Subject:
|
Re: Quiet in here
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Feb 2000 07:21:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
241 times
|
| |
|
|
Bill Farkas wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Loch writes:
> > > >
> > > > So, how about McCain's upset of Dubya yesterday in the MI primary? Jo
> > > > and I did our bit (Hey, it's an open primary so natch I voted in the
> > > > race that made a difference) to stop the Dubya train.
> > >
> > > I like McCain, but I doubt he'll win, not with the entire party
> > > establishment lined up against him. :/
> >
> >
> > I think his chances are much better after last night.
> > It would be a real shame for the republican party if Bush wins.
> > Gore would likely beat Bush in the general election. I don't think
> > Gore would have a prayer against McCain.
> >
> > KL
>
> Come on guys, it's time to put the thinking caps on! Do you really think
> Democrats would cross over and vote for McCain if he had a chance of beating
> their man.
What if McCain is "their man?" Just because someone wins the Democratic primary
doesn't mean that all Democrats will vote for that person. You'd be surprised.
> And why would a man running for the Republican nomination abandon
> everything that party believes in to get votes from the other party!
That's not why McCain is acting like that. He's doing it to get votes, period--the
majority of votes to win the electoral votes needed to win the Presidency. The
majority of people in the United States, believe it or not, cross over
regularly--for the right candidate, or against the wrong candidate. The
difference, IIRC, is that devoted Democrats will cross over more often, so long as
they stay in a realm they can idenfity as "moderate."
By the way, the Republican and Democratic parties occupied radically different
policy positions as recently as 1960--often holding the same ideals *then* that the
"opposing" party does *now*. It was the advent of Nixon, Goldwater, Kennedy, and
Johnson that changed it--before, the minority vote was staunchly Republican. Now,
it's Democratic. Why is that? Probably because the policies of both parties are
largely interchangeable--the differences are driven solely by who's in the
ascendant. We're the ones who slap the essentialist labels on the parties. It
makes us feel better.
> It doesn't
> make sense. Democrats are voting for McCain in the primaries with NO intention
> of voting for him in November precisely because they want to foul up the
> process because they don't want to run against Bush. They know that Al Gump
> can't beat him.
I think this is completely wrong. Al Gore will emerge as the lesser of two evils
if he runs against dubya--especially as dubya is increasingly associated with
"fringey" groups. Nothing will mobilize Democratic votes like that. Against
McCain, Ol' Wooden Al loses tons of votes--not to mention an incredible amount of
sentiment from veterans, the disabled, minorities, and working women. Maybe, just
maybe, could it be possible that the Democratic voters tendering decisions for
McCain are doing it so that he won't get knocked out by Bush and the fringe
machine? So that they'll have the option of voting for McCain in the general
election, which the Republicans would deny the American people by pandering to
those noisy right-wing interests? It's much more plausible than your scenario,
though I'm sure the truth varies from voter to voter.
But if you want to talk about sabotage, remember that it's just as easy for devoted
Republicans to sabotage Democratic primaries (just not this year)--and I'd argue
that the same fanatical zeal that makes religious-right groups mobilize to picket
or bomb Planned Parenthood clinics also makes those people more likely to engage in
such baldly underhanded tactics in the name of righteous faith and "civil
disobedience". The difference is that they often engage in it on the local and
state levels as well as the national. Just look at the Kansas school board for an
excellent example--one that's replicated thousands of times in local institutions.
best,
LFB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Quiet in here
|
| To All, and Lindsay in particular, I am getting really tired of getting labeled as an extremist, a nut, etc. just because I don't worship leftist policies. Just because I have religious convictions, and that I am conservative, I seem to be (...) (24 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Quiet in here
|
| (...) All this talk about right-wing fringe groups, what about the far more radical left-wing fringe groups: feminists, homosexuals, environmentalists, etc. Environmentalists have carried out numerous acts of violence against HUMAN BEINGS for the (...) (24 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Quiet in here
|
| (...) Come on guys, it's time to put the thinking caps on! Do you really think Democrats would cross over and vote for McCain if he had a chance of beating their man. And why would a man running for the Republican nomination abandon everything that (...) (24 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
