Fred Thompson Running

[Guest Len]

Evertything in Hillary's life has been calculated towards politics.

By what basis do you make this statement?

[The Rabbi]

By what basis do you make this statement?

By the fact that she is a senator from NY, a state she never lived in until she needed to to become a senator.

By the fact that she is still married to a man who has cheated on her numerous times, shows no remorse about it, and is probably continuing to.

By the fact that she has changed many of her views to present herself as a centrist, which is what she needs to be to be elected.

By the fact that at least one book on her written by a staffer makes that same claim, which I find entirely plausible.

[Marswolf]

Back to Fred. Is it just me who thinks he is not very sexy? He doesn't seem to have much of a sense of humor either.

That may not be good.

[Mike.357]

she has changed many of her views

Shouldn't anyone running for office change their views to represent their potential constituants? The potential public office holders views should mean squat, my views and your views are what matters.

he is not very sexy

Personally he does not turn me on in that way. But a lot of woman like balding men.

I do not know that sense of humor is that important, not too much really funny (haha funny, not sick funny) going on in the world right now.

I want to read his platform!

[Urse]

Back to Fred. Is it just me who thinks he is not very sexy? He doesn't seem to have much of a sense of humor either.

That may not be good.

Well no I do not think he is sexy.....

However, I do think he has a sense of humor or at least timing. I thought he was very personable on the Tonight Show during his announcement. Have you seen the video jab at Michael Moore?

http://blip.tv/file/327761

Besides his wife is a youthful 40 year old who is plenty hot.

[The Rabbi]

Shouldn't anyone running for office change their views to represent their potential constituants? The potential public office holders views should mean squat, my views and your views are what matters.

No. That's called shifting with the tides. And when the tide shifts to something else, your elected representative is now on the other side of who you voted for.

The way to do it is, the candidate presents himself and his views. And if a majority of the electorate likes those views, they vote for him and elect him.

Looking to focus groups to establish what your views ought to be is one of the major downfalls of the American system.

[Marswolf]

Besides his wife is a youthful 40 year old who is plenty hot.

Maybe we could get her to run?

[Guest Hyaloid]

Maybe we could get her to run?

For office, or like Baywatch?

[Urse]

hmmmmm....Baywatch

[towerclimber37]

I lost any sort of respect for Hillary years ago when she decided to "stand by her man" instead of divorcing his worthless butt.

My wife has duly informed me that if I ever "mess up" she'll be leaving me, and I don't doubt that she is serious.

you're getting off light, Dariks...My wife told me she'd shoot me. I have NO doubt that she can hit what she aims at too.

besides that, I love her..both are great incentives never to cheat!

[Mike.357]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike.357

Shouldn't anyone running for office change their views to represent their potential constituants? The potential public office holders views should mean squat, my views and your views are what matters.

No. That's called shifting with the tides.

I really do not agree with you here. Those elected need to change their viewpoint to represent the majority. We are seeing plenty of this now among the majority who beat the drums of war before the Iraq mess came on and now who agree with the general public that it was a mistake and needs to be fixed.

Someone who can admit they made an error and then acts to fix it is a stand up character in my book. Those who go down a path and refuse to augment their views when needed are just automatons.

[fury2neon]

Someone who can admit they made an error and then acts to fix it is a stand up character in my book. Those who go down a path and refuse to augment their views when needed are just automatons.

It is one thing to change your opinion based on better information, that is commendable and in some cases very brave; it is quite another thing to change you opinion because the polls have swung the other way.

We have too many politicians in both parties (Clinton(s) and Guiliani) who are driven by polls rather than conviction.

[Mike.357]

We have too many politicians in both parties (Clinton(s) and Guiliani) who are driven by polls rather than conviction.

so they should not serve the constituants?

[The Rabbi]

so they should not serve the constituants?

That isnt serving constituents. That is sticking your finger in the wind and acting without principle.

I'd rather elect someone with a philosophy I agree with know they would be consistent through it.

[Mike.357]

elect someone with a philosophy I agree with

Aha, we do have common ground!

[Guest Len]

Well, that covers maybe the last 15 years of her life. The last time I looked, she was older than that.

1) I got no beef with you on that, but it is legal and others have done it.

2) So what? Its her choice to stay married to Bill, and that's a personal choice she made. Was it political? No. Did it have political implications, yes. If she split from him, all the same neo-cons would be arguing that she can't stay in a fight and left when the going got tough. For better and for worse and all that. Danged if she did, danged if she didnt. That's Bill's fault, not hers.

3) And Thompson has never changed his views? Or Romney? Or Guiliani?

4) If it were a GOP staffer writing the same thing about the current White House it would be passed off as a "disgruntled former staffer."

Its interesting to see how a person's view of the world colors their interpretation of events.

By the fact that she is a senator from NY, a state she never lived in until she needed to to become a senator.

By the fact that she is still married to a man who has cheated on her numerous times, shows no remorse about it, and is probably continuing to.

By the fact that she has changed many of her views to present herself as a centrist, which is what she needs to be to be elected.

By the fact that at least one book on her written by a staffer makes that same claim, which I find entirely plausible.

[Guest Len]

I dont think this is what Mike was saying. (Mike, tell me if I'm wrong.)

Rabbi, we live in a Republic, which is a fancy was of saying "Representative Democracy." We elect people to REPRESENT (act for) us. In other words, they are supposed to do what WE would if we were able to be there. So, clearly, the best way to REPRESENT the majority of the people in your district/state/nation is to share, more or less, their views on the issues. Does this mean they have to agree with us 100% all the time? Clearly no. That would be impossible and also unwise. Part of being an elected representative is your job includes learning about the issues and making the best decision to vote based on that knowledge and the views of your constituients. This is a fine line, best illustrated by a story.

Some years back, TN had a little run in with the state income tax. One state rep, who I consider a friend and who I have know for over 10 years, was in quite a spot. He had to decide how to cast his vote. He knew that the majority of people in his district were opposed to the income tax. But he also knew that the law being considered would end up benefiting most of those people -they would pay LESS in taxes. They just didn't realize that due to the acrimony and propaganda that characterized that debate. So, on the one hand, the people wanted "x," but he knew "y" was the better choice for his district -the people he represents. A tough call, with personal and political implications. He voted with the will of his constituients. He REPRESENTED.

This is not wishy-washy, this is not shifting with the tides, this is doing what you were elected to do. Sure, the candidate presents his views, but he is also supposed to, no REQUIRED to by the constitution he is sworn to uphold, take the views of his constituients into account.

No. That's called shifting with the tides. And when the tide shifts to something else, your elected representative is now on the other side of who you voted for.

The way to do it is, the candidate presents himself and his views. And if a majority of the electorate likes those views, they vote for him and elect him.

Looking to focus groups to establish what your views ought to be is one of the major downfalls of the American system.

[The Rabbi]

So your basic argument is that Hillary isn't doing anything illegal by tailoring everything she does simply to get elected.

Fortunately I never claimed it was illegal. I guess that makes your comment a Straw Man argument.

I wrote that everything she has done is calculated towards politics. You asked me why I wrote that and I explained. You have not denied any of that, only maintained that there is nothing illegal about it.

You set up additional straw men by writing:

If she split from him, all the same neo-cons would be arguing that she can't stay in a fight and left when the going got tough.

Of course no one said that. It doesn't make any sense to say that. And what is a "neo con" anyway? Virtually all the GOP frontrunners have been divorced and even their harshest critics have not said "they couldn't stay in a fight." It is no shame to divorce a philandering, cheating husband. It is a shame to stay married to someone like that for purely political purposes.

[TGO David]

The Clintons hate the military. There is far too much anecdotal evidence confirming this to even call it into question. When Bill was CIC, he scaled back the armed forces to the point that their capability to wage war or defend the country was almost flaccid. We cannot go there again and history suggests far too strongly that Hillary would do exactly that if given the chance.

I haven't neither the time or the energy to put together a bibliography to support these statements. It would be about as productive as putting together resources that confirm that water is wet, night is dark and Rosie O'Donnel is fat. Some things just are and some people will always argue that they aren't.

But you're still my favorite Neo-Lib, Len.

[The Rabbi]

No, Len. No constitution requires elected representatives to take the views of their constituents into account. None.

Politicians get elected by presenting a platform and philosophy. If that platform and philosophy pleases the majority of the voters, they will get elected. While in office they should exhibit some leadership, acting according to the basic philosophy they espoused while campaigning. Public opinion is a fickle thing. I wouldn't want to elect someone who swayed with whatever was fashionable today and whatever will be fashionable tomorrow, especially just in order to remain in office. Like Hillary, I mean.

And on the state income tax, the people are a lot smarter than your friend gave them credit for.

[towerclimber37]

so they should not serve the constituants?

This is just my opinion, but if someone waffles on their views because of public opinion, how much MORE willing would they be to sell the public out for the right price?

after all, they're tailoring their views in order to be elected to a public office, so they can make money and wield tremendous power.

so how far will they go to put their personal interests above those of their constituents?

My 2 cents is that I'd rather vote for someone who has stated a position and doesn't waffle on it.

[fury2neon]

so they should not serve the constituants?

Serving there constituents is not bending to every national poll that comes out. They are elected to be leaders and leaders have to be decisive, not wishy washy.

The Senator from Tennessee should not be listening to a poll of crack heads from Central Park NY.

[fury2neon]

My 2 cents is that I'd rather vote for someone who has stated a position and doesn't waffle on it.

Waffles are good with syrup, not as a politician.

[Marswolf]

I like politicians with a backbone who will stand up for what they think is right - until I disagree with them and then I want them to represent my view.

[Guest Len]

I firmly disagree. The constitution REQUIRES representatives to REPRESENT the people. This, by definition REQUIRES taking the views of one's constituents into account. (Represent: transitive verb: to go or be present somewhere on behalf of somebody or something)

As for the earlier post, you argued that Clinton's whole life was geared toward politics and offered some recent examples. I argued that these examples only represent her recent public life, not her whole life.

Then, I took you for task for criticizing Clinton for standing by her husband -for only political reasons. I suggested that there are other reasons for her doing so, including the "for better or for worse" portion of their marriage vows. Just because Bill broke them, does not mean she has to. Is it possible her personal convictions about marriage were the reason she stayed with Bill? Is it POSSIBLE? Yes, it is.

Next, I argued that the neo-cons would condemn Clinton for her actions whether she stayed with Bill or left him. I think we both realize there is plenty of evidence to suggest this would be the case if had happened.

As for the Clinton's disdain for the military, I would argue they see it as a necessary evil. Cutbacks in military spending during the Clinton years were widely accepted by most Americans as the "peace dividend," spoils of our victory in the cold war. The main argument was how to spend the peace dividend -new programs, pay down the deficit, lower taxes, fix healthcare were the main choices at the time. One could also make a compelling argument that many of the military's problems during this time were the result of poor planning and foresight on the part of the general staff and an overwhelming focus on sometimes-dubious technology at the expense of the welfare of the fighting soldier. The usual inter-service rivalries and careerism among the pentagon-based officer corps also played a role. (Easier to get promoted by shepherding a new system through trials to operational status than improving the lot of the enlisted soldier during a time of peace.) A crying shame, but as much the fault of the pentagon as the oval office.

One of the key points of my political posts to date is that we see things through kool aid-colored glasses. We shape events and their meaning to suit our own beliefs and mindset. The attacks on liberals and Democrats here are great examples: a) Find a definition of Dem/lib you or your political guru likes. 2)Ignore the fact the definition is incorrect. 3)Look at everything through this lens (some use the term "frame'"), and let the bashing begin. 4)If your side gets caught doing the same thing, spin till it hurts.

This is why a poster on this forum can say "Fred Thompson is conservative," even after I point out his support for McCain/Feingold. When the comeback is "well, he changed his mind, so its ok," that's a fine excuse. But when a Democrat does something similar, it is "shifting with the winds" or "pandering."

Can people change their minds? Of course! Can politicians pander? Of course! But when all the mind-changing is on one side and all the pandering is on the other, I think its more than just a remarkable coincidence.

The comeback to this will of course be "well, no one is perfect, all the candidates have their flaws, but "x" is better than the rest." To which I will offer full agreement. Except my definition of "better" will clearly be different from yours.

No, Len. No constitution requires elected representatives to take the views of their constituents into account. None.

Politicians get elected by presenting a platform and philosophy. If that platform and philosophy pleases the majority of the voters, they will get elected. While in office they should exhibit some leadership, acting according to the basic philosophy they espoused while campaigning. Public opinion is a fickle thing. I wouldn't want to elect someone who swayed with whatever was fashionable today and whatever will be fashionable tomorrow, especially just in order to remain in office. Like Hillary, I mean.

And on the state income tax, the people are a lot smarter than your friend gave them credit for.