reporting on the candidates. That is a step that could be taken right now, here in Jackson. We invite interested citizens to notify us if you'd like to sit on such a media watchdog group. There is no reason to allow another demoralizing, soul-ripping campaign season like this one to come and go.

Previous Comments

ID

68777

Comment

AP reports that liberals have formed a recruitment group to counter the GOP: "In a battle of the political acronyms, Republicans have GOPAC and now liberals will have PROPAC." ... "'Look at any general poll, we have majorities on these issues,' said Gloria Totten, founder and executive director of the Progressive Majority, referring to issues such as health care, education and the environment. 'But we can't keep saying the American people are with us while we're losing elections.'"

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-12T23:03:12-06:00

ID

68778

Comment

This is pure whistling past the graveyard. The GOP is in trouble? The Southern strategy is "peaking"? Much of the problem lies with the media? Your comments are simply bizarre. You *did* observe the 2000 election, right? You *did* notice that Al Gore couldn't win his home state, couldn't win his boss's state, couldn't win a SINGLE SOUTHERN STATE? Of *course* there aren't that many more votes for the Republicans to unearth in the South... that's what happens when you OWN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE SOUTH'S ELECTORAL VOTES. No need to unearth more: Mission accomplished. And surely you've noticed that Republicans have won 2 of the last 3 Mississippi gubernatorial elections, after a century and a half of electing exactly... ZERO. Surely you noticed that Chip Pickering won in a landslide over Ronnie Shows. Sure you noticed that Haley Barbour won GOING AWAY. And you actually ENCOURAGE the likes of Sherman Lee Dillon to run for statewide office? Are you insane? The only votes he's going to get are the freaks on the left fringe of the Democratic party who think Musgrove is too conservative. Put Dillon in the last gubernatorial race, and he siphons off just enough to let Parker win. I obviously don't hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Democrats in this state are in for a long, long exile in the wilderness. When Haley Barbour brings in the likes of W and Bob Dole and it's standing room only, but Musgrove won't even put the word "Democrat" in his ads - to say nothing of actually calling himself a "conservative" and not bringing in a single national party leader - that is NOT a sign that the state is trending "progressive," whatever in hell that means. It means y'all are screwed.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-12T23:19:44-06:00

ID

68779

Comment

...make that 3 of the last 4 gubernatorial elections.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T11:31:47-06:00

ID

68780

Comment

Greg, your posting shows an embrace of a whole bunch of so-called "conventional wisdom" that too many people have been convinced of. The purpose of this editorial is to shake out these beliefs and turn them inside out and upside down a bit. I can't go deep now because I'm on a deadline. But a fit quick responses while I'm waiting for a phone call: 1. "Southern strategy" is peaking? Absolutely. There is no argument here. Even with a low black turnout in much of the state, Barbour could only get 54 percent of the vote after running such a race-girded campaign. That says a lot in this state. It'd be one thing if he got 54 percent of every person in the state, but he didn't. He got a slight majority of the people who bothered to vote. There is a whopping difference, if people will pay attention to it. 2. To that end, it's about voter turn-out and building coalitions to defeat the southern strategy of the GOP appealing to racism in order to win. Of course, to do that, we must demand better "civic" media in the state, in order to get actual issues out there, and non-Republicans must stop running like Republicans. They have their votes pretty much sewn up, although there is a swing element there they should be concerned about -- especially if/when Barbour stops supporting Adequate Education funding in the state. 3. Of course, I observed the 2000 election. And it's very telling the lengths the GOP is willing to go to ensure that the voter base doesn't grow. As for Al Gore's home state, there are some very important issues there that you may not be taking into account. I'll let you ponder if for a while. I will give you a two-word hint, though: New Democrat. And one more: guns. Besides, I'm not arguing that Al Gore is going to win elections in Mississippi. You're whistling way past our point.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T12:31:03-06:00

ID

68781

Comment

4. Your point about winning two of the last three gubernatorial elections is infused with a (purposeful or not) ignorance of political party history. The party that is turning out and winning 54 percent of the vote in the state right now is the same one that has won statewide elections here, save a few during the confusing party transition period since the 1960s, throughout Mississippi history. It is the old Democratic Party that started morphing into the new Republican Party during the 1960s, thanks to civil rights legislation. Today's Republican Party did not end slavery, or anything else before the 1960s. You can't compare them the way you do here with any sort of authority. Now, I think it's wonderful that the party switcheroo is officially complete. That means that Democrats (or, better, non-Republicans) can get back to running as Democrats (or non-Republicans) -- and start turning out a whole bunch of people who aren't voting right now, because they don't have anyone who is talking directly to them. This is a key point. If this election said anything to non-Republicans, it's that it's time to stop scrapping for all the same voters (the party switch is complete; you can't out-Republican a Republican), and start creating new populist coalitions and a new progressive voting base. The voters are there. This election proves that. But there is work to be done to get them. We never said that non-Republicans don't have challenges ahead. What we said is that the voters are there for the picking if non-Republicans will actually see what's there, instead of listening to so-called wisdom designed to discourage them from even trying. 5. The Pickering-Shows race is not a statewide race, and so not good for the point about statewide possibilities. But it does illustrate our point perfectly that it's not going to work any longer to run as a faux-Republican against a Republican, and win. Those days are over. Thankfully. We believe a more progressive candidate (and that's not hard to find) can beat Pickering, but he/she is going to have to do more than show up. 6. If you actually read what we wrote, we encouraged independents like Dillon to start with local and state Legislature races that they might be able to win. Those are not statewide. Duh. Enough for now. The phone is ringing.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T12:35:02-06:00

ID

68782

Comment

Donna, What you refuse to come to terms with is that whether it's the gradual shift of Dixiecrat voters to registered Republicans, or Musgrove refusing to use the word "Democrat" in his ads, or to invite the first national Democrat down to campaign for him, or Shows losing in a romp to Pickering, the reason Democrats continue to lose in Mississippi is not because they're not "progressive" enough. It's because they're not conservative enough. Do you think that if Musgrove had tagged his spots "Musgrove - Classic Democrat," or brought in Daschle or Hillary! to campaign for him, that he would have lost by just 8 point? Of course not - he would have been lucky to lose by just 18. The rest of the state's congressional districts look a WHOLE LOT MORE like Chip Pickering's than they do Bennie Thompson's. How this can be encouraging to Democrats - whether or not they're "free at last" to really show their true colors - is beyond me. If you say Democrats should actually be encouraged by this, then I want some of the tea whose leaves you're reading. The simple point is that Democrats, progressives - whatever you want to call them - can either evolve politically to suit the taste of the electorate, or they can spend years, perhaps generations, in the wilderness. Einstein said that insanity is defined by doing the same thing over and over again, each time hoping for a different result. If y'all think the key to winning elections in Mississippi - or America, for that matter - is to finally break your moderate shackles and run like liberals - sorry, "progressives" - then knock yourself out. Just don't expect to walk into the Governor's Mansion or the White House in straitjackets.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T14:19:23-06:00

ID

68783

Comment

What I'm wondering is simply this: 1. Do you really think that the reason Democrats have been losing here in Mississippi and across the country is because they resemble Republicans too much, and that the answer is to embrace the principles of modern liberalism (anti-gun, pro-abortion, increased taxes, etc.)?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T14:28:53-06:00

ID

68784

Comment

3. This isn't about heralding the Democrats. They need a good sharp kick in the ass. I happen to believe that the Republican Party could beat the Democrats to being that progressive party that would actually have some staying power. But it's going to have to stop committing two major sins first: (1) playing the race card for cheap votes, and (2) sellling its soul to corporate America. This approach is not going to have staying power; focusing on actual people will. 4. Nothing here is about extreme left-wing radical politics. We define progressivism as devotion to public education, small business and actual free enterprise, constitutional rights, crime prevention as well as incarceration, smart assistance/investment in the poor (not mindless handouts) and moves to alleviate poverty, job training and other similar oh-so-radical ideas that are very much in line with the "taste of the electorate" -- that is, when the media actually disseminate information that doesn't just follow your tired and ineffectual us-vs.-them paradigm. I do wonder, though, why if you're so confident that we're so far out in, er, left field about all this -- why bother spending the time to argue with our uninformed ilk and call us names and accuse us of insanity? Aren't we silly folk a waste of your time? Why not just go rest easy and let us morons whistle among ourselves?

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T14:55:43-06:00

ID

68785

Comment

[My posts got out of order. This goes above the one above.] Greg, you are one assumption-making individual and your logic is making me go cross-eyed. Quickly: 1. Lord knows, this discussion isn't about Musgrove or Shows. They are NOT the future. It would be hard to be much more conservative than Musgrove or Shows and still even try to call oneself a Democrat. These men are not going to incite new voters or a progressive base; they're too busy fighting for Republican votes. Interesting point you made for us, though: If Barbour can only get 54 percent of the state, after playing the race card and parading national Republicans through the state, and calling in million-dollar favors from the U.S. Chamber--and against a bad candidate like Musgrove--the GOP's got some work to do before it shores up that voter base. And this sure ain't about Pickering vs. Thompson. You are so missing the point with your tendency to paint everything in extremes. This is not about the extremes. 2. We, or many people, do not use the word "progressive" interchangeably with either Democrat or "liberal," much to the chagrin of folks who want to lock everyone into little non-thinking political boxes (which is why so many people aren't voting). As much as you want to create that false dilemma, and accuse anyone who rejects it of being "insane," the majority of Americans desire more choices than the tired old liberal-vs.-conservative, elephant-vs.-donkey machine politics. That paradigm is greatly benefiting the current GOP these days so, of course, they're going to keep playing that card until it won't play anymore. But it is going to work increasingly less, especially as this GOP continues to commit many of the sins it accuses the "other side" of. The things you seem to think are signs of strength may not be for the long haul, or even for another year.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T14:57:43-06:00

ID

68786

Comment

Greg wrote: "Do you really think that the reason Democrats have been losing here in Mississippi and across the country is because they resemble Republicans too much, and that the answer is to embrace the principles of modern liberalism (anti-gun, pro-abortion, increased taxes, etc.)?" Donna writes: Greg, my answer is simply this. The answer is to stop letting the far right tell the rest of us what we think such as you're trying to do here. You are wrong when you try to paint everyone who isn't with you exactly with some broad brush. The fact is, there is a whole lot of political breathing room that doesn't support racist-pandering and promiscuously going to bed with a different corporation every night. And the Republican Party needs to start figuring that out, and stop taking voters for granted. The people are watching. You don't have to believe me; just allow time to play it out. "You're either with us on the far-right fringe, or you're a damned liberal" is a short-sighted strategy. And stupid, to boot.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T15:05:35-06:00

ID

68787

Comment

The far right isn't trying to tell you what you think. If that's what you believe I'm doing, read my posts again. I may be making assumptions, but they're based squarely on what I read in JFP and from what's said on this site. If I've made mistaken assumptions, please let me know. That's partly why I'm here - to see if y'all are really under the impression that the key to defeating conservatives is to be as much unlike them as possible. If I sound like I'm questioning anyone's intelligence, it's because I am: How can anyone possibly be expected to be taken seriously when they try to spin an 8-point win against an incumbent, a 3-for-4 gubernatorial victory (which was a few thousand votes from being 4-for-4), and a Pickering landslide, into a warning that Republicans have much to fear from an increasingly frustrated electorate? I'm certainly not trying to extend extremes into generalities re Pickering/Shows. Far from it. My point was precisely that the 2nd district is an electoral anamoly: What makes "progressives" think they can win the 1st, 3rd, or 4th, when a relative conservative like Shows gets blown out? Finally, I'm not painting anyone who's not "exactly with me" with a broad brush, or any brush at all. I'm the first to tell the Republicans they have faults. They're not exactly pursuing limited government spending, for instance. My point throughout this thread has simply been: On what planet does the Democrats' getting blown out of the South, uprooted from the Mississippi and California governors' mansions, and losing most of their statewide races, add up to bad news for the Repulicans?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T15:29:32-06:00

ID

68788

Comment

In the 17 gubernatorial elections over the past 2 years, Republicans have won 15 of them, for a net gain of 4 governorships. Republicans won the White House in 2000, still have the House, and re-captured the Senate. They spanked the Democrats in the mid-terms last year, when history says they should have taken a beating. Musgrove brings in not one national Democrat, calls himself a conservative, and still loses by 8 points. I ask again: How does this support any theory that voters are itching to chuck the Republicans if only a "real progressive" will step forward?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T15:39:19-06:00

ID

68789

Comment

Don't get me wrong. I'd love nothing more than to think that Democrats will sail into '04 with Terry McAuliffe at the helm, Al Sharpton giving the keynote address in Boston, and a liberal northeastern elite as their nominee. I just want to know, yes or no: Are you really saying that the key to victory for Democrats/Liberals/Progressives/Whatever-You-Want-To-Call-Yourselves is to adopt views on key social and economic issues that are in sharp contrast to the Republicans? Yes, or no?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T15:45:10-06:00

ID

68790

Comment

Broad brush, meet Mr. Griffith: "... and that the answer is to embrace the principles of modern liberalism (anti-gun, pro-abortion, increased taxes, etc.)?" No one here mentioned "modern liberalism" or many of the other accusations/assumptions you are hurling this way. It strikes me that you are arguing with your yourself inside a very small box. And I just don't think most Americans (or Mississippians) want to smother in such a small space with so few options. We sure don't. I'm not going to rehash what I've already said to answer your latest post -- we're getting repetitive here -- but I will point out that you're expounding the very political logic that we reject even as you try to put words in my mouth and then bash me for it: Whether statewide or in Pickering's district (redistricted, incidentally to benefit Republicans), Dems and Republicans just can't keep scrapping over the same limited pool of ultra-conservative voters, even as more than half the electorate stays home. A humongous boat (and opportunity) is being missed here. Republicans know this, too: It is one reason we will hear New Republicans (as I like to call the current GOP) arguing very loudly that it would be stupid for a less-conservative Democrat to run against someone on the far right. Couldn't win, no way, forget it, wink wink. That's a self-serving prophecy. For instance, Greg, I suspect that you wouldn't be bothering to protest so much over this concept if you thought there wasn't a weakness in the GOP armor. If not, why not keep quiet and let the hated progressives go screw up of our own accord? I do suspect that thou doth protest too much.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T15:45:21-06:00

ID

68791

Comment

Either, or? Far right or far left? With us, or against us? No thanks, Greg: I don't fall into that little trap quite so easily. I've said what I think, and I'm sorry it's a bit too complicated to fit into one of your boxes. And I used to color outside the lines when I was a kid, too. Oh yes, and here's another "broad brush" from you for anyone keeping count: "I'd love nothing more than to think that Democrats will sail into '04 with Terry McAuliffe at the helm, Al Sharpton giving the keynote address in Boston, and a liberal northeastern elite as their nominee." Please.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T15:48:36-06:00

ID

68792

Comment

1. Terry McAuliffe has been, is currently, and very likely still will be in '04, head of the DNC. 2. Al Sharpton will get a big 'ol fat seat at the table in Boston. Bank it. 3. Dean is your man if Hillary! doesn't run. What part of "liberal northeastern elite" did I get wrong?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T15:56:34-06:00

ID

68793

Comment

Greg wrote: "I ask again: How does this support any theory that voters are itching to chuck the Republicans if only a 'real progressive' will step forward?" I'll call your question with another question: "How does it *not* prove that theory?" I know, Greg, that you don't like numbers unless you bring them up, but the fact of the 2000 election is that, especially when Gore and Nader's voters are combined, the Republicans lost big when it came to the popular vote. I actually think you, overall, are arguing our point better than we ever could for folks who are paying attention to your comments and aren't firmly inside your box. Clearly, clearly, the Democratic Leadership Council & Co. has been barking up the wrong tree: free trade unfettered by concern for people and U.S. jobs, federal and unfunded education mandates, going along with Bush's Iraq policies and watching body bags come home, support of Patriot Acts, just to name a few. It's not working out for Dems to run as faux-Republicans, as you point out. What is needed is a New New Democrat, and that's not what you apparently think it is; your stereotypes are laughable and dated. Sharpton? McAuliffe? Clinton? Please. I'm done now. I have a meeting and a deadline. Ta.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T16:01:29-06:00

ID

68794

Comment

I love numbers. Especially the ones that come from the Electoral College. So I'll just assume from your last post that your ideal candidate would: - Repeal NAFTA. Tariffs on imported goiods are always good for the CPI. - Increase spending on public education, despite the fact that the more we spend on it, the worse it performs, and that the only realistic way to get more money for education is to raise taxes - Pull out of Iraq (I can't imagine your ideal candidate would actually strengthen our presence there), sending terorists everywhere another Mogadishu message, only this time amplified by a thousand So, to summarize: Your guy would go back to circa 1972 trade policies, raise taxes, leave the Iraqi people to the savagery of the Ba'athists, and let terrorists everywhere know that we run from any fight that gets a little nasty. Oh wait - what's that sound? Hark! It's the rumble of millions of voters' feet, stampeding to vote that guy in!

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T16:12:53-06:00

ID

68795

Comment

Re civic journalism, there's a geat--but sadly short--interview with Paul Krugman on Alternet.org. Krugman ffers some funny insights on jornalistic objectivity. Here's the link: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17169

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-13T17:08:02-06:00

ID

68796

Comment

I think that sound is the sound of people of every political stripe starting to grumble about how trickle down economics isn't working this tiime either, about how they have to choose between the rent/mortgage payment and their health insurance premium, about how public school education is getting worse, and about the Republican version of free enterprise means free to be ripped off by the GOP's corporate big=wig sponsors. Democrats don't seem to have the solution to those problems, but Republicans damn sure don't either. People all over the country are leaving the Democratic party in driblets, not droves, but they aren't exactly flocking to the Republican party--excpet in the Deep South, where it's an either/or proposition. In states where there are a wider variety of well-funded political platforms to choose from, people who are switching sides aren't going to the GOP. They're waiting, not voting. That's why it's so important for the GOP to minimize the number of voters and why they regularly engage in voter fraud and voter intimidation. When a candidate with whom large numbers of ELIGIBLE voters could identify with and who spoke with plans instead of rhetoric and race baiting, comes along, those people will vote. That seems to be the defining characteristic of "progressives." And their numbers are growing at a faster clip than the rate of people switching to the GOP, except again in the South, where there is a curious level of cultural pride in being misinformed.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-13T17:23:46-06:00

ID

68797

Comment

Just have to love that Ladd logic. Barbour outpolls Musgrove by over 63,000 votes, or approximately 7.3% of the total votes cast for all candidates, and he just 'barely won'. Gore outpolls Bush by almost 540,000 votes, or approximately .005% of the total votes cast for all candidates, and Ladd makes it sound like a popular vote romp. Even if you include Nader and the rest, the popular vote margin versus Bush is just over 4,413,000, or 4.2% of the total votes cast. Ladd, of course, characterizes this as the GOP losing big. Your wasting time time Greg. Plus your attributing to Ladd and her rag more power than she/it remotely has. She's not a player, just a talker.

Author

VBell

Date

2003-11-13T17:42:21-06:00

ID

68798

Comment

VBell, you're missing the point intentionally it seems, ignoring one set of numbers in favor of a set that fits your paradigm. The point is that there is a large universe of eligible voters who didn't vote. Those people didn't like ANY of the candidates. People who voted in this past election does not equal people who COULD have voted. The number of eligible voters who didn't vote + the number of people who didn't vote for Barbour = a far larger number than the people who actually voted for Barbour. That's called "addition."

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-13T17:50:59-06:00

ID

68799

Comment

Greg wrote: "So, to summarize: Your guy would go back to circa 1972 trade policies, raise taxes, leave the Iraqi people to the savagery of the Ba'athists, and let terrorists everywhere know that we run from any fight that gets a little nasty." Hark, Greg, what's that sound? It's the big splash you make when you fall head first into the moat between your reality and other people's, between your goofy summary of my words and what I actually said. I'm so glad you're posting here -- you are giving our readers a textbook example of what it means to string faulty assumptions together and jump to ridiculous conclusions about what other people say. You cram words in my mouth (I hesitate to call them actual "ideas"), so that you can criticize me for crap that you came up with. Keep it up. It's only your own house of cards that you're tearing down in public. It's kind of fun to watch. Thanks, Nia for pointing out what's happening nationally: it's the swing voter that's the one to watch, not the right-wing zealots. And you're right that they're waiting for a candidate who represents actual American values. I think it's also true for the South, and Mississippi, and very possibly enough to form a majority, that when the right candidate figures out how to tap the potential, we're going to hear a whole of gasps of disbelief coming from folks like Greg who seem incredibly out of touch with the American people.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T17:52:45-06:00

ID

68800

Comment

That is precisely the point: There are many, many voters out there waiting to be energized by candidates who have *people* on the brain. Any candidate, or party, or any party apologist ignores this at their own peril as we go forward. The difference, of course, between the apple (Miss. gov race) and the orange (2000 prez election) is that a candidate with all sorts of handicaps, as Greg has detailed for us, could have gotten 4 percent more of Mississippi voters (35,000 votes or so? Nia has the calculator) and sent Barbour and his machine and his White House friends back to Washington. That, my friends, doesn't sound like an un-shakeable revolution, considering how many people were disgusted by both candidates, no matter whose logic you use. In the case of the Florida oranges, more than a half a million more Americans wanted a different president/party in office: I would indeed argue that the GOP "lost big" in that election, popularity wise. That electoral win certainly does not a revolution make, either. BTW, I wonder if Greg understands the history of the precious electoral college and why it was put there in the first place. Can you imagine what would have happened had the situation been reversed and Gore won the electoral votes and lost the popular vote -- that electoral puppy would have outta there so fast, it'd make your head spin. The alternative universe outcome just wouldn't have been Democratic, would it, Greg?

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T18:16:08-06:00

ID

68801

Comment

A couple of thoughts from me: 1. Just because the republicans have been winning in various places, doesn't mean they're right. 2. Just because republicans pulled the south in the last presidential election does not mean that they have a lock on the south as a whole and that there are 'no more votes here for them to win.' 3. Why do so many republicans think that Senator Clinton is so bad, and insist on invoking her as some sort of icon of evil democrats? I'm really confused by that one. 4. Parrallel to Musgrove avoiding the label 'democrat', scharwzenegger avoided the word 'republican' in his campaign in California. The fact of the matter, the labels don't mean much anymore. 5. I think the republican party is in trouble, and I've heard that from some staunch republicans. Why is it that under republican leadership, the size of government has expanded - what happened to the party of small govenment? What happened to the party of fiscal responsibility? What happened to the party free enterprise (as opposed to corporate subsidies?). The republicans I know that are happiest with the current party are those that enjoy the race politics and the plans for world domination. And that's not what the GOP has stood for historically. There's plenty of disaffected republicans (just like there are disaffected democrats). Just because they've won a few races doesn't mean they don't have deep problems.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-13T18:25:34-06:00

ID

68802

Comment

VBell, Heck, we could fisk Ladd all day long. There's her accusation that I'm painting my opponents with a broad brush, when she says this in her very first post: "...theyíd [Republicans] wake it up with phone banks using fake surveys, glossy mailers about the ìMusgrove-Blackmonî ticket, Colonel Reb wedding cakes and Oral Roberts University students (imported from Oklahoma) going door to door." No broad brush there, nosiree. Then there's this: "The GOP in its current state is in trouble. The Southern Strategy is peakingóthere are just not many more votes for them to unearth." They've been winning - and by increasingly bigger margins - offices like governor and lt. governor. They're a combined 4-for-6 in those two offices alone over the last 3 elections. And they're doing it with "barely a majority," according to her. I'm no super-smart number-adder-up, but I'd say that there are PLENTY of new votes still to be had... they keep getting more with every election! And of course, the whole reason I posted in the first place: "...we'd love to see statewide candidates willing to run to the left of the Far Right." Shows did it, and he got steamrolled by Pickering. Musgrove did it, and he lost by 8 as an incumbent. But somehow running even further to the left is the recipe for success? I suppose that means there's a critical mass of voters who'd LIKE to vote for Musgrove and Shows, but doggone it, they're TOO CONSERVATIVE for me, so I'm just gonna have to flip the switch for the guy who's EVEN MORE CONSERVATIVE. I know when I stepped into the booth and realized Barbour was JUST A HAIR TOO LIBERAL for me, I voted for Musgrove.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T18:32:40-06:00

ID

68803

Comment

You know Greg, I'd find you alot more interesting if you weren't so snotty about everything. Underneath all the name calling and disparaging remarks, it may be that you have a point, but I'm having a hard time discerning what it is. I do think the democrats need to run candidates that are more "leftist" than those that they tend to run. Partially, just to see what would happen, to open up the debate into new territory. It's not about winning every race. It's about the campaigns, the discussions, involving more and more people in the process. And, as I said before, just because they're winning races, doesn't make them right. Millions of people like watching reality TV - that doesn't make it good. And if your point is that republicans are going to win every single statewide race for the next few decades, well, it's not going to change my beliefs, and it's not going to stop me from expressing my opinion, and I'm not going to give up.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-13T18:41:41-06:00

ID

68804

Comment

Oh, and as to the comments about "liberal northeastern elite" - I believe the constitution was framed, at least in party, by the 'liberal elite'. I'm not sure why so many people bash the liberal elite - they're often good at thinking up new ideas, and framing debates in new ways. Which, for me, is quite useful

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-13T18:44:40-06:00

ID

68805

Comment

Fisk? Greg, your first example there is not a broad brush; everything I list there the Republicans did here in Mississippi over the last month. That's simply fact. Your second point we've beaten to death already. It is not a "broad brush" to say that the Southern Strategy is past its prime; it clearly is, although it likely put Barbour into office last week, although by only four percentage points (a vital four, though, I'd add, thus my "trouble" conclusion). What gets me is that anyone would try to argue that it isn't past its prime. It's not exactly a badge of honor for the GOP. Your last statement assumes that most people in the state are on the extreme right. I don't happen to agree with you, especially when you take into account all the folks who are too disgusted to vote currently. And again you're disproving your point by trying to argue that a Democratic conservative can't beat a Republican conservative, therefore only conservative Democrats should keep running against conservative Republicans. Huh? I don't know how broad that brush is, but it is sure is confusing. Again, Greg, Ronnie Shows isn't exactly the candidate who's going to light a fire under the electorate. You brought him up, not us. So argue with yourself about him.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T18:58:47-06:00

ID

68806

Comment

Kate, My point is this: Outside of the 212 and 415 area codes, Democrats have steadily been losing ground over the past several years. Republicans have picked up 4 governorships, re-captured the U.S. Senate, retained their hold on the House, and won the White House. In a hypothetical race, Bush beats Dean, the Democratic front-runner, by something like 18 points. Here in Mississippi, Republicans are 4-for-6 in Governor and Lt. Governor over the last three elections, and picked up Treasurer to boot. With Shows/Pickering and Musgrove/Barbour, the LOSER in BOTH RACES was a conservative Democrat. So WHAT IN GOD'S NAME makes you and Donna Ladd think that the key to beating the Republicans is to run candidates who are LESS CONSERVATIVE? I'm not talking about who's right or wrong here, I'm just talking about strategy. JFP claims it's the "smart alternative," and I'm just wondering how seriously I'm supposed to take someone who thinks that by moving to the left, the Democrats can start winning again, when since at least 1994 the behavior of the electorate at both the national and state level has proven overwhelmingly otherwise. Simple question.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T19:06:18-06:00

ID

68807

Comment

Donna, Neither party has a monopoly on questionable election practices, as buses that run all over Jackson on election day, and ballots with Democrats highlighted in yellow marker, attest. Both are things that the Democrats have done on a single day. You're seriously misunderstanding my point about Shows and Musgrove. You seem to be saying that because those Democrats ran conservative and lost, that the answer is to run LESS CONSERVATIVE next time. I'm suggesting that you'd have as much luck, when trying to get to Memphis, to drive EVEN FASTER toward New Orleans.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T19:15:03-06:00

ID

68808

Comment

I'd rather put my eggs in the "liberal elite" basket anyday than in the "race baiting, voter intimidation, corporate welfare elite" basket.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-13T19:24:20-06:00

ID

68809

Comment

Greg, no one said here that Democrats are perfect; in fact, if you actually followed the site, you'd know that we are willing to kick and pummel them idiots just like anyone else. I am not beholden to any party or its idiocies; neither are most of the bloggers here. That said, the lengths the GOP is willing to go to to PREVENT voting is much more shocking to me personally than buses hauling folks to the polls. But if the Dems violate eleciton laws, they should get in trouble for it. But so should the Republicans. You are seriously misunderstanding my point, because you refuse to believe that anyone could possibly come to a different conclusion than you have. I see what you're saying, and I find it completely illogical. And it requires accepting premises that I don't accept, as I've explained in some detail. It's about turnout: Of course, Republicans want Democrats to continue running faux-Republicans, so they can keep beating them at their own game, and so the rest of the electorate, many of whom are more progressive-minded, will not turn out. And no matter how many times you keep repeating the word "Shows" and screaming "LESS CONSERVATIVE" on this blog, it doesn't make any more sense. It's clear why you want people to believe what you're saying -- it benefits the New GOP -- but many people are simply capable of thinking beyond your rhetoric. Sorry.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T19:24:58-06:00

ID

68810

Comment

Yes, Nia, and look out for that "conservative corporate elite." Them buggers are particularly vexing. Then there's the Southeastern Determined Non-Elite Elite Roundtable. They're trouble, too.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T19:27:41-06:00

ID

68811

Comment

Kate, The problem with liberal northern elites is that ever since Kennedy died, they have been singularly unelectable as presidential candidates. Perhaps it's because they want us to keep ponying up huge amounts of cash for public education, but would never send their own kids to public school. Or that they are usually to be found at the extreme left end of the abortion debate. Or that they seem to honestly believe they know what's best for the middle class, and would have us fund the testing of their theories. Could be any number of things, but it's beside the point. My point was that by nominating a Howard Dean or a John Kerry, you're going to lose every state but Massachusetts, Vermont, and California. Think McGovern in '72, Mondale in '84, and Dukakis in '88. Thus my question: When you've seen what happens time after time by running a staunch liberal who's soft on defense, what makes you think that doing it AGAIN is going to give you a different result?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T19:30:53-06:00

ID

68812

Comment

In other words... RESOLVED: Running to the left will DECREASE, not increase, the number of votes you get. Unless, of course, someone here can illustrate the general leftward trend of American voters since, say, 1968.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T19:35:52-06:00

ID

68813

Comment

Greg wrote: "When you've seen what happens time after time by running a staunch liberal who's soft on defense, what makes you think that doing it AGAIN is going to give you a different result?" Greg, you are one of most confounding people I've ever tried to have a discussion with. You just make stuff up. No one here has called for "running a staunch liberal who's soft on defense," whatever that means. (Beholder, Greg. Greg, Beholder.) Is your world really that black-white -- don't answer that; I read your JacksonCrime blog entry about the JFP and the crime-race connection -- that you honestly believe that anything/one left of Shows/Barbour/Bush is some kneejerk liberal radical who wants to make daisy chains with Saddam Hussein? Nothing is that simplistic. Likewise, not every person north of the Mason-Dixon line fits your stereotypes, just as not all of southerners do, either. And, personally, I hate the Kennedys with a passion.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T19:41:29-06:00

ID

68814

Comment

Greg, to me the issue is not about who's winning in the short run, it's about getting people involved. And, I don't think that the country is moving so far to the right as you believe. The Gore/Bush election showed us that the country is pretty nearly divided. AND Bush has reversed his policy on things like nation building and gov't interference in private lives while in office. I'm starting to hear stories (and would like to find some data on the issue) that the republican party is NOT solidly behind him at this point. My point is, that things are not quite as black and white as you seem to assume, and I don't think the republicans have a stranglehold on the nation, and I don't think the nation as a whole is moving to the right. And, I don't see how the JFP urging readers to go participate in the political process makes them somehow not the 'smart alternative.' And, I'll say it again. Please quit being so snotty, and quit yelling, and let's discuss this. There are some interesting points here, and you seem to have alot of experience, but it's all mucked up by lots of hollering.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-13T20:03:01-06:00

ID

68815

Comment

This probably won't resonate with my latest pen-pal, but this seems like a good place to suggest that anyone who hasn't to go read Todd's story of a few issues back about "new progressives" and what's wrong with the left-right paradigm, and why so many people are starting to hate it: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=1771_0_9_0_C

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T20:07:18-06:00

ID

68816

Comment

Donna, Nowhere have I said that everyone above the Mason-Dixon line is a radical liberal. What I *have* said is that those northerners who happen to be liberal and come from an elite background and choose to run for president have, since Kennedy died, been soundly rebuffed by American voters. They are in a class by themselves when it comes to failing in this regard. And nowhere have I said that everyone to the left of Shows/Barbour/Bush is some kneejerk liberal. What I have said is that the notion of there being some seething pool of disaffected voters out there, ready to cast their ballots for someone far less conservative than the likes of Shows or Musgrove, is silly. Your premise rests on the assumption that there is a significant number of voters who are staying home when the left-most candidate on the political continuum is a little too far to the right for their tastes. I'm saying that's ridiculous, and I'm wondering what evidence you can give of this assumption, because if you're right, somebody at the RNC needs to a wake-up call. As it is, they just keep snarfing up governorships and congressional seats. Voters, with very few exceptions, vote for the person who occupies the space on the political continuum nearest them. In this sense, virtually all voters end up voting for a candidate who is to the left or the right of their ideal. For example, if on that continuum Greg, Donna, Musgrove and Barbour fall here: *--------Donna----Musgrove----Barbour----Greg--------* ...then Donna goes and votes for Musgrove; Greg for Barbour. You claim that there are a lot of people who WOULD get out and vote IF ONLY a sufficiently liberal/progressive candidate would run. I'm suggesting that your evidence is anecdotal, and flawed on top of that; that the people who say they're staying home because all the candidates are too conservative are the same ones who stay at home for EVERY election no matter who's running; this is simply their latest excuse as to why they do so. Don't you think that if there were significant numbers of such voters just waiting to be courted, Musgrove would have run left, instead of right, with the intention of getting their votes? Or do you know something Musgrove's team didn't? Or could it be that those voters are simply not there at all?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T20:37:47-06:00

ID

68817

Comment

Greg, now you're just being silly. There's no such thing as the "extreme left end of the abortion debate." There are extreme right-wing Christians who believe that they and their mal- and misinterpreted religious rhetoric should have control over women's bodies. And then there are people who believe that only physicians licensed by the state should practice medicine and that women and men should have control over their own reproductive process. How is that extreme anything?

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-13T20:45:55-06:00

ID

68818

Comment

And re the leftward swing of voters since 1968. Duh! Doh! Any woman who has voted since then has voted "leftish" since they didn't vote in large numbers before that thanks to conservatives who fought against women having the right to vote. Hell, practically all nonwhite people since that much-fought-against-by-conservatives thing known as the Voters Rights Act. (You have heard of the '60s and that whole mess, right?) And then let's see, how about the ERA? It was widely supported by Republicans, but that was back when they were known for being slightly liberal. Oops! I forgot, neo-Republicans like to keep that particular dust mote swept under the rug. And then there's desegregation, another leftist idea. Any voting woman who has a college degree, since conservatives fought against women being accpeted into degree programs of any kind. And uhhh, give me a minute, I'll think of some more.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-13T20:53:30-06:00

ID

68819

Comment

Moving on to the second part of the editorial: Nia, I liked the interview with Krugman; I'm a big admirer of his these days as well. To me, he embodies what journalism is supposed to be: someone doing the homework and the research and then calling the truth as the research shows it to be. I especially liked his comments about objectivity vs. even-handedness: Krugman said: "So rather than really try to report things objectively, they settle for being even-handed, which is not the same thing. One of my lines in a column ñ in which a number of people thought I was insulting them personally ñ was that if Bush said the earth was flat, the mainstream media would have stories with the headline: 'Shape of the Earth ñ Views Differ.' Then they'd quote some Democrats saying that it was round." Donna again: This is exactly the problem that I've written about many times on the blog: the best journalism is not simply a reciting of the same number of quotes for both "sides," usually extreme, of an issue. It's such a trap that our country has fallen into, and it's evident above on this thread. Greg, for instance, simply can't seem to comprehend that there are people out there who disagree with Bush/Barbour policies who are not far-left, "tax and spend" liberals. It has to be one extreme; if not, it must be the other, by damn. This division, of course, leaves so many people out of the political equation and has led to our high voter apathy. Ultimately, though, I blame the media more than people like Greg for these extremist paradigms that cause people to hold these faulty assumptions. The corporate media, especially, tries to present most everything in this "even-handed" way that Krugman talks about that often leaves most of the context on the cutting-room floor. It's no wonder so many Americans think they have to choose one extreme or the other. And you can't have a decent conversation because the second you try to criticize one side, then you're a card-carrying member of the "other side." Yuck.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T20:53:34-06:00

ID

68820

Comment

Donna, Well, as for Stauffer's article, he says: "The press and parties will call you "soccer moms" or "NASCAR dads" and will snicker behind your back because you're not engaged in politics." Um... soccer moms and NASCAR dads got those cute nicknames precisely *because* they're involved in politics; thus the scramble in the 90's for the former and the scramble today for the latter. As for the notion that third-parties are making serious dents in the traditional two-party structure, I'm afraid the reality is that they've been cropping up every few election cycles, only to peter out again by the next one. Nothing new here. Claiming that the Anderson and Perot candidacies are solid proof of an emerging "third way" of American politics is absurd. The only thing they're proof of is how few people actually vote for them. I tell this to my libertarian friends all the time. In modern American politics, third-party candidates gain traction only when they become viewed as "protest" parties: Perot and Nader are case studies in this. What they have in common is not that they get themselves elected, but - in the cases of Perot in '92 and Nader in 2000 - that they siphon off enough votes from their nearest neighbor to throw the election to their common opponent. But that's a far cry from actually having a mass migration away from the major parties.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T21:01:19-06:00

ID

68821

Comment

Greg, you're doing your best NOT to see what she's saying. Donna didn't say that eligible voters are staying home because the candidates presented so far aren't liberal enough. That was your premise. She said many voters are staying home because candidates don't represent their interests and run campaigns that are off-putting. Kate, there's tons of evidence of Bush's support waning among Republicans. Hell even the Shrub's father doesn't support his foreign or economic policies.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-13T21:02:35-06:00

ID

68822

Comment

Nia, If you're going to make sweeping generalizations about where the parties stood on the Voting Rights Act of 1964, I suggest you get your facts straight. 5 seconds at Google (or even reading my earlier post on the topic) would have helped. In the House, 61% of Democrats (152 to 96) voted for the Voting Rights Act of 1964, as opposed to 80% of Republicans (138 to 34). In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 to 27) voted for, as opposed to 82% of Republicans (27 to 6). Let's look at that again: House: Democrats - 61% Republicans - 80% Senate: Democrats - 69% Republicans - 82% The rest of your post descends into incoherence, and has nothing at all to do with why running left is the key to winning more elections.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T21:11:30-06:00

ID

68823

Comment

Donna, I'll take it from your referring to me in the third person, and waxing poetic over former Enron advisor Paul Krugman, that you've decided not to answer the simple question I've made an effort to ask over and over here. Your admiration of Krugman is proof positive you're not living on this planet. Observe the results of the Krugman Blooper contest to see what I mean.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T21:18:18-06:00

ID

68824

Comment

Greg, please stop analyzing what I'm saying if you're not even going to read what I've written. For one, you're the one bandying about the word "liberal," as if it's some four-letter word -- and I have told you repeatedly and pointedly that *I* do not use it interchangeably with "progressive." I don't in print or in my head. But you ignore me, and then you still arrogantly try to tell me what *I'm* thinking: You wrote about me just above: "You claim that there are a lot of people who WOULD get out and vote IF ONLY a sufficiently liberal/progressive candidate would run." WOULD YOU STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH ESPECIALLY IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING??? I am so tired of beating this dead horse. Greg, there are many potential voters out there who don't like the choices as they are and are not going along with, or contributing to, the Republican revolution as you have described it. They want other options. Frankly, it's hard to go further right than the current White House without getting into some serious nastiness, so one could deduct that they might desire candidate options that are slightly more progressive (or "left," as we say in the editorial) than the options that are there. Honey, that does not mean that they have skated to the far left of the spectrum. The people are trying to reclaim the reasonable middle here. Yes, that's anecdotal and opinion, but so is everything else on this blog! And your deduction about Musgrove is silly, especially in this state. Did it ever occur to you that maybe he is actually the conservative he says he is? In this state, as you will recall, it has taken the last 40 years for the parties to switch. It's not like "conservative Democrat" has been impossible here -- it's just becoming much more of an anachronism now that the party switch is pretty much complete here. Thus, it's making a whole lot less sense than it used to run as a conservative Democrat -- now that the opponent is actually more conservative. Old-style Democrats should go ahead and switch to the GOP, and other new-style Democrats should take their place. It's a logical outcome of the party switch. And as I think Kate pointed out, it makes no sense for our society if both parties are alike -- why have a two-party system then!?!

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T21:24:22-06:00

ID

68825

Comment

Greg, there goes that dyslexia again. Conservative does not equal Republican. Nor does it equal Democrat. Liberal does not equal Democrat; nor does it equal Republican. Those are four very different, though admittedly often intersecting, subsets of voters. And Republicans in 1964 were WAY more liberal than they are now. Goggling isn't everything. And, duh, no one said that running left is the key to winning elections. Oops! You said that, didn't you?

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-13T21:25:21-06:00

ID

68826

Comment

And, no, I don't think for one moment that people who are reared in two- (or one-) party machine politics will run out and try to court new voters until they have it proved to them beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's the only way they will survive. (Welcome to reality, Democrats.) It is very likely that the GOP could do much better now nationally if they would reject the Southern Strategy and court more moderate voters. But do you see them doing that? They're afraid to; thus they keep pandering to racists to put them over the top. One of my major beefs with both parties is that they want to control the voting base these days -- i.e. they want to fight for the voters they know are there, which is an odd way of playing it safe. They don't want to stand up and speak the truth because it might be interpreted, or lifted out of context, as "too liberal" (or whatever). The parties themselves, neither of them, is doing a good job at energizing a higher voter turnout -- because they're afraid of what that will mean and that it will help their competition more. So they're playing a negative game and fighting over the same pool. And I absolutely agree with you that that pool has become more conservative. It now needs to be widened dramatically. I don't agree with Howard Dean on every issue, but one thing I like about him is his going-for-it attitude; he's banking on the people -- more so than we've seen a candidate do in a while. There is no real comparison to Mondale or Dukakis or any of your other "liberal" punching bags in that respect. It's a gamble, but it's a refreshing one, even if he only takes Massachusetts, as you say. If he doesn't screw up in a major way, I'll certainly respect him the next day even if he loses, which is more than I can say for a lot of candidates of late.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T21:25:48-06:00

ID

68827

Comment

Googling isn't everything either!

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-13T21:28:16-06:00

ID

68828

Comment

OK, Greg, you're really showing your hand with your posting about the so-called "Voting Rights Act of 1964." Without checking, I believe your numbers refer to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that finally passed in the madness after the Kennedy assassination. Do you simply not understand that in 1964 the parties were completely different? And the battle over civil-rights legislation was long and hard in the years preceding their actual passage with the old southern Democrats (today's New Republicans) leading the charge against federal civil-rights protections? The voting numbers can't be understood from a quick Google. And you might have learned that many people voted for these acts under extreme pressure after what happened in my hometown and other places. Your numbers don't add a thing, pro or con, to what Nia said.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T21:56:13-06:00

ID

68829

Comment

And you know what, Greg, I do live on this planet earth, even if I disagree with you or like something Paul Krugman wrote. He also lives here and has rights, just as you do. There is room for me, and for Nia and Krugman and for a whole lot of other people who might happen to think that your arguments are shallow and limiting and who aren't willing to play by the rules that you and the Republican Party set out. You show amazing hubris: You present a false dilemma question for me, based on your own misintepretation -- purposeful, I can only assume -- of my thoughts, and then have the balls to chide me for refusing to answer your question or play your either-or game. What if I don't agree with either of your options? Life, or politics, isn't a true-false quiz. The simple truth for me is that more Americans need their voices heard, whether or not they agree with the current rendition of the GOP. More Americans need to reject a limited either-or game and take back the political system from the big money and far-right forces that are trying to hold it hostage and to convince the rest of us that we are powerless in the face of such a Republican stronghold. Of course, that's not true, and a simple calcultor proves it. And this is America. It's OK to consider oneself progressive, or liberal, or moderate; it's OK to believe that things can get better and that we can heal community and prevent crime and have a good public education system and protect our constitutional rights and reject fear-mongering and racism. It's OK to want all sorts of people here and a lot of different ideas bubbling around. It's OK to reject being played like puppets by people who don't agree with us and want us to apologize every second if we don't fit into the far-right paradigm. It's also OK to look would-be puppeteers squarely in the face, or the computer monitor as it were, and say one thing strongly and clearly: "Nope. I'm not playing your game."

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T21:56:24-06:00

ID

68830

Comment

Nia, American politics today is a one-dimensional linear scale. It is a horizontal line that has a left, a right, and a center. Spare me more talk of "intersecting subsets of voters." I'm familiar with all sorts of two-dimensional grids, but when it comes down to it, virtually all voters and candidates come down somewhere on this line. THerefore, when you want to move away from your current position, which is part of what Donna is suggesting Democrats can now do, now that they've been "unbound," you can move in only two directions: *basically* left, or *basically* right. Where that puts you depends on where you started, but surely Donna's not suggesting that non-Republicans moves to the right in order to beat Republicans. Ergo, she can mean only that they should move left. My only question throughout this thread has been: Which election(s) in the past 35 years give you reason to believe that this is the way to win? NOT: Who's the better man, or who runs the cleaner campaign, or who's philosophically or ideologically correct, or better for the country. That's something I haven't asked here, because it's beside the point. You people are the ones who have drifted into debates about who's the better man or which party you think is the best. I'm only asking how people who bill themselves as "smart" can come to this conclusion, given the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Again: Which election(s) in the past 35 yearr give you reason to believe that moving away from conservative positions is the way to win?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T22:07:27-06:00

ID

68831

Comment

Jeez, Greg, I'd hate to be your brain -- forced to move in such a limited, linear fashion all the time. Go color outside the line now and then; it does a brain good! I can't say it any other way: I don't agree with your basic paradigm. I don't believe that anything is one-dimensional, much less American politics, although I can certainly see how that belief, if it could be spread far and wide enough, would benefit a minority of people mightily. But you just can't fool all of the people all of the time, at least not for long. The paradigm is only one-dimensional if we allow it to be. Furthermore, your view seems to pre-suppose that everybody who should be voting (or would like to under any circumstance) are voting. I wholeheartedly disagree. And I find that a pretty sad conclusion to draw. Clearly, as Nia pointed out very well, the country has steadily moved to the "left" (many prefer "forward") since the 1950s, although it's suffered some setbacks. But we always weather those setbacks, whether McCarthyism or Jim Crow. And we will continue to. Ergo, we said in the above editorial that we believe it's time that Democrats stop being fake Republicans and run left of the far right where there's a helluva lot of daylight before you reach the extreme left. So, we're back to the proverbial starting line. We took more than 50 postings to prove that we said what we said in the above editorial. I think I'll leave y'all with this thread at this point. I'm going a bit cross-eyed. Feel free to argue with yourself in my absence, Greg. It's been real.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T22:25:52-06:00

ID

68832

Comment

Donna, You're right - I mixed up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Here is the breakdown of Republican support for the VRA of 1965: House, 82% for Senate, 94% for In other words, their support for the 1965 VRA dwarfs their already-superior support for the 1964 CRA. And please - enough with the talk of how different the parties are today than from yesteryear. Whenever it's pointed out that Democrats did something good 40 years ago, it's because they're the eternal party of truth and justice, but when it's pointed out that Republicans did something good 40 years ago, it's because they were "more liberal" or "very different" or whatever. Don't forget that Al Gore, Sr. voted against the 1964 CRA, and William Fulbright, Bill Clinton's mentor, voted against the 1965 VRA. And it is rich indeed that you people want to paint Republicans as racists. The only bona fide hood-wearing Klan senator is y'alls, not ours.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T22:29:13-06:00

ID

68833

Comment

Donna, Well of course I refer to "one-dimensional" in purely geometric terms, within which there is limitless complexity. But that's slick - saying that the use of geometric terminology is synonymous with political simple-mindedness, and therefore I'm beneath even being humored with an answer to a simple question. In other words, calling me stupid instead of debating the issue.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T22:38:40-06:00

ID

68834

Comment

Donna, "Clearly, as Nia pointed out very well, the country has steadily moved to the "left" (many prefer "forward") since the 1950s"? HUH? Where did she do THAT?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-13T22:40:32-06:00

ID

68835

Comment

Greg, OK, I'm still here for one more. I can't stand it when someone plays with historical fact as you are here for political reasons. If you know anything about recent American history--and perhaps you don't; history books often don't get to the 1960s--you know that the parties have completely switched since 1964. Not proverbially. They have switched, and it started when Johnson signed civil-rights legislation and Goldwater started a new Republican Party, luring southerners with promises of "states rights." Of course, Republicans voted for the civil rights acts! They thought them up! They *were* the "liberals" then. It was the remnants of the same Republican Party that Mississippi Democrats kicked out after Reconstruction. But it is NOT the same Republican Party of today; they have completely switched places due to civil rights legislation and "Southern Strategy." I say this with all due respect, but it is as false to say that the Republican Party of today supported civil rights legislation as it is to say that today's Republican Party was the one that ended slavery. Please stick to the facts, or do some homework on this; it is very fascinating, and telling, to understand the history of the political parties in America. I'd also suggest that it is impossible to have the discussion we've been trying to have about the parties if you do not understand that today's Republican Party is yesterday's Democratic Party, and vice versa. The party that won the governor's mansion here last week has won the most elections in Mississippi throughout our history, some elections over the last 30 years notwithstanding, even as an alternative party (Republicans-then-Democrats) has struggled to find its place. Where we are right now -- including the 54-46 split -- makes perfect sense if that history is clear. And what can happen next is also very apparent. [Because I wrote the above on the fly, I'll add this factual clarification here for those of you not familiar with political-party history. Before the 1960s, the non-Southern Democratic Party had gradually grown more progressive (FDR, for instance). When national Democrats began in the 1950s and 1960s to support civil rights, southern Democrats became disenchanted. The national Republican Party was in disarray and the liberal Republican Party of the South (then considered the "black" party, as Democrats are today) was beaten down. When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Barry Goldwater (who probably wasn't racist, but was certainly opportunist) opened the doors to the "new" Republican Party to the segregationists of the South, and the switch began and has continued steadily for 40 years. Now, the parties are opposite of what they were. Thus, the beginnings of today's conservative Republican Party that started and was built on a Southern Strategy of appealing to the racist vote. Thus, Barbour's race-pandering is no political surprise, but it is tragic, and shows that national GOP leadership do not yet seem ready to abandon the Southern Strategy -- because they insult the South by believing that racism still drives our votes.]

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T22:59:07-06:00

ID

68836

Comment

God knows, I'm not sure Democrats, at least not Dixiecrats, ever did anything good before the 1960s (not in the South, anyway), so you won't get that argument from me. And this isn't about Gore or Clinton's folks or Robert Byrd -- there are many people with racist pasts (certainly most Democrats pre-1960s), and that's despicable. What's even more despicable is never apologizing for it. What's worse is never changing. What's just as bad, to me as a Mississippian from a town and a state wounded by race hatred, is for the modern GOP (remember, yesterday's Democratic Party) to come in and play the same kind of tricks and assume that Mississippians are still racist. Anyone playing that game, regardless of party, should be shut out of the political game for good. It is insulting to all of us. But we have spent enough time on that topic on different threads. Greg, I am not calling you stupid, even if I don't think some of your points are stellar, and even as you have tried insulting me and the JFP and other posters all day. I have tried to debate issues with you over more than probably 60 postings by now, even as you keep stuffing words in my mouth and telling me what I think, and then trying to get me to choose one or the other answer even if I don't agree with either one, or believe the answer is so simplistic. Or you've tried to set little traps that don't make sense except to people who agree with you already. And if you don't like a point someone else makes, you just hurl another insult or another accusation. That isn't debate! But I hung in there today because I think some important things came out along the way, and it made me think. And I'm always grateful for that. I'm out now.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-13T22:59:22-06:00

ID

68837

Comment

Donna, Everybody here has thrown a few saucy comments back and forth, so don't try to suggest that 'Greg has been insulting people all day long.' Peruse the previous posts and you'll see I have plenty of company. And I'm really not interested - at least in this thread - about which party belonged to whom today vs. way back yonder. The "ol' switcheroo" argument is weak, and perhaps we can continue this debate in a more appropriate thread, but I came here wondering about one thing: You say, and I quote: "...Democrats (or, better, non-Republicans) can get back to running as Democrats (or non-Republicans) -- and start turning out a whole bunch of people who aren't voting right now, because they don't have anyone who is talking directly to them." I've been asking: Where are all these voters? If they are so numerous, and so easily engaged, and so willing to support a candidate who speaks to them, then why didn't someone like Musgrove, who presumably knows as well as anyone where the votes are, get out there and engage them? Are you saying that he deliberately ignored a bloc of voters large enough to make a difference in the election? Or that he had no clue that they existed in the first place? Either assertion says Very Bad Things about the competence of Musgrove and his team. And by "running as Democrats (or non-Republicans)," just what exactly can you mean other than moving to the left? And for the love of God, please don't invoke two- and three-dimensional space-time, "New" whatever-Crats, et al. How can veering to the left - returning to the fold, as it were - be the Democrats' key to winning future elections, when the last 9 years have shown that the only way Democrats can win is to veer to the right? Bill Clinton won by running as a centrist, a million miles away from Dukakis, Mondale, and Carter. Gore tried the same thing and still managed to lose. And you're suggesting that reversing course is the answer? Please - as head of the brain trust of the smart alternative, explain how your statement constitutes good advice for the Democrats.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T00:39:05-06:00

ID

68838

Comment

Greg, the voters Donna speaks of are not easily engaged. I was one of them. To be perfectly honest, I am still one of them. I did not bother voting in the Gov./Lt. Gov elections because I did not see any apparant change good/bad for the state with either of them. They are both pigs and Musgrove already pissed on my vote when he disallowed adoption by my partner and myself. When a representative aligns themself remotely to my own lifestyle, morals, and methods of business, I WILL BE THE FIRST IN LINE TO VOTE; I'll open the damned polls! Further, I know of 30 people that have said very similar things (that's just through coffee talk at one meeting). See, what Donna is saying, simply, is that there is a large pool of voters that are waiting. They realize their vote, ultimately, will make a revolutionary difference when that candidate (not a perfect candidate by the way; one that aligns well). When that person comes along, expect a swift swing of voters (I heard a Republican fearfully say the same thing last night). So, as one of the people Donna is speaking of, I can say that pool does exist. Further, if Dean keeps his momentum, he will garner many of those votes because many agree with his ethics and his job in Vermont not to mention few want an ego-maniacal leaders like Bush, Inc and his alternatives. This is a race where the swing vote and the pool of voters "waiting" will definitely be evident... Hell, the GOP and their subs are already restlessly washing the media and minds of the American public. And, that my friends was my own broad brush painting a picture of why I hate politics and religion -- it can and will reduce grown adults to mud-slinging trolls... There! I insulted the GOP, called a few people names, and used a broad brush to paint a rather surreal picture... Am I in the cool crowd now? ;-)

Author

Knol Aust

Date

2003-11-14T10:31:06-06:00

ID

68839

Comment

Greg, you're still missing the point. No one ever said that the people who don't vote are easily engaged. You made that assumption. They are not easily engaged. And, it's no surprise that Musgrove didn't engage them. He's part of the narrow minded 2 party system that some of us have been discussing on this thread. Also, it's not all a choice between 'left' and 'right'. There's an up and down on that axis, and probably an in and an out as well, whether or not you want to believe it. Maybe you just need to get out of Mississippi, and figure out the rest of the world. Right now, the easiest example is Schwarzenegger - he's pro choice, tolerant of gay lifestyles - and republican. So - is he left or right? left on some, right on some - where is he ultimately? Is the world really that simplistic for you? Do you really not percieve that there might be another way of running things? That change might be possible? That running *different* candidates with *different* campaigns might make a difference to alot of people?

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T10:46:41-06:00

ID

68840

Comment

Greg, you been hibernating the past fifty years or what? Dude, this country has moved WAY left/forward since then. The evidence? Women and nonwhite men can vote. Jim Crow is dead. The Klan is laughable instead of sitting in every branch of the government. Most states don't execute people anymore. Physicians need a license to practice medicine. Women can wear pants. :-} Women can preach and attend seminary. Black people and white people use the same bathrooms! The Cold War is over. Brrrrrring! Brrrrring! What's that sound? It's your alarm clock, dude! Wake the hell up!

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T11:52:44-06:00

ID

68841

Comment

Kate, No, it does not occur to me that "there might be another way of running things." Neither does it occur to me that "running *different* candidates with *different* campaigns might make a difference to alot of people." Why? Because 200+ years of American politics proves that 99% of the time, 2 parties are enough. Indeed, sometimes one party is sufficient. You and most others here seem to believe that the American people are force-fed this two-party system, without considering for a moment that in politics, just as in media, consumer goods, and any number of other things, the American people largely get what they want (or at least what they deserve). American history is full of examples of how grass-roots efforts can rise quickly and have profound effects on the country: The Revolution comes to mind, and of course the abolition movement in the 1850's, the temperance movement in the early 20th century, and the civil right movement of the 1950's and 60's. Nowhere in the world can popular sentiment be turned into government policy more quickly and more thoroughly than in America. But of course, that's just me talking. Maybe I need to get out of Mississippi more often. Maybe see how they do it in New York. Oh wait - I *do* go to New York regularly. Never mind. The point is that voters are essentially consumers, and politicians are producers. And whenever there is a large enough pool of consumers wanting a certain type of product, producers come up with it. Politicians are especially good at responding to the "market" of voters, since saying one thing or another, re-fashioning this policy or that, involves no re-tooling of machinery, no supply-chain modification, no change in ad agency, etc. It's a very low-cost endeavor. My contention is that this pool of disaffected voters you speak of is either relatively homogeneous, with similar interests and concerns, or it's not. If it is, then engaging them, appealing to them, is a relatively straightforward matter of finding out what they want, and fashioning your policies and rhetoric around it. If they're not - if their interests and concerns are diffuse and tend to conflict here and there - then they are not so easily appealed to by one candidate. In fact, if they are so diverse as to make it impossible for one candidate to appeal to them, then they are not a "pool" in the sense that you and Donna use the term. [cont.]

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T13:26:35-06:00

ID

68842

Comment

This is an important point. Either more voters than usual are sitting out elections, or they're not. I say basically they're not; how else can we have near-record turnout? But it's well-known that we're lucky to get 45% or 50% of registered voters to the polls, so it's undeniable that there are a lot of voters out there who represent - IN THEORY - a massive wave of ballots who could, if they wish, change the face of politics at every level from dog catcher to the White House. But just because there are more people who don't vote than do, doesn't mean that they are all sitting out there waiting for the same candidate. Knol is waiting for someone who's more friendly to the concerns of (I assume) homosexuals. Nothing wrong with that. But his neighbor might be waiting for someone who'll clamp down on immigration. That guy's neighbor may be waiting for someone who will revive the moon-landing program, and so on. Collectively, these people do indeed represent a huge number of potential voters. But they are not a "collective" in the usual sense of the word; nor do they stand much chance of turning that potential into reality, precisely because of their profoundly diffuse set of interests. As I said, voters are consumers. There are some voters who simply want a widget (someone who can do the job). Other voters insist on a widget that's brown (someone who can do the job, but also shares their views on X). Still other voters want a widget that's not just brown, but shaped like a cube. Pretty soon, you arrive at a type of consumer for whom it's impossible to make a widget that satisfies all their conditions. [cont.]

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T13:27:08-06:00

ID

68843

Comment

There's a lot of talk here about the complexity of political orientation, about how there's not just left and right, but up and down, in and out, etc. Here's why that's a myth: To take one example offered here, there's this silliness about a "progressive" being defined as someone who's "devoted" to public education, but is also pro-small business. The assumption is that there is nothing about these two interests that make it impossible for one candidate to adequately support both. To take that example alone, as someone who has owned his own small business, I can say without a doubt that it is extremely difficult to reconcile pro-small business interests with pro-public education interests. For small businesses owners, the number one monkey on their back is taxes. But without taxes - and we're not talking small ones, either, but gigantic ones - public education cannot exist. And as it's been proved for decades now, there is exactly zero correllation between the money spent on public education and the quality of product it turns out. It's fine to want to make the case to small business owners that public education needs funding, but you have to remember you're talking to a group of people who work extremely hard, often operate within razor-thin margins, and have little patience for waste and inefficiency, things public education is rife with. They want to see results for every dollar they put in - and rightly so - but in fact they're getting a sorry product, one that would be grounds for dismissal if it had been produced at their shop. Virtually none of the people who are "devoted" to public education are out there saying, "Lower spending on education! Lower spending on education!" No. To a man, they want MORE money. Of course, in theory it's possible to give the small business owner a break on taxes, and still fund a successful public school system, but it involves sacrifices that public education supporters have thus far shown themselves unwilling to make. Thus the attitude of most small business owners: If I have to work this hard and make these sacrifices to turn out a better product and stay in business so I can have revenue that you can tax to fund public schools, I should be able to expect the same level of diligence from those to whom my tax dollars go. Since I'm not getting it, don't expect me to support your grandiose plans for public education. [cont.]

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T13:29:32-06:00

ID

68844

Comment

Of course, I never said this is easy. Nothing worth doing is easy. Politics aren't easy. Democracy isn't easy. Debate isn't easy. Critical thinking isn't easy. Once again, Greg, you have put words in my mouth and then tried to excoriate me for the words you came up with. That seems to your modus operandi. You have alternated here between inciteful words that put people in boxes ("y'all are screwed" in your first post here), and then you play the victim when I tried to show the flaws in your argument (which is debate). The fact is, you've tried to use the entire history of political parties in Mississippi to prove *your* point, but then when shown that you don't seem to understand the basics of the history of Mississippi political parties (or civil-rights politics), you complain that I'm calling you stupid (I didn't) and then you say, "And I'm really not interested - at least in this thread - about which party belonged to whom today vs. way back yonder." Dude, you brought up the parties "way back yonder," which we can all see above. And as for the "ol' switcheroo" argument," it is not "weak," and it's not an argument -- it's historical fact. The parties have switched since 1964. You can't just throw that fact down the memory hole because you don't like the way it sounds or because it didn't come up in your history classes. There is a healthy debate to be had over the progressive-vs.-conservative voting base question that is presented in our editorial. I have had good discussions about this with other people who don't agree with our conclusion (including New Democrats) who have presented more compelling arguments than yours. But you are starting with such faulty premises and such determination to misrepresent what I and others are saying that I doubt you'll even get to those arguments. As it is, I'm tired of going in circles with you, so I'll leave it to the others if they so choose.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-14T13:30:23-06:00

ID

68845

Comment

That's just one example, but there are numerous ones all over the political spectrum. This example just illustrates how it's one thing to *want* the world to be one way, but another thing to actually *make* it that way. Cause-end-effect chains like the ones in the small business-public education example do far more to create the reality of politics than does wishful thinking. This is why politics operates in essentially a linear universe, not a 2- or 3-dimensional one. So we're back to this idea that there is this pool of disaffected voters who, if only they could be motivated and mobilized, could Change The World! But as I've been saying, for this happen, they have to have enough common interests to constitute a reasonably well-defined "market" around whom a politician or political party can fashion its message. I'm saying that the only thing these disaffected voters have in common is their disaffectation. You may find a subset that supports a candidate who's high on public schools, but he's not going to appeal to another subset who wants lower taxes. Someone who appeals to the skinheads is not going to appeal to the Greens. And so it goes, on topics from abortion to the environment to capital punishment. And that's part of what I've been asking since Post #1: Where is this mass of voters which is capable of rallying around a platform that doesn't already exist? And how is running left supposed to make them gel? This pool of disaffected voters, as I think we all agree, are disaffected for a thousand different reasons. There are the Buchananites and the Naderites and the Perotists and the gays and the skinheads and God knows who else, and it's impossible to unify them under one banner. It's precisely the differences and incompatibilities between the many reasons for their disaffectation that make it impossible to unite them. [cont.]

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T13:30:36-06:00

ID

68846

Comment

Now, whether American voters are trending conservative, or just that the Democrats are so fractured and can't muster a majority, is beside the point here. The fact of the numbers is that conservatives now hold I think 29 of the statehouses, the White House, the House, and the Senate. This trend is reflected generally at state and local levels as well. Whatever the reasons behind the numbers, the fact is that to win, you have to put together more votes than the other guy. Right now, those votes are evidently put together more easily on the right than in the center or on the left. That's why I'm trying to figure out why it is that the denizens of JFP think the answer is to run toward this increasingly Balkanized end of the spectrum. Somebody? Anybody?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T13:30:50-06:00

ID

68847

Comment

I will say, though, if I said anything that offended you personally, I apologize. That was not my intention; I meant the linear brain comment as a joke (thus the ), but I realize that that's not always clear online. You haven't said anything that offended me personally -- I'm leather-skinned; I pointed out the jabs toward me and the JFP only because you were doing the victim thing, and that seemed odd after your own behavior here. Debate is supposed to be messy and saucy, though it should be kept to ideas and not "to the man" (or woman, as sit were).

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-14T13:33:13-06:00

ID

68848

Comment

Nia, Thank you so much for the lesson in American history. I'd remind you that humans also cook their meat now, as opposed to gnawing it straight off the bone of the wooly mammoth. I assume you would suggest that evolution has trended leftward as well.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T13:34:03-06:00

ID

68849

Comment

Greg, I think we're finally at the point where we can agree to disagree. And agree to agree on some points. I agree with your analogy of consumers/producers. What I don't agree with is your assumption that I have to like it, accept it, and plan to live with it. I want to try to change it. So we can get to the place where politicians don't choose positions based on what will get them elected, vs what they actually believe in. Also, I think there's a reasonable percentage of the population who would vote if they weren't so disgusted with both parties right now. I'm sure we all know people who would vote for someone, anyone, who runs an honest and credible campaign. And that just didn't happen in the last race here - eg., Barbour/Musgrove. The campaigns were nasty, and insulting. I felt like they were both basing their campaigns on the assumption that I didn't care about the state or its issues, and was too stupid to understand the issues if they did start talking. Yesterday, I heard a local, very conservative politician speak. And you know what? There's a good chance I'd vote for him - because he's smart, and he discusses issues, and he's not afraid to bring up the real, difficult problems we face. That's what I think we're not getting. I don't think we need a multiparty system - just a system that brings people to the polls, not drives them away. All that being said, I think our only real disagreement is what to do with the status quo. You seem to want to work with it, I want to change it. I understand your points (I believe), and don't have any real problem with that. Except when you mock me for my pie in the sky hopes, that maybe we can changes things. To quote Babe (the movie): "The way things are, is the way things are." "Well, the way things are SUCKS."

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T13:40:55-06:00

ID

68850

Comment

Okay, Greg, you lost me with the notion that the only way to get funds for public education is to tax small businesses. I think there are other ways to find money. For starters, like a little more examination of the $87 Billion that's going to Iraq. There may be a billion here or there that's not needed, that could be kept home. As someone has pointed out, we've given the president $87 billion, and we don't even have a detailed plan for how he's going to spend it. NO ONE has said "raise taxes on small businesses." If you've read this issue's editorial, you'd see alot of support for small businesses. And the sarcasm about the meat eating? Not funny, not on point. Nia pointed out among other things, the rise of women working, wearing pants, standing at the pulpit, etc. All things that the religious right (if not the entire right wing) certainly despise. This seems like a legitamate example of the country moving to the 'left.' Response, to the point, sans sarcasm, would help me understand your point.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T13:48:14-06:00

ID

68851

Comment

Kate, Well of course things suck. What's your point? Do you really believe that I and my conservative friends really want to make the world suck more? In that case, lay off the Daschle speeches. Everybody wants a world that sucks less. I'm not completely happy with the Republican party, far from it. But I get out and vote. Does that mean I blindly support whatever pablum they want to offer me? Hell no. In the 2000 primaries, I voted for Alan Keyes. Not because I thought he could win, but because I knew he *couldn't*. But I also knew that I wanted to send George Bush a message - that I like Keyes' position on more issues than W's. Of course when the general election came around, I voted for Bush, but the point is that there are ways to nudge political parties one way or another using these and many other techniques. Fringe parties do this all the time. If you don't want to vote, that's fine, but by doing so, you're becoming the Jerry Seinfeld of politics - someone who can't keep a girlfriend for over 2 weeks because you look for imperfections over which to end the relationship. If in hte primaries you find one candidate you like more than another, but you know he can't win, vote for him. If enough people do this, the major candidates will get the message: Hmm - more voters like this guy than I thought. Perhaps I need to change my positions on this, that, or the other. Write letters to your Senators and congressman. Letters to the editor. Whatever. But if you're out there saying, 'I like your position on abortion, taxes, and education, but I can't stand that your support Nafta, so I'm not voting for you,' then you immediately become a non-entity for politicians. They write you off, and rightly so.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T13:51:48-06:00

ID

68852

Comment

Kate, I never said that the only way to fund public education is to tax small businesses. That's one way, and an important way, but obviously not the only way.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T13:52:54-06:00

ID

68853

Comment

One other thing. There was an article in the WSJ a week or so ago, about the way that expectations shape outcomes. The data is pretty powerful, from what I've seen. And for me, that 's the heart of the issue here. I refuse to have the "expectation" that all politicians are simply producers of a product that we blindly buy. I want to have the expectation that we can change things for the better, that there are honest and sincere politicians, and that what I say and think does matter. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB106815408551985600,00.html?mod=Science+Journal some quotes from the article: "Expectation effects, also known as the Pygmalion effect, have been documented time and again (479 studies have found that teachers' expectations affect how students do, for instance). " "The power of expectations in the classroom is downright scary. In a typical experiment, elementary-school teachers were told that one group of kids had done extraordinarily well on a test that predicts intellectual "blooming," and so would make remarkable academic gains. The test seemed prescient: After a few months, the "bloomers" it identified had achieved statistically significant gains over the other students. In reality, there was no such test. To the contrary: The kids the teachers thought were bloomers included students from every ability level as measured by a nonverbal intelligence test. So did the supposed nonbloomers. "The only difference was in the mind, and expectations, of the teacher," says Prof. Rosenthal. Yet those expectations produced clear academic differences." "Expectation effects are not confined to human expect-ees. In one set of studies, 12 experimenters were each given five rats. Six experimenters were told that their rats were of a genetic strain that learned like long-tailed geniuses; the other six were told that their rats were dolts. The experimenters then spent five days training their rats to run a maze. From the first day, the rats identified as bright ran the maze better -- and kept getting better. You can guess the punch line: all the rats belonged to the same strain. They differed only in the experimenters' expectations for them." Expectations matter. And I expect more from my politicians.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T13:53:11-06:00

ID

68854

Comment

Kate, Your assumption that the entire might dislike the notion of women voting and preaching is so ludicrous it's funny. Talk about out of touch.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T13:54:25-06:00

ID

68855

Comment

Greg, evolution isn't definable in that way. You're really having trouble letting go of that either/or paradigm, aren't you? Evolution is neither left nor right, neither up nor down. It's not even linear. It simply, is. Things change. And whether the change is positive or negative is a relative determination. But I venture a guess that most folks think the end of slavery in most parts of the world is a good thing. And that cooking meat is better than havingno choice but to have it raw and risking trichynosis and all manner of infection--save for sashimi, of course. I knew I should have seen that pig movie!

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T13:55:11-06:00

ID

68856

Comment

/typos off: Kate, Your assumption that the entire right might dislike the notion of women voting and preaching is so ludicrous it's funny. Talk about out of touch.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T13:57:00-06:00

ID

68857

Comment

No, I believe there's the "Phyllis Schafly Exception Clause" for women who will preach about why women shouldn't preach and vote for taking away rights from other women.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-14T13:57:11-06:00

ID

68858

Comment

Nia, Exactly my point. Remember that as late as the 1890's, plenty of "liberals" of the day opposed giving women the vote. So careful about your notions that left=good and right=bad.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T13:59:02-06:00

ID

68859

Comment

Um, Greg, what Daschle speaches? I was quoting a pig, not a politician. And did you catch the part about how I listened to and agreed with the speech from the conservative republican? If you had read that, then you would know that I don't belive that 'conservatives want to make the world suck more.' Pay attention, please. And while you didn't say "the only way to support public education is to tax small business", you did say that "it is extremely difficult to reconcile pro-small business interests with pro-public education interests." I don't see that at all. Can you give another example, that does not include taxing small businesses?

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T13:59:57-06:00

ID

68860

Comment

"What's that sound?" "I don't know. Sounds like backpedaling. Fast, too."

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T14:02:23-06:00

ID

68861

Comment

And, I'm not clear on your definition of left vs right. I've certainly never believed "left = good." Again, you're not paying attention. And greg, when the religious right starts advocating women's rights, let me know. I know a few republicans here in Jackson, who aren't really that conservative, that believe women should not be running the church/temple. Denial of women's rights is one of the characteristics of the far right, at least as I define the far/extreme right.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T14:05:22-06:00

ID

68862

Comment

One last thing. I think part of the Greg left/right definition is "winner/loser." I feel like this isn't a discussion anymore. It's Greg trying to win. As I said before, we seem to disagree on the basic premise that things can change, and that we can drive that change. And that one step in that is to bring some new voices into the process. I'm not changing from that, no matter how many republicans control offices. Things change. It's a fact of life.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T14:09:54-06:00

ID

68863

Comment

Kate, The public education-small business example perfectly illustrates how issues exist, in one sense, in their own worlds, but when they must be reconciled in the context of a party's or candidate's platform, it can be difficult, sometimes impossible, to do so. You can't find a better example of how the interests of small business and public education conflict, As I explained, it's all about taxes, results, and acocuntability. The details are for another thread. If there's a specific point I could explain more clearly, let me know and I'll be happy to do so.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T14:20:34-06:00

ID

68864

Comment

Stop the presses. This is what Greg wrote: 'I'm not completely happy with the Republican party, far from it. But I get out and vote. Does that mean I blindly support whatever pablum they want to offer me? Hell no. In the 2000 primaries, I voted for Alan Keyes. Not because I thought he could win, but because I knew he *couldn't*. But I also knew that I wanted to send George Bush a message - that I like Keyes' position on more issues than W's. Of course when the general election came around, I voted for Bush, but the point is that there are ways to nudge political parties one way or another using these and many other techniques. ' See - we agree. Get involved, discuss more issues, vote in primaries for your favorite candidate who won't win, etc. That's the point I've been arguing.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T14:24:57-06:00

ID

68865

Comment

Greg, you're SO funny. Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that left = good and that right = bad. Of course today's conservatives won't argue against the things their consevatie forebears fought against becasue they live by advantage of those vey things. But let's face it. Conservatives historically fight change. They try to preserve the status quo on many social and public policy initiatives. And sure there were plenty of "liberal whites" who fought against women of color having the right to vote, all the while championing the right of white women to vote. We all know the story of the "Ain't I a Woman?" speech. Then again, maybe you don't know that story. So what does that prove? That even well-intentioned people can be racist or sexist? No argument there. But I still don't see how that proves your point, which was what exactly? Kate, Greg still has his definitions mixed up. He thinks liberal = Democrat = Democrat's (aka all non-Republicans) perception that all things liberal are good. He also believes that conservative = Republicans = perception by Republicans that all things conservative are good.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T14:27:22-06:00

ID

68866

Comment

Greg, I still don't understand why I can't support public education and small businesses. I'm genuinely interested to find out the answer to this. Yes, taxes fund public education. But there are many many sources for taxes, and many places for those tax revenues to be spent. I think it's pretty easy to envision a scenario which supports less taxation for small businesses, less tax breaks for big corporations, and less spending in other areas of government. I know there are trade offs, and I htink it's easy to find other trade offs. Help me understand.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T14:28:30-06:00

ID

68867

Comment

Greg, baby darlin', YOU are one of the dis- or unsatisfied people everybody on this thread but you has been talking about. No one has advocated the idea that people shouldn't vote. We've simply acknowledged that many people don't. Go to the Census Bureau and check the stats from the 2000 election. Only half of MS's population voted in that election, a mere 52%. That means a helluva lotta' folks stayed home from the polls. Voter turnout seems to have been slightly better this past election but still only increased about 2%. So this time 54%of the population voted. What record voter turnout are you talkng about? Voter turnout has been steadily declining nationwide since the early '70s.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T14:34:31-06:00

ID

68868

Comment

Kate, I'm not saying anything about what YOU can and can't support. What I'm saying is that if you wonder why you won't find a lot of business owners happy about the fact that so much of their taxes go to fund a public education system that's an almost complete basketcase, look no further than my explanation. YOU can support anything you like. But for a politician to appeal to small business owners, for example, one great way to do that is to articulate a policy that eases their tax burden. But he can't say to small business owners that he's going to reduce their tax burden, and turn around to public education supporters and say he's going to give them more money for schools. Unless, of course, he makes some drastic cuts elsewhere. Of course it depends on whether he's a state, local, or national politician as to where he might get the funds to do that, but it's all of the same sort: A presidential candidate, for example, can't say, "I'm going to lower your taxes, but I'm also going to cut defense spending to find more money for schools." If he cuts defense spending in this era of uncertain national security, he'll alienate many voters who are rightly concerned that we prevent another 9-11. He'll also alienate plenty of small business who depend on defense contracts for their existence. And the vendors who supply them everything from chemicals to machine tools to office supplies. Local candidates can't say, "I'm going to lower your taxes, but I'm also going to kill that highway project so we can give more money to public schools." Businesses need good highways. And on it goes. As Kathleen Turner's therapist on The Simpsons says, it's all a rich tapestry.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T14:48:15-06:00

ID

68869

Comment

Okay, now I'm agreeing with you. At least in part. I know it's complex, and your first comment, "it is extremely difficult to reconcile pro-small business interests with pro-public education interests", was highly reductionist. I think that politicians need to learn how to present to the voters the complexities, instead of little mantras like "read my lips, no new taxes." That's my complaint (okay, one of many) - that I'm treated like an idiot by mainstream politicians.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T14:55:02-06:00

ID

68870

Comment

Washington Post: Dems should forget the South http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40359-2003Nov14.html

Author

David

Date

2003-11-14T15:16:06-06:00

ID

68871

Comment

Nia, You didn't left=good and right=bad? Then what's this: "Dude, this country has moved WAY left/forward since then. ...Women and nonwhite men can vote. Jim Crow is dead. The Klan is laughable instead of sitting in every branch of the government." You use left/forward synonymously. The other examples? All good, and presented as evidence that the country as moved left/forward. QED.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T15:22:27-06:00

ID

68872

Comment

Okay, Greg. You got me. So you agree that those moves are good things, right? Or are you now advocating that women shouldn't have the right to vote or that black people aren't, well, people and therefore shouldn't have the right to vote? Ummm, before you answer, go back and read the post about how today's conservatives live by the advantage of the left's policies of the past.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T15:30:30-06:00

ID

68873

Comment

Greg, Once again you're simplifying and lifting out of context to try to score a cheap point. I'm actually the one who first used "left" and "forward" together. My sentence was: "Clearly, as Nia pointed out very well, the country has steadily moved to the 'left' (many prefer "forward") since the 1950s, although it's suffered some setbacks." This was in a wider discussion in which you were trying to argue that the country has not moved "left" since the 1960s. Certainly, as politics have unfolded in the country, a good number of accomplishments that are considered very good by the majority of Americans (from ending to Jim Crow to equality gains for women to others) have been considered "leftist" issues. (And that labeling hasn't been defined by those folks on the left; it's been defined by those on the "right" who have chosen to try to halt those kinds of progress.) Now, in this context, "left" and "forward" movement are certainly synonymous, and has certainly occurred steadily since the 1960s. (And it's critical to note that that connection is due to the right's opposition to forward movement.) It would be a jump over the Grand Canyon, however (which I certainly believe you're fully capable of) to twist that into saying that anyone posting here is saying that any and everything that "the left" has supported is "good." Allow your linear brain to grasp a bit of side-to-side complexity here. Certainly, everyone posting here knows enough about history to know that the left has not always been about progress and moving forward. The Stalin era comes to mind. Perhaps shifting award from such a left-right paradigm even in our discussions here would remove some roadblocks to understanding.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-14T15:37:00-06:00

ID

68874

Comment

Amazing how Ladd and her disciples are the so in touch with this horde of disaffected VAP non-voters. Forget all of the labels. They're meaningless in the face of Ladd's definition of progressive. Progressive isn't a label, itís a way of life that will unlock all of the secrets being hidden by the ones holding us back in our ignorance so that we can be controlled and kept down. It sure would have been nice if Ladd were here when Adam and Eve were walking the planet. Knowing how unenlightened they were, she probably could have helped them dodge that dang serpent with one of her lecturetorials. We should all pinch ourselves to be so lucky that she is here, now, saving all of us from ourselves. How did we survive all those years feeding on those measly scraps of wayward insidious information before she came back to clear and reclaim the desecrated local temple of the fourth estate? I never truly understood how stupid we were before the Jackson Free Press helped us come back to the real Jesus. Our eyes are now wide open to the evil that is the Clarion-Ledger, the GOP, the Chamber, fear mongering Madison and Rankin county suburbanites, exaggerating crime victims, and all of the other boogiepeople out there whose sole life goal is to screw us, the blissfully unsuspecting, over and over and over again. We've been born again into the glory of One who knows so much more than we could ever imagine, and should ever dream of knowing. Please, please consider getting out from behind that keyboard Ladd and running for office so that more Mississippians can share in the new good fortune your delivery of those from the gates of exploitative hell has brought. Run on your perfect progressive political platform and bring us all back into the light. PTL, the second coming is here. The Goddess of the Jackson Free Press has spoken in tongues, is laying her hands on us and we are being saved!

Author

VBell

Date

2003-11-14T15:42:20-06:00

ID

68875

Comment

Guess VBell threw the intelligent banter out the window and went straight for cut throat... VBell, if you need a site to expose your own dogma, I'll host and design it for you just as any good Donna-ite would do. Feel free to email me. I'd hate for you to feel like you had no voice. All hail Donna! Goddess of the Jackson Free Press. *And all those times I thought she was a little tipsy, she was actually speaking in tongues. It all makes sense now.

Author

Knol Aust

Date

2003-11-14T16:02:43-06:00

ID

68876

Comment

Knol, you da man! And, again, I'm amazed at what passes for an insult in some circles. Of course I'm a disciple of Donna and JFP! Thanks for noticing! Similarly, I'm a supporter of Hilary Clinton, enjoy the labels liberal and progressive, and even, at times, democrat. Even 'liberal elite.' Keep tossin' 'em my way. It's an honor to be recognized.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T16:06:18-06:00

ID

68877

Comment

Donna/Nia, There are two problems with the line of reasoning you're both going down. The first is that there's a huge difference between saying that all leftward movement is good, and all good movement is to the left. I never said you believed the former, but it's crystal clear that you both believe the latter. In other words, you believe not that everything the left does is good, but that all good things spring from the left. The second is what you define as "good," and who's responsible for bringing it to the country. But all this is, again, beside the point. This little detour we've taken into what's good and what's not, Phaedrus, is me twiddling my thumbs while I wait for you to answer my initial question: How do you figure that running away from conservative positions is the way to victory at the polls? If you think I'm calling you out, or trying to "win," well, you're right. Some people may be content just to sit here and talk, but it looks like what you're running here is a place to debate, and debates have propositions and conclusions. Your proposition is that the key to victory for non-Republican candidates is to draw sharp distinctions between their positions and those of Republicans. I say that's baloney, and that every presidential election since 1968 and every state election since at least 1991 prove it. I also say that any publication that presents itself as the "smart alternative," should know that saying otherwise is rank stupidity. Advocating liberal or progressive positions is one thing, but gussying up blatantly ridiculous political strategy as sound advice to candidates is quite another. It's true I disagree with most of your poltical philosophy, but that's not at issue. Is it so hard to just say, "On second thought, we're wrong about that strategy - we'll have to pursue another one"?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T16:14:25-06:00

ID

68878

Comment

While we wait for the answer to my question that I know will never come, let me say that if anyone here would like to really and truly move away from the right-left paradigm, I'm listening. I have only two rules: First, read my posts above in which I explain how certain seemingly unrelated issues that exist on a two-dimensional plane are ultimately placed on a line by myriad and complex connections. Then, please give me *more than one example* of a major civilization whose political system was not more or less a linear construct.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T16:26:54-06:00

ID

68879

Comment

I think a line drawn by a candidate that directly opposed the president would draw extreme positive reaction from many, Greg. For instance, if Dean were to stand up and say: 1)I am pro-choice 2)I am anti-war 3)I am pro-American jobs (anti-NAFTA) 4)Firmly believe my religion has no place in the White House or my decisions as a professional 5)Will treat ALL Americans as the majority is treated They would without doubt WIN. They don't need huge cajones to do so... They simply need to stand up and stop the rhetoric. I don't expect the Donkeys to do it this time... It might take an Indie to do it... Who knows? The problem is that the Dems are wimps and the Indies come across as whackos... The Republicans are so scared to lose they are willing to drive our progress into the cesspools just to "win" using lies, rhetoric, and corporate deals. If a real man or woman will stand up and truly address the issues of the People (at this point they would most certainly be labled "Leftist" by the Elephants), they will cause a political epiphany unlike anything seen in the past few decades... American's can see it and feel it when it happens. Bush is full of @!#$ and we all know it. Sad thing is, the Prez election will probably be just like the Gov election... No clear and easy candidate to support because they will all be full of #@$@ backed by money and power-hungry corps. Just a view from the window of a jaded American, registered voter tired of bombing other countries, controlling other's lives, and seeing God everywhere I go including money.

Author

Knol Aust

Date

2003-11-14T16:27:29-06:00

ID

68880

Comment

Greg, You said: 'I'm not completely happy with the Republican party, far from it. But I get out and vote. Does that mean I blindly support whatever pablum they want to offer me? Hell no. In the 2000 primaries, I voted for Alan Keyes. Not because I thought he could win, but because I knew he *couldn't*. But I also knew that I wanted to send George Bush a message - that I like Keyes' position on more issues than W's. Of course when the general election came around, I voted for Bush, but the point is that there are ways to nudge political parties one way or another using these and many other techniques. ' Donna wrote: 'However, there are more votes on the flip sideófor a candidate who isnít afraid to be fiscally conservative but interested in social progress. That means a candidate who supports local business, public education, and who wants to be smart on crime and not just ìtoughî on it. We encourage progressive candidates such as Sherman Lee Dillon, whether running as Democrats or independents, to mount campaigns for local office and for the state Legislatureóoffices they can win, with duties that they can fulfill effectively. And we'd love to see statewide candidates willing to run to the left of the Far Right.' Not sure why what Donna is proposing is so different from what you are proposing. I think we all agree that the parties need 'nudging', though we may disagree on the direction. I think we all agree that there may be pockets where candidates can win locally, even if they can't win at the state or national level.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T16:28:53-06:00

ID

68881

Comment

Geez, and I thought my impromptu meeting with the CFO was a nailbiter! Greg, you'd argue with your mama if she told you she was a woman. Wouldn't you? Vbell is displaying some disturbing behavior: elaborate language dripping inappropriately with religious analogies, flights of fancy, delusions of grandeur (somebody else's but still it's delusional). Makes ya' wonder.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T17:01:27-06:00

ID

68882

Comment

It's different, Kate, because Greg said one of those things, and I said the other. And, remember, he's damned determined to "win," as he just told us. Greg, why in the world would anyone admit that the strategy of leaning away from the extremes is a bad idea!?! What planet are you on? You seem blissfully ignorant of what's going on in the country, and that's your prerogative. But it's amusing at best, and sad at worst. I've repeatedly asked you to stop twisting everything I'm saying; and told you that you are not going to back me into one of your nonsensical corners where only your ideas live. Not going to happen: W. Bush doesn't negotiate with terrorists; I don't give into blog bullies. Your postings follow a typical pattern: take something I (or someone) said, rework the meaning, then demand an answer to a question, preferably yes or no, in three words or less. You seem to believe that, like in screech-radio, no one is going to remember that you just did the same thing over and over again, and that when someone proves one of your points is questionable at best, unfactual and ludicrous at worst, you just move along blissfully and start twisting something else someone said. This is nothing approximating debate, and it's becoming tedious. For example in your recent posting, "In other words, you believe not that everything the left does is good, but that all good things spring from the left. The second is what you define as 'good,' and who's responsible for bringing it to the country." I DID NOT SAY THIS, YOU GOOB. (sorry; "goob" was payback for "rank stupidity"). With all due respect, Greg, I'm beginning to think that you're posing as a Republican to make them look like idiots. Even on your space-time continuum, there has to be a starting or entry point. On your own paradigm, you have the country as far right as it will go; you said yourself there's no more room to the right, and that's where the whole country has flocked since the '60s, or the only ones who matter (non-voters are akin to pond scum or such; my re-characterization, not yours).

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-14T17:08:30-06:00

ID

68883

Comment

I do not want to live in a country at either extreme, Mr. Griffith. If that means that we need to lean a little left when we get too right, good. That also means that we need to lean a little right when we get too far left. I believe in balance. Even by your own blustering presentation, the country's leadership is currently leaning very far right (and much farther than most of them leaned in their campaigns). And that is costing them a lot of support; how much remains to be seen. Poll after poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans don't want to be that far right (or, conversely, slap-dab to the left, either). In fact, Republicans tend to enjoy the most success when they present themselves as moderates or "compassionate conservatives" (even if their meaning is unclear); I said way up above that the Republican Party could easily be the New Progressive Party in this country if it would. So, yes, Greg, I thoroughly believe that most Americans, and most Mississippians, do not want to be plastered to the right end of your political spectrum. It feels rather silly to spend this much time even arguing about it. I believe there are many voters out there much more interested in real, human issues, wherever you'd happen to place them politically on your scale. Frankly, I don't care about your scale, and neither do most Americans. And, no, the elections of the last 40 years do not show that they do. Go do some real homework; I'm not going to do it for you anymore. Your game has taken up enough of my time. Sincerely, The Goddess of the Light

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-14T17:11:51-06:00

ID

68884

Comment

Round 1 goes to Greg. Are the fighters ready? Round 2, ready? DING DING. Fight!!!

Author

jimjam

Date

2003-11-14T17:15:16-06:00

ID

68885

Comment

Well, Greg did say he wasn't happy with the Republicans. Maybe he's trying to sabotage them by preteding to be Republican? I really don't think he even realizes how nonsensical his questions are. It's like asking someone whether a car is red or blue and requiring that they answer with either the word "red" or the word "blue"--when the car is bright green! :-)

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T17:17:14-06:00

ID

68886

Comment

Knol, You are delusional. 1)I am pro-choice The majority of Americans favor limiting abortion. 2)I am anti-war The majority of Americans support the war effort. 3)I am pro-American jobs (anti-NAFTA) Repeal Nafta and the cost of imported goods goes up. Consumers may not make this connection, but they would by the time the next election rolls around, and you'd pay for it. 4)Firmly believe my religion has no place in the White House or my decisions as a professional Majority of Americans are religious and believe anti-religion forces have gone too far in purging it from society. 5)Will treat ALL Americans as the majority is treated Whatever.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T17:22:44-06:00

ID

68887

Comment

All bow down to the Goddess. Tithes may be paid in the form of new subscriptions to JFP. Donna, does this mean you'll have to appoint priests and priestesses? Ooh! Me! Me! Me! Ultraconservatives should be happy. We're being hyer-religious. Oops! That's right I forgot. They only like religion if it's theirs. Sorry. Jimjam, did you actually read all the posts?

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T17:24:00-06:00

ID

68888

Comment

You folks take yourselves WAY too seriously. Lighten up. Grass is green, sun is warm.

Author

jimjam

Date

2003-11-14T17:24:13-06:00

ID

68889

Comment

Kate, Here is the difference between what I said and what Donna said: 'I'm not completely happy with the Republican party, far from it. But I get out and vote. Does that mean I blindly support whatever pablum they want to offer me? Hell no. In the 2000 primaries, I voted for Alan Keyes. Not because I thought he could win, but because I knew he *couldn't*. But I also knew that I wanted to send George Bush a message - that I like Keyes' position on more issues than W's. Of course when the general election came around, I voted for Bush, but the point is that there are ways to nudge political parties one way or another using these and many other techniques. ' This means that I used the primaries to send a message to George Bush: "Pay attention to what Alan Keyes is saying, because this is what I want out of a president. I know you're going to win, but know too that I'd *rather* have someone who thinks like htis man does." 'However, there are more votes on the flip side for a candidate who isnít afraid to be fiscally conservative but interested in social progress. That means a candidate who supports local business, public education, and who wants to be smart on crime and not just tough on it. We encourage progressive candidates such as Sherman Lee Dillon, whether running as Democrats or independents, to mount campaigns for local office and for the state Legislature offices they can win, with duties that they can fulfill effectively. And we'd love to see statewide candidates willing to run to the left of the Far Right.' This is not remotely close to what I said above. Could you explain how you get the same meaning from both of these paragraphs?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T17:27:40-06:00

ID

68890

Comment

Uhhh, jimjam, the only people keeping score here are you and Greg. Nearly everyone who's posted has said something light-hearted (more than once) except you and Greg. Ahem, go back and read all the posts.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T17:27:55-06:00

ID

68891

Comment

Alan Keyes may be making (some) sense, but you're not, Greg. :-) Make up your mind. What ARE you saying. Especially if it's at all different from what everyone else has been saying all along.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T17:31:26-06:00

ID

68892

Comment

Now, y'all, don't be so hard on VBell. It's not every day that I get to talk in tongues, lay hands on, lead the "second coming," be a goddess and get slapped by a VAP all in the same breath. And, you know, I'm really diggin' the goddess part, regardless of context. I could get used to that. ;-D Seriously, when I helped start the Colorado Springs alt, we were concerned that the religious right were going to really come after us, send a lot of ugly mail, etc., as they had been known to do there during the Amendment 2 (anti-gay amendment) uproar. But, within a few weeks of launching the paper, we learned something very interesting: Extremist people, of either side, HATE it when you don't cling to an extreme, even the other one. A lot of our letter-writers started getting hateful mail sent to their homes. Upon analysis, we discovered that it was *only* the letters advocating moderate, middle-of-the-road, reasoned approaches to issues that were getting the hate letters. It was a valuable lesson for me, and one that I've learned repeatedly in the decade since: The reasoned, educated middle -- inevitably called the "left" by the "right" and the "right" by the "left"-- is a very powerful place to be if people (and candidates) will learn to respect it. I don't, by the way, mean the "squishy middle" of folks who don't care one way or the other. Of course, you can debate where the middle is, and should be, but it is not on one end of the spectrum or the other, by definition.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-14T17:37:31-06:00

ID

68893

Comment

I'll tell you how they are the same. You want to 'nudge' your party, I want to 'nudge' mine. You vote for Alan Keyes in a primary. I might vote for Al Sharpton in a primary. Alternatively, I might encourage the Green Party to run a candidate in a local election - because, that will give the local politicos a message. Particularly, if all the stars aligned, and we had a candidate matched to a district, and a hope of winning. Becuase that would 'nudge' my party. Get it now?

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T17:38:43-06:00

ID

68894

Comment

Donna, Like I said: No answer to the simple question I posed in the very first post. Shall we continue to debate who said and meant what? I never claimed that I wanted you, as you say, to "admit that the strategy of leaning away from the extremes is a bad idea," I said nothing about extremes. I have simply said, How can you possibly assert that moving sharply away from the Republicans on major issues is the key to electoral success? YOU - and Kate, and Nia - are the ones who are charging from that simple question, to "we shouldn't be a nation of extremists!!!!!" That requires what's called a suppressed premise, and it is: Republicans are extremists. Here's your assertion, expressed in a very simple syllogism: 1. Most Americans are moderates. 2. Moderates would rather not elect extremists. 3. [SUPPRESSED PREMISE ALERT: Republicans are extremists] 4. Therefore, most Americans would rather not elect Republicans. As I've illustrated to the point of exhaustion, Americans are electing Republicans in record numbers. So (4) is obviously false. It can't be the case both that American voters are moderates and the Repblicans whom they're electing in record numbers are extremists. You people have got to come to grips with this fact, or just resign yourselves to losing in bigger and bigger ways.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T17:47:28-06:00

ID

68895

Comment

Hmmmm. I hadn't thought of that, but you're right, Donna, I mean Your Highness. The culture of extremity is as alive and well among left-leanig folks as it is among far-right-wingers. Kate, I didn't know you were a Democrat. Are you the only one here? Please don't vote for Al Sharpton! You know he's one of my favorite Democrats to malign. (Pay attention, Greg. This part is instructional.)

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T17:49:02-06:00

ID

68896

Comment

Kate, Republicans are winning more elections than Democrats. Most disaffected voters come from left-of-center on, not from right of center to the other direction. Remember that my original question had to do with the idiocy of recommending to candidates that they run AWAY from conservatives in order to win. In my example, an engaged voter goes to the polls to vote for the candidate most likely to govern the way he prefers. In Donna's example, a candidate draws sharp distinctions between himself and conservatives, and is supposed to win as a consequence. These two statements have exactly nothing do with each other.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T17:55:56-06:00

ID

68897

Comment

Nia, With all due respect, the moment I feel I need instruction from one of your posts is the moment I end it all.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T17:57:27-06:00

ID

68898

Comment

Greg, get over yourself. You're no longer part of this debate. You're making stuff up. Show me, please, where I have said that all Republicans are extremists. Please. Because I can show you a few spots where I've explicitly said they aren't. In fact, I've tried to show you some commonalities between your arguments and the rest of us, and instead of choosing to try to find some points of agreement, you just go up in flames again. You are *so* completely missing the point, if you think I think that all republicans are extremists. Either that or your just drunk, loopy, cracked, insane, hallucinating, or high.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T18:00:13-06:00

ID

68899

Comment

Nia, I probably won't vote for Sharpton, even for fun. It was just an example. Maybe Kucinich, if the nomination is all sewn up by the time it gets down here. Who knows? I've got time to ponder what my protest vote will be...

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T18:01:24-06:00

ID

68900

Comment

Greg, baby, what are you talking about? You've flipped yourself again. Who are "you people"? Regular posters (all the people you've been arguing with today) have admitted in other threads to voting all over the political spectrum. I wouldn't expect you to know that, but why did you assume otherwise? No one said that all Republicans are extremists. Donna and Kate both explicitly said the opposite. Hello? And to your own most recent point, which BTW was ours, many of the Republicans who've been elected recently are moderate Republicans who are pro-choice, support women's rights, and believe that public education should be fixed not abandoned. Many also are anti-NAFTA. So. Greg, you're anti-war, anti-NAFTA, pro-choice, pro separation of church and state. Are you a closet, self-hating liberal?

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T18:05:28-06:00

ID

68901

Comment

Folks, it really comes down to one simple question: Why are people by and large not voting for left-of-center candidates? There you go - there's your question. When you figure out the answer, you can start healing yourselves. Until then, saying that the way for losing candidates to win is to move to the left is just opening the wound up wider and wider. But if instead of looking for answers, you choose instead to complain among yourselves that the left-right "paradigm" is "too constraining" and "old-fashioned," or that conservatives are out to control your mind, poison your drinking water, and turn you into breeders for Jerry Falwell, then by God do it quietly. The rest of us are trying to live in a society here.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T18:06:40-06:00

ID

68902

Comment

Kate, Nia, Ladd, et al, The discussion is here for anyone to read. Anyone who continues to believe that I've been inconsistent can scroll up and piece together the relevant quotes. It would take but a few keystrokes to put aside for a moment accusations that I've been inconsistent, or put words in anyone's mouth, or whatever, and simply explain to me how running to the left is the key to success for future politicians. Absent that, I can see no other conclusion that the advice was idiotic on its face, and its author has no rebuttal. I'll check in later and see if anyone's decided to address the original question.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T18:12:27-06:00

ID

68903

Comment

Be my guest, Greg, end it all. Just give us a holler online first so that we can call 9-1-1. Regular posters here debate to learn from each other. I wasn't telling you to take instruction from me. I was asking you to listen to my question and Kate's answer becasue the exchange would illuminate key points on which you've made a false assumtiosn: That we are 1) Democrats; 2) non-voters; 3) disagree with you completely. As Kate said above, you've gone out of your way to avoid finding commonality and achord in order to press a point of contention that you manufactured. You could learn a lot from me. And from the other posters if you'd stop arguing with yourself long enough to lsiten.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T18:13:44-06:00

ID

68904

Comment

Greg wrote: 'But if instead of looking for answers, you choose instead to complain among yourselves that the left-right "paradigm" is "too constraining" and "old-fashioned," or that conservatives are out to control your mind, poison your drinking water, and turn you into breeders for Jerry Falwell, then by God do it quietly. The rest of us are trying to live in a society here.' Hunh, turn us into breeders for Falwell? I repeat: "you're just drunk, loopy, cracked, insane, hallucinating, or high."

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T18:13:53-06:00

ID

68905

Comment

Greg, you've answered your own question, which BTW was also ours. If you accept as a given that Republicans are winning in record numbers (I haven't checked the numbers so I'm not positive but we'll assume for the moment that they are). But duh, many of them are left-of-center! You know, the Governator. No one here said that left-of-center = Democrat--except you.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T18:20:54-06:00

ID

68906

Comment

That's it: Greg, you are hopeless; you also wouldn't know clear logic if it walked up and pee-ed (peed?) on your foot. I never friggin' said that all Republicans are extremists, and anyone with the ability to read can see that. I know plenty of Republicans who are not extremists and who are unhappy with their party leadership, and the way the national leadership, or the "national GOP machine," as we called it, is headed these days. Go back and read the editorial: This whole thing started out being about candidates and who is running and controlling the party, not a blanket statement about everyone who identifies with a particular party. You're blanket-statement man, not me. And there you go twisting again. Now you've inserted the word SHARPLY and wrongly attributed it to me. You just wrote directly to me: "How can you possibly assert that moving sharply away from the Republicans on major issues is the key to electoral success?" Greg, what the editorial says is: "And we'd love to see statewide candidates willing to run to the left of the Far Right." There is a big-big-ass difference, as there has been with every single characterization you've made of what I have said. No matter how much you twist and manipulate, you cannot change what we said into something that you're conjuring up in your confusion. And every time you try, it just gets more ridiculous and obvious. For the record, the ONLY time *I've* said the word "sharp," or any form of the word, on here is when I said the Democrats deserve a good, sharp kiss in the ass.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-14T18:23:03-06:00

ID

68907

Comment

Must have thin lips. I prefer a big wet kiss on my arse. No tongue, though.

Author

jimjam

Date

2003-11-14T18:28:51-06:00

ID

68908

Comment

Tongue is good, jimjam. Are you anti-tongue?

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T18:32:40-06:00

ID

68909

Comment

C'mon Ladd. Stand for office. Its a mighty small pulpit here online. Yes, you have your half dozen devotees and lots of TALK about thousands of others just waiting for someone to bring your message to table. So, get out from behind that keyboard and put your philosophies to the ultimate test. Submit them to the voters by standing for office. Its clear you've got the mouth but do you have the courage to truly show us what you've got? I'm betting not. You're not a player.

Author

VBell

Date

2003-11-14T18:32:57-06:00

ID

68910

Comment

It just occurred to me that folks with their minds in the gutter could interpret that post differently from its intended meaning. My apologies up front if I offended anyone. Including you, jimjam. ;-)

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T18:33:52-06:00

ID

68911

Comment

VBell, it takes alot more courage to run a newspaper, than it does to drop in on a discussion and make potshots. If you think the only way to shape opinion is to run for office, you're mistaken. So sayeth kate, High Priestess of the Cult of the JFP. I go now, to make an offering to the GodDESS, by buying some tequila to make margaritas.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T18:36:33-06:00

ID

68912

Comment

She's a journalist, VBell. And clearly the JFP's pulpit is bigger than you're admitting or you wouldn't be here. Besides, Her Ladyship has plenty of accolytes here; no need to join the ranks of mudslinging politicians when She has Her own little Queendom right here online. And as if you needed proof that She is indeed holy: She's even attracting zealots. So there.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T18:37:34-06:00

ID

68913

Comment

Nia, no worries, I just took it to mean you were out to get us all to become breeders for Falwell.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T18:38:13-06:00

ID

68914

Comment

Margaritas? Where? When? Answer my original question !#$@! it!

Author

Knol Aust

Date

2003-11-14T18:40:10-06:00

ID

68915

Comment

Bwahahaha! Oh God, I mean Goddess, THAT would REALLY be funny!

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T18:40:35-06:00

ID

68916

Comment

I'm about to go have some drinks myself. Use them to wash down some tandoori at my favorite Indian restaurant. They don't have a liquor license, but I plan to bring a nice bottle of merlot. Have a few margaritas for me!

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T18:42:06-06:00

ID

68917

Comment

Knol, your original question? Margaritas = good! And, damn your extemist opinions! I have data to support the notion that Margaritas are good!

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T18:42:48-06:00

ID

68918

Comment

Nia, it would be tough for tongue because I usually have my thumb up my arse ( or so I've been told!!!). Just a simple case of not enough room.

Author

jimjam

Date

2003-11-14T18:43:03-06:00

ID

68919

Comment

Big thumbs, hunh? Kate, I believe you're mistaken. Margaritas = good. Prove they're not?

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T18:47:03-06:00

ID

68920

Comment

Donna, The logic is here for all to see. Surely you know some folks in academia who teach it - invite them to drop by and examine it any time. "And we'd love to see statewide candidates willing to run to the left of the Far Right" is clearly meant, in the context of your editorial, to imply that the Republicans who have been winning here in the state - and getting you thoroughly and hopelessly vexed, it appears - represent the Far Right. I'm suggesting otherwise. But no matter what you label them, they're winning. They may seem extreme *to you*, but they're getting solid majorities of the vote, and they're getting more solid with each election. Solid majorities are by definition not "far" anything. So again, I ask you to explain: Are you giving these fantasy candidates of yours instructions on committing political suicide? Are you instead saying that they really should run nominally to the left of the "far right," meaning simply "right," or "moderate right"? No. You're clearly suggesting that they run to the left of center, preferably over where you and your readers are, as if they should all smack their foreheads and say, "By God, Ladd! You're right! Of COURSE! What was I thinking?!? I should be running to the LEFT of all those EEE-DIOTS who got trounced by conservatives! THAT'S the key to victory!!" Don't get me wrong: From your keyboard to their ears... but THIS qualifies as good political advice? The "smart alternative"? Please.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-14T18:55:47-06:00

ID

68921

Comment

All I can say is Margaritas are good... Especially when they are 2 for 1 at La Cazuelas until 7pm tonight. Donna and Kate, give me a call if you'd like to meet up! ;-) Goddess Donna should have my number...

Author

Knol Aust

Date

2003-11-14T18:57:30-06:00

ID

68922

Comment

Ah, yes, Knol, Goddess Donna knows all, sees all. I'm at home with family tonight, and would be strung up if I left now. Have fun without me, and let's shoot for another day.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T19:56:42-06:00

ID

68923

Comment

No, Knol. Margaritas are EXTREMEly good.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-14T19:57:17-06:00

ID

68924

Comment

Hee! Good one, Nia! And, I was just realizing how happy I am now that we've declared this a religion, rather than an addiction. I was starting to worry about myself, but now I realize I'm just on the path to salvation.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-14T20:04:35-06:00

ID

68925

Comment

I go into a meeting, and everyone single one of y'all all go hog-ass crazy on me. A few final thoughtsbefore this author runs, runs, runs from this blog to a nice, strong cocktail: 1. Extreme margaritas = extreme relief 2. JimJam is clearly an extremely tongue-obsessed Democrat. 3. I refuse to answer Knol's extreme question on the extreme grounds that he's clearly an extremely idiotic gentleman -- or is it an extremely gentlemanly idiot. 4. I officially lay my extreme cyber-hands on Kate and declare her well on the road to extreme salvation 5. I was a Goddess and a Queen before today, and I have an extremely furry, purple tiara to prove it (OK, I'm just a Wannabe, but an official one, and an extreme one); and, more importantly, 5. As Goddess of this Here Almighty Pulpit, I do declare Greg the extreme winner of This Here Extremely Long Blog Discussion. . Amen, and pass the salt.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-14T20:20:26-06:00

ID

68926

Comment

Yikes, how come I always come along at the tail end of these wild discussions? Darn. After skimming thru this blog (in between laughing my butt off), I do have one suggestion for Donna. Please don't declare Greg the "extreme" or any other kind of winner until he pays his dues. And, it just so happens I have a suggestion for what his dues should be. He needs to read the two-parter by Mississippi State Representative Erik Fleming which can be found on Black Commentator: Southern White Male Democrats Part I: Where are 'ya? http://www.blackcommentator.com/63/63_white_dems.html Part II: Dean's Folly http://www.blackcommentator.com/64/64_white_dems_2.html Greg, too, can be a winner, if he doesn't have a stroke while reading either one of these.

Author

C.W.

Date

2003-11-14T23:03:01-06:00

ID

68927

Comment

Dues? Please. Fleming trots out that tired old "Republicans are racist" crap, and I'm supposed to take that as some kind of trip to the woodshed? Once Republicans pushed through welfare reform, blacks became the fastest-growing middle class in the country, above whites, asians, and hispanics. Bush 41 nominates the first black to the Supreme Court and he's a racist? Bush 43 appoints the first black SecState and the first black NSA, and he's a racist? Here: point Fleming to an explanation of the real reason the white male Democrat is going the way of the dodo bird. It's an education he and the rest of you sorely need: http://www.hotlicks.blogspot.com/2003_11_02_hotlicks_archive.html#106809845063639519

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-15T00:41:27-06:00

ID

68928

Comment

And I suppose black people working hard, the "first generation of blacks" graduating from college, and the fruition of voting rights had anything to do with the growth of the middle class? Once again, black people's success is attributable not to their own efforts but to white folks, Republicans to boot. Oh yeah. Thatmakes sense.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-15T00:46:53-06:00

ID

68929

Comment

Once again, Nia, you fail to see the forest for the trees. 60 years of living on the Democrats' plantation, gettin' their handouts in exchange for votes, and all blacks got was three generations deep into welfare dependency. 6 years into Republicans getting them off the dole and into the workplace, and the dignity of a day's work for a day's pay, and they're the fastest-growing middle class in the country. Scoff if you want. The facts speak for themselves.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-15T01:00:55-06:00

ID

68930

Comment

Oh, and one more thing... You know all those selfish, greedy Republicans, the ones who are out to royally skroo the less-fortunate? Here's a color-coded chart that even the folks at JFP can understand. It ranks the most charitable states in the country, and how they voted in the 2000 presidential election (red states, in case you don't remember, voted for Bush): http://www.glennbeck.com/news/11052003.shtml

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-15T01:05:02-06:00

ID

68931

Comment

After this, yesterday evening: Greg wrote: 'But if instead of looking for answers, you choose instead to complain among yourselves that the left-right "paradigm" is "too constraining" and "old-fashioned," or that conservatives are out to control your mind, poison your drinking water, and turn you into breeders for Jerry Falwell, then by God do it quietly. The rest of us are trying to live in a society here.' I exist on this blog only to mock everything Greg says, since he's clearly not listening. To anything. Except his own ego. Good luck trying to control our minds.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-15T13:08:05-06:00

ID

68932

Comment

Correction - Thurgood Marshall was the first black on SCOTUS. I guess it was his not-having-a-pulse thing that made me forget about him.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-15T15:39:23-06:00

ID

68933

Comment

Kate, CONTROL your mind? I'd be happy just to FIND it.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-15T20:43:45-06:00

ID

68934

Comment

Get a clue, Greg and take your thumb out of your ass. Leave that to jimjam. ;-) We'll assume your statement that blacks are the fastest growing segment of the middle class is true. I don't have time to check it right now, but I'll follow up later on that. The fact is that African Americans born after 1964 are the first generation of African Americans to grow up with the full benefit of citizenship, legally anyway. After desegregation and passage of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts, blacks had access to more of the tools that contribute to financial and educational success. They're graduating from college and buying homes in record numbers and that has more to do with their own hard work and dedication to excelling than with political platforms. Besides, since the majority of people on welfare are white, kicking people off the welfare rolls should make whites the fastest growing segment of the middle class. So what the hell is wrong with those people? Don't they know they've been trading their Republican votes for continued welfare hell?

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-15T22:18:05-06:00

ID

68935

Comment

Nia, If you want to make the case that the emerging African-American middle class is due primarily to the fact that those born after 1964 are the first generation to enjoy the benefits of full citizenship, and not because the cycle of welfare was broken by a Republican congress, then you need to provide proof that A-A's under 40 are doing better, when compared to A-A's over 40, than other 40-and under members are doing versus over-40 members in other ethnic and racial segments, across the board. In other words, is there a greater discrepancy between the success of under-40 blacks and over-40 blacks, than there is between under-40 whites, Asians, and hispanics, and over-40 whites' Asians, and hispanics? Absent that, the advantage lies with the Republican congress. (Donna, that's one for the many logic experts on your staff to vet. Have fun.). As to your second assertion: "...since the majority of people on welfare are white, kicking people off the welfare rolls should make whites the fastest growing segment of the middle class." This is a faulty assumption. It is not necessarily the case that because more whites were kicked off the welfare rolls, the white middle-class should be growing faster than the black middle-class. Here's why: For your conclusion to be correct, the following two conditions have to be true: 1. The percentage of blacks and whites receiving welfare would have to be roughly equal. 2. The average amount of aid received by blacks and whites would have to be roughly equal. As it happens, in 1996 37% of blacks received welfare aid, vs. only 17% of whites. In other words, as a percentage, more than twice as many blacks as whites received welfare aid. So much for condition 1 being true. About $212 billion went to whites, and about $105 billion went to blacks. With about 220 million whites in the country, and 17% of them receiving aid, that's about 37.4 million receiving aid, or an average of about $5,700 each. With about 33 million blacks in the country, and about 37% of them receiving aid, that's about 12.2 million, or an average of about $8,600. So much for condition 2 being true. Advantage: Republican congress.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-16T00:11:54-06:00

ID

68936

Comment

Greg, I believe you were arguing that politics are either right or left, which is a simple concept that I might accept if I could fit all the people I know (including me) into that construct. You said, "Claiming that the Anderson and Perot candidacies are solid proof of an emerging "third way" of American politics is absurd. The only thing they're proof of is how few people actually vote for them. I tell this to my libertarian friends all the time." That got me to wondering something, considering your views on the simplicity dividing everyone into right and left.. Are libertarians right or left? And how about Reform Party people?

Author

C.W.

Date

2003-11-16T00:16:42-06:00

ID

68937

Comment

Greg, you weren't supposed to take being asked to read Erik Fleming's articles as a 'trip to the woodshed,' but it appears that you did. I posted this in another forum, and neither of the two conservative men who responded had the same reaction to it that you did. The older white conservative said, ìAs long as the Dems are liberal on social issues I believe this will continue.î The younger black conservative said, ìMost of the white conservative men that I know are relatively liberal on social issues. Maybe in rural areas people are more conservative on such issues, but in cities and suburbs that is far from being the case.î Maybe they reacted without defensiveness because both are disgusted with the two main parties and don't identify with being Republican. Neither believes that the Republican party practices the conservative ideals it preaches. While I may not agree with everything that Rep. Fleming says, I do agree with him about the "GOPís subtle racist agenda." I don't stretch that to mean that every Republican has that agenda (or understands it when they do), but the GOP leaders do quite deliberately appeal to those who have a less than subtle racist agenda, without being so blatant about it that itís noticed by every Tom, Dick and Harriet who is not a looking for a place to hang their diehard bigotry. This is an attempt to serve two masters, and that never ends well. That said, I believe the Democrats are also trying to serve more than one master, and that, too, will not end well. I was confused about another thing you said, "6 years into Republicans getting them off the dole and into the workplace, and the dignity of a day's work for a day's pay, and they're the fastest-growing middle class in the country." Boy, I must have been asleep during the whole of the Clinton presidency, because I honestly didnít think Clinton was a Republican, not even when he pushed thru welfare reform. You also said, ". . . then by God do it quietly. The rest of us are trying to live in a society here." If what is said on this blog disturbs you, might I suggest that you read elsewhere rather than call for a restriction on freedom of speech in here? Some of us are trying to improve our society, not just live passively in it.

Author

C.W.

Date

2003-11-16T00:36:51-06:00

ID

68938

Comment

CW, "Are libertarians right or left? And how about Reform Party people?" Libertarians are rightists - that should be obvious. Ask 10 Libertarians: "If all of a sudden the Libertarian party didn't exist, and someone held a gun to your head and made you vote for either the Democrats or the Republicans, who would vote for?" 8 of them will say "Republicans." The Reform Party, when it existed as something other than a punch line, was an ill-conceived alliance between conservative isolationists and union fair-traders. Now that it's deader than a doornail, it should be equally obvious that its death was caused by the kinds of irreconcilable interests I illustrated in an earlier post. As I've said repeatedly, politics is, with minor exceptions, a linear world.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-16T02:14:25-06:00

ID

68939

Comment

CW, Your Republican friends may have read Fleming's article that way, but what I read was essentially a buttoned-down temper tantrum about the Republicans finally learning how to use race in campaign techniques. In other words, indignation that Republicans would dare try and use tactics that the Democrats had spent years mastering. To clear up your confusion about welfare reform: It was the Republicans who devised welfare reform and pushed it through. Clinton signed it, but he never would have done so had the pressure from Republicans not been so high and so focused. He damned sure never would have received such legislation from a Democratic congress, or suggested it himself.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-16T02:21:21-06:00

ID

68940

Comment

Greg, I'll make this as brief as I can. Since you obviously didn't read the last two posts I made, there's no reason to believe you'll read this one. I would be willing to bet that I voted for my first Libertarian before you were born, and I have always recognized their mix of liberal and conservative views. At one time the mix was closer to my views than any other party, but they have moved to the right in many areas (but not all), which is why I no longer vote for them. "As I've said repeatedly, politics is, with minor exceptions, a linear world." Yes, you have, but no matter how many times you repeat an erroneous statement, it still remains erroneous. I don't fit either of your linear constructs - I am very conservative fiscally, but very liberal on social justice issue. Doesn't fit left or right; and I'm not the only one - there are a lot of us out here. And I'm just enough of a stubborn redneck to really resent having someone try and hammar my square peg into a round hole (and knock the edges off it while you do it). I can tell you didn't read my post, because I clearly stated that the two conservatives I quoted did not identify with the Republican Party and that neither of them thinks the Republican Party is truly conservative. They are not my friends, either. (One of them would be very angry to hear himself so described). It appears that your personal prejudices colored, in a very substantial way, how you read Rep. Fleming's articles. Lastly, no I am not the one confused about welfare reforms (and I am no fan of Clinton. I reluctantly voted for him the first time because I was then as now in the ABB camp; the second time around I voted for Dole). ABB means Anybody But Bush, in case you weren't familiar with that acronym. Clinton actually ran on that platform. I have tried to pick conservative (or at least, Republican) sources for you: http://www.dailyrepublican.com/feinsteinattacks.html http://66.216.126.164/comment/comment-rector031003.asp This will be the last time I will waste the effort to respond to you since you don't do any more than skim over looking for a place to throw in your preconceptions.

Author

C.W.

Date

2003-11-16T21:30:27-06:00

ID

68941

Comment

CW, While I have a built-in respect for your superannuation, it nonetheless has nothing to do with where Libertarians fall on the political spectrum today. As you concur, Libertarians have moved to the right. I still contend - because I talk to a lot of them on an ongoing basis - that 8 out of 10 Libertarians would vote for Republicans if they had no party yet had to cast votes. So I don't see where we have a disagreement. But I admit my evidence is anectodal, so feel free to tell me that your experience has been different. I also have to admit that I'm confused as to why you included the links to the Feinstein article and NRO. I read them both. Twice. Slowly. The Feinstein article sounds flaky, like it may have come from NewsMax. The NRO article is solid as usual. But neither one refutes my claim that it was Republicans who devised and sponsored the legislation, and Clinton who had to have his arm twisted before he'd sign it. For what it's worth, here's what a liberal source says about it: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/october96/welfare_reform_10-22.html Money quote: "After months of wrangling, and three attempts, the 104th Congress finally sent a Welfare Reform package that survived the President's veto. The reason for the three rounds: Republican bills sent to President Clinton were frowned upon as "extremist" by the White House. A version acceptable to the President was finally signed in August, and went into effect October 1. A new era in federal entitlement assistance arrived, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children as we knew it was gone. The President signed the welfare reform bill reluctantly." If the successes noted in the NRO article are what we get when we pass "extremist" legislation, then perhaps some people need to re-examine their definition of "extreme." It was Republican Rick Santorum who sponsored the bill, and the Republican Senate and House who "pushed it through," not Clinton. So I don't see where we have a disagreement there. Yes, I mistakenly attributed your friends as Republicans. Look through this thread again: It's 5 of you and 1 of me. I make one mistake, and suddenly I'm not reading what anyone says?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-16T22:13:04-06:00

ID

68942

Comment

CW, Finally, I hope that by casting yourself as not fitting any mold, and saying there are a lot like you, you're not expecting me to be surprised. Check my earlier posts and you'll find a lot of talk about people like you, who are disaffected for a thousand reasons. If you think I've made mistakes in reasoning in those posts, I'm listening. But there evidently aren't enough like you to constitute a compelling market, or they'd see politicians fashioning messages to appeal to you. Fact is, most people who favor small business and small government are also more religious than not, oppose abortion, and favor capital punishment. Most people who favor big government and labor unions also support abortion and oppose the death penalty. Most, not all. But it doesn't take "all" to win elections, just "most." So if people who find no one that represents them just right choose not to vote, and thus not exercise their right to expres their pleasure or displeasure at the offering of candidates, all the moaning in the world about sub-par candidates, or sniffing on blogs and in coffee shops about how complex their political views are, isn't going to change anything. Unless you represent a check box in one column or another, you're politically a non-entity.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-16T22:36:53-06:00

ID

68943

Comment

Come on, Griffith. You say the Republicans have 'finally' learned how to use race in campaigns??? The Republican party started to use race strategies to attract white voters in campaigns back with Nixon and perfected the technique, the 'southern strategy' it has long been labelled inside and outside that party, during Reagan's first campiagn and on into Bush campaign (1988 W. Horton images was the best known, but by no means the only example). I suggest more substantive research is in order - this bit of campaign science is important for students of politics to become familiar with, especially those who want to comprehend the dynamics and changes in the political parties over the last several decades. You just cannot perform a cogent analysis of the liberal-conservative patterns in the country without a basic comprehension of the remarkable political party changes which have occurred. If I find time this week, I will try to swing back through here with some good sources of information for additional study of this phenomenon.

Author

John

Date

2003-11-17T00:50:09-06:00

ID

68944

Comment

Greg wrote: 'But if instead of looking for answers, you choose instead to complain among yourselves that the left-right "paradigm" is "too constraining" and "old-fashioned," or that conservatives are out to control your mind, poison your drinking water, and turn you into breeders for Jerry Falwell, then by God do it quietly. The rest of us are trying to live in a society here.' Kate wrote: 'Good luck trying to control out minds.' Greg wrote: Kate, CONTROL your mind? I'd be happy just to FIND it. To which I respond: I'm rubber, you're glue, bounces off me, and sticks to you! Neener neener neener!

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-17T10:59:31-06:00

ID

68945

Comment

All right, I guess I do have to make one more post. When you read my mind about voting, you must have had your crystal ball unplugged, because in the 36 years that I have been able to vote, the one time I missed was when I had the flu, and it was only a city primary. I should have added that independent numbers are growing; we may not be a concern to the two main parties yet, so let them just close their eyes; their loss. I'm one person, not five. I said you didn't read MY posts. Looks like you didn't read this one either, did you? So much for your sarcastic respect for my age, junior. When you grow up and learn to listen with more than half an ear, you might be worth talking to. Kate, I see you finally figured out what language this young whipper-snapper understands.

Author

C.W.

Date

2003-11-17T11:28:39-06:00

ID

68946

Comment

LSHISAOMM (Laughing so hard I spit all over my monitor)!!!!! That was funny, Kate! Greg, I won't waste any more time beyond this: Your logic about welfare reform is laughable. You asked me to show that blacks under 40 are doing better than blacks over 40 to prove my assertion. Isn't that the given you asked us to assume, that blacks are the fastest growing segment of the middle class? Are you now trying to say that you were wrong? Are you saying that the growth of the black middle class is occurring all in people over 40? You're saying that these 40+ people spent their adult life until age 40 on welfare and then suddenly got educations, job skills, job experience, bought homes, started 529s and 401ks, and joined the middle class? Puh-lease. And if it's really all up to Republican welfare reform, then you have a long way to go to prove that. Namely, show that all those black people dumped from the welfare rolls are now solidly in the middle class--instead of right back on welfare or in homeless shelters a year later, the way countless studies have shown. Those who do get jobs more often than not get low-wage jobs that leave them living paycheck-to-paycheck sans home ownership and little prospect of climbing out of working clas poverty. Most former welfare recipients never move above the poverty line even though it's set ubsurdly low. Now to get back to Donna's question about media watchdogs, has that group been formed?

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-17T11:29:38-06:00

ID

68947

Comment

The short answer is, we need to figure out what it is and form it, probably through the blog first. Folks around here think we should start out with a special MediaBlog and then build out from there. We can get our feet wet by, perhaps, choosing topics (crime and tort reform come immediately to my mind, probably because hideous coverage of those issues is already on my brain) and then forming a blog based on each of them. It would be great if people from throughout the state monitored various media for the way they're covering the issues. It became very clear during the election that "civic journalism" wasn't exactly being practiced outside Jackson, either! Individual people could take on particular media outlets. Now, if there is real enthusiasm for this grass-roots project, it can build into something more organized, perhaps publishing reports on what we discover over, say, a three- or six-month period. I'm already talking to an organization here about organizing a group of young people to monitor the state's media (or at least media based in Jackson) for their coverage of young people. So hopefully that end will be covered as well. There have been a number of media-watchdog organizations that have already laid the groundwork for this kind of monitoring project. We can get ideas from them. I have a professor friend who can give ideas on this that I'll touch base with. This project is going to be especially important going forward. As RNC chairman, Haley Barbour was at the forefront of demonizing critical media coverage by sweeping them all into the big tent of "liberal media." Expect him to bring his techniques with him to Mississippi and to regularly blame the messenger for any critical coverage of him and his policies. Of course, this game already happens here: I have on the wall behind my desk a bumper sticker that reads: "Annoy the Clarion-Ledger: Vote Pickering." That cracks me up every time I look at it.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-17T12:35:23-06:00

ID

68948

Comment

BTW, let's not have this discussion on this particular blog. You'd have to read through a lot of muck to get to this point. We're setting up some new blogs, hopefully today, and one of them is going to be a media blog. I just have to find somewhere to put it on the front page! So watch for that, and let's continue the discussion over there.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-17T12:36:55-06:00

ID

68949

Comment

Nia, Here's what you wrote: "You asked me to show that blacks under 40 are doing better than blacks over 40 to prove my assertion. Isn't that the given you asked us to assume, that blacks are the fastest growing segment of the middle class?" The number 40 is significant because that's about how long it's been since the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts were passed; thus, as you pointed out earlier, blacks 40 and under are the only blacks who have had the benefit of that legislation their entire lives. You want to assert that those pieces of legislation are more the reason for the growing black middle class, not welfare reform. If that were true, then we could expect that blacks under 40 would constitute the majority of the emerging black middle class. What I said earlier was that if you could provide some proof of that, then you'd have the beginnings of a good case for attributing that success more to civil rights liegislation than to welfare reform. You continue: "Are you now trying to say that you were wrong? Are you saying that the growth of the black middle class is occurring all in people over 40?" That's not what I've said in this or earlier posts. I don't know which age range most of the growth is occurring in, or how it's distributed. I *do* say that for 34 years of Great Society handouts, what we got was 3 generations of a welfare-dependent underclass. But after 6 years of welfare reform, the fastest-growing middle class in America is among blacks. In other words, the growth of the black middle class has at least a believable cause-and-effect relationship with welfare reform, while no such appearance of a relationship exists in regard to civil rights legislation. What I have asked you to provide is any evidence at all that the welfare reform/black middle class relationship is purely a post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy. Barring that, I think it's more reasonable to believe that when Plan A has had 34 years to work, and produces only the prospect of an underclass as far as the eye can see, but when Plan B has 6 years to work and that same underclass begins a profound transformation for the better, then credit rightfully goes to Plan B. As I said earlier, surely there are some trained logicians among JFP's coterie of academic types. Get them to vet my logic, if you wish, but I'd recommend not calling it "laughable" until you can demonstrate at least an elementary grasp of the discipline.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-17T15:01:29-06:00

ID

68950

Comment

Nia, You also wrote: "And if it's really all up to Republican welfare reform, then you have a long way to go to prove that. Namely, show that all those black people dumped from the welfare rolls are now solidly in the middle class--instead of right back on welfare or in homeless shelters a year later, the way countless studies have shown." To show that welfare reform helped spur the growth of the black middle class, I don't have to show that ALL blacks who were once on welfare are now solidly in the middle class, for the simple reason that nowhere has ANYONE claimed that ALL blacks on welfare moved from the underclass to the middle class. What HAS been claimed is that SOME blacks who were members of the underclass before welfare reform have moved into the middle class, because they got jobs and a steady paycheck. Finally, among those "countless studies" surely there are a measley 3 to which you could post a link? Please do so at your earliest convenience.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-17T15:14:23-06:00

ID

68951

Comment

This particular thread has reminded me of my old logic professor, Dr. Keely, on many occasions now. He used to jump up and down yell a lot, and I adored him. Anyway, just in case anyone would like to brush up on logic pitfalls, here's a listing of 18 common fallacies with explanations: http://kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php It is quite amusing that in at least one posting above, the writer commits at least one different fallacy, arguably two, while mentioning one of the fallacies by name. I can fall in the logic snakepit with the worst of them, as Dr. Keely was very quick to point out, but I'm not sure I've ever seen anything quite like that. I'm tempted to close comments on this train wreck of a blog just to help put it out of its misery. Taxi!

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-17T15:35:25-06:00

ID

68952

Comment

Ladd, Point them out. Or did you already step into the taxi?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-17T16:11:32-06:00

ID

68953

Comment

Actually, we all piled in.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-17T16:13:42-06:00

ID

68954

Comment

Yes, I see... into the yellow one.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-17T16:19:24-06:00

ID

68955

Comment

Her Highness always rides in style. Gypsy cabs just aren't good enough.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-17T16:41:54-06:00

ID

68956

Comment

Speaking of ... Nia, remind me to tell you sometime about the time I took a cab across the street in Chelsea -- from one side of Eighth Avenue to the other. My NY friends consider it one of my finer moments. ;-D

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-17T16:45:15-06:00

ID

68957

Comment

Donna, you may have to start a cab blog. After you tell me that story, I'll tell you about the time I hopped in a cab to chase the city bus on which I'd left my purse and cellphone!

Author

Nia

Date

2003-11-17T16:54:17-06:00

ID

68958

Comment

What about the time I was taking a cab to Chelsea and the driver had no clue where Chelsea was? Oh, wait, we're discussing Greg's original question... Right?

Author

Knol Aust

Date

2003-11-17T16:58:40-06:00

ID

68959

Comment

CW, I said nothing about YOUR not voting. I was careful - very careful - to say "So if people who find no one that represents them just right choose not to vote, and thus not exercise their right to expres their pleasure or displeasure at the offering of candidates, all the moaning in the world ... isn't going to change anything." And as far as my age goes, for all you know I could be 25, or I could be 85. Besides, what's your point - that I have to be an old coot to be correct? Are you an ageist? Now Ladd wants to catch a cab. Is this how debate ends around here: "Runaway!!!!" ?

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-17T17:02:53-06:00

ID

68960

Comment

Ladd, There's something about Chelsea. I once took a cab there from midtown, and the guy was evidently convinced that if he didn't get down there IN UNDER 70 SECONDS he would DIE OR SOMETHING. By far the scariest cab ride I've ever taken in any city, bar none.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-17T17:06:33-06:00

ID

68961

Comment

Greg, this is not a debate. This is you diddling your ego. I quit playing after numerous attempts to engage you in a discussion, only to be told things like: "So careful about your notions that left=good and right=bad." "that conservatives are out to control your mind, poison your drinking water, and turn you into breeders for Jerry Falwell," "You know all those selfish, greedy Republicans, the ones who are out to royally skroo the less-fortunate?" And other such lame ass, sweeping generalizations about the posters on the Blog, which show that you DO NOT READ what other posters are say, you listen only to your own thoughts rattling around in your empty head. Running away? I don't think so. We're over here in the land of actual debate. You're down there, in a land where whatever you say is true. Which is pretty much: Republicans are winning some elections. Therefore the republicans are right about everything. Any attempt to engage anyone else in debate, or encourage anyone else to vote is stupid. Sorry. But you've only given me hope, that a majority of republican voters are as stupid as you.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-17T17:34:14-06:00

ID

68962

Comment

A CabBlog in Jackson? Hmmmm. That has a rather alt feel to it, don't you think. Indeed, there are a million cab stories to tell. One of my favorites is the woman who found my portfolio in a cab and spent three days tracking me down so she can return it. Gotta hate those hateful New Yorkers, eh? ;-) Greg, if you make yourself impossible to have a civil/intelligent/logical conversation with, don't start whining because no one wants to talk to you. That's like the bully in the playground all bent out of shape because no one will play with him. His capital is spent by then. I've already said that I don't want to play your games; it's a waste of my time and energy, and I say that about very, very few people, regardless of their views. I enjoy spirited debate with folks with all sorts of views, and know plenty of them to debate with. I have those conversations to learn things. But you've haven't shown yourself to be a witty, smart conversationalist who continually adds new components to a conversation and makes me think harder; I actually suspect that you have some points to offer up, but they're buried under so many factual issues and logical fallacies and, seemingly, preconceptions that they're hard to find. And no one is going to sit through your cloying, rude manner to try to figure out if you have an interesting point buried under there somewhere. It's just a waste of time. On top of all that, you seem blissfully unaware of just why it is that you're so unappealing to talk with, and instantly start to whimper when you think everyone's deserting you. I remind you that you are chasing me/us to talk with you, not vice versa. And if you're going to be a bully, you're going to quickly lose conversation partners. Pretend my distaste is because you're such a great debater and have made such amazing points here if you that makes you feel better. I simply don't care. As the blog "goddess," however, I do ask that you stop trying to harass me or anyone else into talking to you, though; it's starting to feel like cyber-stalking. It's up to any of us to engage in conversation as we feel like it, not to be manipulated into it by someone trolling for a screech-fest and throwing some or another insult out there to entice us. This just isn't talk radio, and I'm not going to run a screech-insult blog that only attracts boors.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-17T17:44:57-06:00

ID

68963

Comment

So if you are going to continue posting here, Greg, I ask you to start over. Stay on topic and refrain from sophomoric and inflammatory asides ("Runawayyy!!!!"), dictatorial commands and ad hominem attacks that derail the discussions. Apologize when you're rude like others do (or would if you weren't being such a goof). Present back-up links when you start trotting out a string of facts. In return, I ask the others to respond in respectful kind to you, if they wish to at all. It's up to them, as it is to you.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-17T17:47:11-06:00

ID

68964

Comment

I apologize for my sophomoric behavior.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-11-17T17:53:55-06:00

ID

68965

Comment

mama ladd laying down the law!!!

Author

jimjam

Date

2003-11-17T18:19:25-06:00

ID

68966

Comment

Mama?! Hey, I like being "Goddess" much better! Don't demote me, yet; I've only had that heavenly title for a couple days now. ;-)

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-17T18:24:38-06:00

ID

68967

Comment

maybe when you are done with greg i could get you to come over and lay down the law to my two cats. They don't listen to me anymore. Maybe you can try some of this logic jive on them that i see everyone typing about. I told my cat to quit begging the question, but we just keep going in circles. it sounded like "get off the chair" "meow?" "leave my food alone" "meow?" . I have given up.

Author

jimjam

Date

2003-11-17T18:25:38-06:00

ID

68968

Comment

Donna, - What ad hominem attacks? Can you point out any that weren't proceeded by the same, from your own posters? - What logical fallacies? I've asked you and Nia both to point out one - ONE - and I get nothing. That doesn't surprise me, though - the reason we're a gajillion posts into this thread in the first place is that I asked a simple question and never could get you to give me an answer. JHC... is it so hard to just admit you made a poorly-thought out extrapolation from the election results? Face it: You were wrong on point 1, the original editorial. You're wrong when you say I insult people. You're wrong when you say I've made logical errors. Shut off comments if you must, but leave the thread up for all to see.

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-17T18:27:56-06:00

ID

68969

Comment

Correction, "preceded"

Author

Greg Griffith

Date

2003-11-17T18:28:49-06:00

ID

68970

Comment

Now, Jimjam, you know cats listen to no mama, so to speak, logical or not. My three -- Eddie, Willie Hoyt and Miss S -- now there's a trio of independent minds. They are insane little critters, and I love them to pieces. But do they listen to a word of logic that I impart? Of course not. Speaking of, I must go collect the boys from the vet. And I will pay for this particular outrage for at least two days.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-17T18:30:47-06:00

ID

68971

Comment

Of course, the blog stays. It's quite informative, although we'd probably disagree about the lessons it teaches. But it's perfectly cool to disagree. So let's leave it here with a solid agreement to blissfully agree to disagree. Peace, man.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-17T20:21:51-06:00

ID

68972

Comment

couldn't decide where else to throw this: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-12-30-blogging-usat_x.htm

Author

dvc

Date

2003-12-30T10:22:23-06:00