A Thread for the Neither/Nors

[Gary Sisco]

There are a lot of people in the US who are neither repub nor dim, neither conservative nor liberal (the way words are used today), and also a lot of people who'd rather vote for someone than against someone else. I'm one of them. All told, they account for fully a third of the voting population and therefore are the ones that make or break elections. Both "major" parties can count on their kneejerk base, but neither has kneejerk numbers even close to being able to win on their own alone.

So who would I choose to vote *for* if the pres election were today?

I'd go with Chuck Hagel, who has at least a moral compass and is willing to make judgments based on the evidence at hand. Those traits alone would be like a hurricane of fresh wind after the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight (unless straight into the faces of friends ...). His stands (anyone's stands, at this point) on particular issues are much less important to me now than restoring common decency and responsible judgment to the presidency. It's the most powerful office in the world and we have seen what happens when people without moral compasses and without the ability to make judgments not based in ideology are given that power. It's time for the people to take it back.

My guess, and I'd wager on it, support Hagel or not, is that his own party will shitcan any hope of his getting the nod, rather like the dim party itself did to Dean and Kucinich (sp?), but I'd still support him, and I'll vote for him if I have the chance.

The rest of the pack, to me, are either unacceptable based on their histories or opportunists who'd say anything at all while campaigning so can't be trusted as there is no way to determine what their actual positions might be, once granted power. Who among the dims would have guessed that "Hillary" would be carrying around the albatross of being an Iraq war supporter? There you go. She, and she was far from alone in the dim party, thought it was going to be an easy piece of work and that they'd be able to say "I voted for war, too! I voted for the war, too!" In short, they were willing for blood to run in the streets if it would lend a boost to their personal ambitions, and no one on that count has been more willing than Ms Clinton, an opportunist extraordinaire.

It's easy to take positions when they appear to be positions shared by most others. It's a lot harder to take and stick to positions that do not.

I'd always, regardless of this or that issue, find the latter more acceptable in every circumstance.

[Monte Smith]

You're right that Hagel is not going to get the nod, unless you figure that the GOP is going to be the anti-war party in 2008. Ha. Also, Hagel hasn't said he's running yet. My bet is if he does run, it'll be as an independent candidate. Both parties (either/or) are susceptible to a third party movement drawing on their disaffected supporters in this cycle.

[Gary Sisco]

I think I said as much, Monte. I said I'd vote for him if I had the chance. I also said likely his own party would remove that chance.

I'd vote for him as an independent, though, if he ran as one. At least he'd then be running as a candidate of the same no-party that I'd prefer.

The rethugs will bury themselves in Iraq. It's all but done anyway. Only a few more shovels' worth to go.

Incidentally, it's not like the dims have a whole herd of antiwar candidates running. Nor did they last time out.

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

The rethugs will bury themselves in Iraq. It's all but done anyway. Only a few more shovels' worth to go.

Incidentally, it's not like the dims have a whole herd of antiwar candidates running. Nor did they last time out.

Now there's a good question: why no major antiwar candidates during perhaps the most unpopular war in U.S. history? Hillary, Edwards, McCain, and even Hagel all voted for it. All of the other Republicans in some measure support it. There are no major cadidates who were in Congress at the time who voted against it. Obama has said he wouldn't have voted for it (but of course he was never under the pressure to decide), but even he doesn't really support a pullout. All very interesting.

[jesus marion joseph]

Isn't Kucinich an anti-war candidate? I'm not sure, but I think he's been consistently anti-Iraq war all along.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Gary

I said I'd vote for him if I had the chance.

I don't know, Gary.

You may want to investigate his record a little more closely.

Here's two issues he voted yes on that you may strongly disagree:


Do you support the President using military tribunals to try terrorist suspects when the President deems ordinary civil courts to be inappropriate or impractical?

Should law enforcement agencies be granted greater discretion to read mail and email, tap phones, and conduct random searches to prevent future terrorist attacks?


He also wants to completely cut spending on the arts and greatly increase spending on defense and terrorism prevention. He also wants to greatly increase funding on the missile defense system.

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

Isn't Kucinich an anti-war candidate? I'm not sure, but I think he's been consistently anti-Iraq war all along.

Yes, he has been, and I'll vote for him if I get the chance, but I wouldn't categorize him as a major candidate.

[walto]

Originally Posted by gary sisco

So who would I choose to vote *for* if the pres election were today?

I'd go with Chuck Hagel

Maybe if it were today, but not if it were a couple weeks from now and you had a chance to find out more about his "social conservatism." I don't think you'd vote for Hagel any more than you would for Buchanan.

[Gary Sisco]

You might be surprised, Uncle Walto. At this point, anyone who's willing to talk about actual American political ideas and so forth gets big points with me, for that alone. But, I likely won't get the chance anyway. If still in VT (and it would be a real disaster if I were), I could vote for him in a primary if on the ballot. Somewhere else, I don't know. Buchanan's a clown who found a way to make a living, finally. Other things aside, it's still nice to hear a pres candidate going off about bringing a peasant army to DC, with pikes for pol heads. You don't hear that every day.

[Scott Dolan]

So you've got no problems with Hagels stance on the issues I pointed out?

Walto is right, of course. Hagel is essentially just like all the other Republicans, but against the Iraq war. He's just a Republican version of Liebermann.

[Dr Dave]

Edwards is an anti-war candidate. He's even a substantive anti-war candidate. He's also the only candidate with a detailed health care plan. But then you knew that already.

Somebody (Dan Schorr?) quoted Mario Cuomo the other day: "We campaign in poetry, but we govern in prose." Senator Clinton is all prose. So far, Obama is mostly poetry.

But things change. Don't they.

Big thumbs-down for Chuck Hagel. Having personal integrity does not equate to having good ideas. And I'm deathly afraid of Fred Thompson, who is as conservative as they come, but has actually played serious authority figures on television. You can be absolutely sure that there are millions of Americans who think Fred Thompson actually is the character he played on "Law & Order."

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

So you've got no problems with Hagels stance on the issues I pointed out?

Walto is right, of course. Hagel is essentially just like all the other Republicans, but against the Iraq war. He's just a Republican version of Liebermann.

Hagel may have the most consistently conservative voting record in Congress, although he's nowhere whiny enough to be a Republican Lieberman.

[Scott Dolan]

Maybe not, but it just goes to show that Gary is just as lazy and uninformed as the rest of the American people he likes to shit upon so regularly.

[Gary Sisco]

I'm not a liberal and I don't favor dims.

I consider myself a lower-case libertarian. In the traditional, historical sense of the word -- which isn't at all in effect today -- I'd actually be on the conservative side of things.

I don't at all suspect that Hagel will be a candidate for pres because the rethugs would reject him, conservative or not, so I'll not be voting for him for pres. In fact, the party today would likely reject him *because* he's a conservative.

I would vote for him in a primary, as I voted for McCain in the run up to Alfred E. Bush's annointment.

I don't vote for or support any political party. There are no individual pols in the US with whom I'd agree on more than one, maybe two issues, and those normally by accident. I agree with Bush on two, for example, though I loathe him more than almost any public figure of my lifetime.

All of that being so, there is no one to vote for of whom I could say I have no problem with "the rest of his" whatever. Nor did I ever say I had no problem with the rest of his positions. I have made myself clear for anyone who can understand English, which, I'll admit, is not everyone on JC. I find it refreshing, however, to hear someone lambaste the Bushists not on this or that technical or practical ground but *because their political behavior is anti-American in every way, if measured by historical American political thought and ideas.* That's all. Those ideas, today, are very much in jeopardy. To me, that's the main and most important issue facing the country. This or that issue simply doesn't matter to me, by comparison. Those ideas are more important to me than temporal issues, and I vote accordingly, when possible, which isn't often.

I don't vote dim. I don't vote rethug. I don't vote any party. I vote for individual candidates when I can find one I find acceptable by my own definition and that has almost always meant that I haven't voted for presidential candidates, of either allegedly major party.

Most times my pres vote goes to an alternative party, not always the same one, so that they receive enough votes to keep their ballot status. Ballot status in that situation is my political goal, not the candidate or party. I don't support the two-party system (I hate using the word because they aren't actually parties) and to the extent I can help keep the ballot open for alternatives, I do.

In VT, there are three parties and I can normally find someone minimally acceptable as an individual for this or that office, here, though it is becoming increasingly more difficult, as VT's political culture fades into history and becomes more like Any Other Place, USA. I haven't actually cast a vote yet for a prog, I've cast dim votes not more than three times since '72 when I got the right to vote.

I've voted for a lot of Republicans, in other words, but it was a different party then than it is today. The only similarity is the retention of the name.

There is literally no one in American public life who holds positions on issues down the line that I'd agree with. If that were the only reason to vote, I'd not vote. And sometimes I just don't, for that reason.

Very likely, once we've moved to a different state, I'll probably not vote often if at all.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Gary

I don't vote dim. I don't vote rethug. I don't vote any party. I vote for individual candidates when I can find one I find acceptable by my own definition

And being almost thoroughly uninformed, you'd vote for Hagel for President even though the only thing you agree with him on is his stance on Iraq.

I might not understand English, but at least I take the time to investigate the candidates a hell of a lot more closely than you do.

And your thought that he'd return "common decency" to the Presidency is most likely the most laughable thing you've ever posted here. And that's quite an accomplishment!!

[Gary Sisco]

Clearly, you can't "read for comprehension," Scott. They have night schools.

Of the issues you list, Hagel's stance is therefore like almost all pols of both parties. So what? Nor are they new.

Ideas and principles are more important to me than "issues." Is that clear enough English for you?

I don't care to argue with you because you haven't ideas. You just take issue with others, that's all. Your lack of ideas leaves nothing to argue about. I don't care about this or that issue when compared with historical political ideas and principles that have been won and defended with blood. I've told you before that I'm done engaging with you. It's pointless. For an argument to be interesting, one has to have respect for the opponent's ideas or, in their absence, at least of his skills.

[Gary Sisco]

The hilarious thing is, once it's clear who the candidates are, the tables will reverse again because I won't be supporting anybody, more than likely. Suddenly it won't matter that I don't agree with this or that issue. It will overnight become a matter of principle that I have to vote for *somebody* *despite* the issues. People will start saying it's more important to vote than to make a stand on issues. They'll be saying, Hey, nobody's perfect. You can't agree with anyone completely. And so on and so forth.

I've been through this every two years since '72. It is very close to 100 percent the case. Entirely predictible.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Gary

Of the issues you list, Hagel's stance is therefore like almost all pols of both parties.

Wow.

So most Democrats want military tribunals? Wiretapping, etc.? Increased spending on missile shield? And I was just skimming through some of the bigger items when I listed those.

Ideas and principles are more important to me than "issues."

Rich.

Not that their "ideas and priciples" dictate how they approach the issues.

I don't care to argue with you because you haven't ideas.

Right. And this is Lois' site, don't forget! I've heard parrots who didn't repeat themselves as much as you.

Here's the bottom line:

Originally Posted by Auntie Walto

Maybe if it were today, but not if it were a couple weeks from now and you had a chance to find out more about his "social conservatism." I don't think you'd vote for Hagel any more than you would for Buchanan.

Originally Posted by Rootz

Hagel may have the most consistently conservative voting record in Congress

Can you fucking read? If not, let me spell it out for you because walto and Rootz have enough respect for you to not rub your face in shit for being such a short-sighted dipshit:

HAGEL IS JUST LIKE WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN OFFICE WITH THE ONE EXCEPTION OF THE IRAQ WAR!

Eh, perhaps you simply want more of the same so you can continue to beat us peasants over the head with your scholarly wisdom and teach us things we would have never known without your infinite insight. New words, even. Like republithug.

Your wisdom knows no bounds.

[Gary Sisco]

ratta ratta

[Scott Dolan]

Apology accepted.

[Gary Sisco]

Can it get clearer than "ratta, ratta"?

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

HAGEL IS JUST LIKE WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN OFFICE WITH THE ONE EXCEPTION OF THE IRAQ WAR!

There are a couple of differences: Hagel is bright and has principles, unlike the lying dimwit currently occupying the White House.

[Scott Dolan]

And that dimwit is controlled by some of the smartest motherfuckers in Washington.

Hagel may have principles, but that still doesn't change his voting record, does it?

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Can it get clearer than "ratta, ratta"?

Nope.

[Gary Sisco]

Don't waste your breath, Roots. It really is a waste. What he'll never understand is that argument, for me, is a form of entertainment, but only if there's an opponent with the equippage to present a challenge. When not, it's just another form of tedium.

I'd say, however, more than in passing, that way more than a hundred thousand dead people, and counting, for virtually no reason is something less than a side issue, never mind that the war itself violates countless traditional American principles and ideas, and also those of traditional American conservatism. Buchanan would understand that part, though he's another I find to be an unacceptable human being. He is actually more of a conservative, nonetheless, than the neocons and Bushists, who are called conservatives but aren't.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

And that dimwit is controlled by some of the smartest motherfuckers in Washington.

If that's the case, we're in greater trouble than I thought. They all strike me as delusional, self-important dopes.

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Hagel may have principles, but that still doesn't change his voting record, does it?

Of course not, but at least he's come to his wrong conclusions honestly.

[rollhead]

Hagel's voting record is horrible.

First, he is eaten up with the dumbass:
95% support of Pres. Bush. (Dec 2006)
Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition

He is anti-first amendment:
Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)

For big brother:
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)

For big media conglomerates:
Voted NO on disallowing FCC approval of larger media conglomerates

He has a sorry record on the environment:
Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
He voted to terminate CAFE standards

He is PRO big pharm:
Voted NO on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada

belives in screw8hg the poor when it comes to health care:
Rated 12% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record

Anti working poor:
Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)

Anti choice
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record

Pro looney gun nuts
YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers

Against campaign finance reform:
NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

The guy is a screaming right winger, the Christian coalition loonies, along with Sisco, would love to see him president

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Rootz

If that's the case, we're in greater trouble than I thought. They all strike me as delusional, self-important dopes.

So you're telling me that folks like Cheney and Rove aren't highly intelligent? Delusional? Absolutely.

Of course not, but at least he's come to his wrong conclusions honestly.

Baby steps.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by rollie

And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

The guy is a screaming right winger, the Christian coalition loonies, along with Sisco, would love to see him president

Poor rollie. You don't understand English either?

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

So you're telling me that folks like Cheney and Rove aren't highly intelligent?

I don't think brazen equals intelligence. Besides, I can tell the difference between a game bird and an old man, even in Phil Spector's case.