Post number one.
Nope, independent, not a democrat (well, you asked).
When the dems stopped fielding prolife candidates, they lost me. Sad, that. Considering that I would otherwise agree with Sen. Obama on the vast majority of his positions. No, I don?t trust Sen, Clinton, I wouldn?t vote for her if she were prolife (that run at the airport under fire sounds too much like some of the things her hubby said, both I and my wife think honesty challenges must run in the family).
I hope everyone has a good time at their shindig. Perhaps they should remember that caring about human life shouldn't start when the baby has escaped the womb, it means caring for the person throughout its entire life; otherwise they?ll continue to strike me as far more hypocritical than the ?make it on your own and if you don?t, too darn bad? GOP.
Like most everything, our nominating process is a popularity contest and Sen. Obama is the star quarterback. This is the same reason the GOP nominated Bush is 2000, and that worries me. Neither candidate will be able to pull the country/countries out of the catastrophic mess the current administration is leaving. The most selfish part of me would like to see John McCain elected, just to see how bad things can get. Bring on the "end times"!
"The most selfish part of me would like to see John McCain elected, just to see how bad things can get." Quincey, seriously? That's a monumentally dispiriting approach to picking a candidate -- even in a jokey rhetorical device!
Its foolish if you think "quincey" is any less informed or any more childish in his/her thinking then the other superficial reasons people choose candidates. Democracy is the new American Idol, average people making average decisions in a below average format. I think even if you decided to pack it all in - you are hardly worse for it!
I can admit that I am not a happy Democratic Party member living in Oregon because there doesn't appear to be any accountability for our elected party leaders in Oregon. Let me explain, having one party in power means that when politicians don't reply to constituent inquires or requests for help, then there is not a secondary party to turn to for assistance; and, with one party ruling the roost, there isn't a second party around to investigate instances of fraud and abuse of power. I live in downtown Portland, and my district's state legislators do NOT respond to constituent letters or faxes forcing myself and my neighbors instead to contact the state House speaker or state party leaders when we need help, and state leaders won't call out these lackadaisical legislators for fear of them loosing the next election to another political party.
I keep hearing in state after state as each primary takes place, "Our vote hasn't mattered before..."
Does it matter here? It is clear that neither candidate will have a majority before the convention, so draw your own conclusion there.
PS - vote third party - this is the only democracy in the world with only two parties. That needs to change.
I am a relatively happy newly registered democrat, because I am confident the States will have a dem in the White House next year. I was formerly an independent but registered in order to vote in the primary. I don't believe in defining myself with a group mentality, as it does tend to blur your ability to self-critique and critique group leaders. After this presidential election is over, I'll probably go back to being independent. Hell, I may change back before the presidential election. I never would have changed my party if the primary vote wasn't so heated. If I could have voted for my dem nominee without changing parties, I would have stayed independent.
As for the divide, I am behind the issues of both Obama and Clinton, and I am actually happy that the country is in shambles because, in these privileged times, that's what it takes to bring about change. If Joe Average doesn't feel it, Joe Average is apathetic to it. I believe the country will move in a much better direction under the next democrat-controlled administration.
I am voting Obama, because he stands for more than issues, he stands for a new political zeitgeist. His past, though not as lengthy as Clinton's, is a hundred times more pure. He taught Constitutional Law; she joined the board at Wal-Mart (she says to promote women's rights, but there is class-action lawsuit re gender discrimination which includes the years she was on the board - she can really get things done, huh?). Clinton and her husband's past is littered with corruption, big money deals, nursing the corporate teat, leeching taxpayer dollars for personal gain, and livid dishonesty. I wonder how many people with an "IMPEACH THE LIAR" bumpersticker are planning on voting for Clinton in the primary. She always boasts how she fought for healthcare during her husband's administration - yeah, she really fought hard, in the first of his eight terms, then after that she let the hundreds of thousands roll in from big pharm and big insurance in exchange to not bring up the subject again. Big fighter.
However, despite all my meanmouthing and dislike of her and her political rhetoric, if she wins the nomination, I will still vote for her. And wait for the next corruption scandal as she betters the country.
The sad reality about being part of any group is that as you become more immersed you realize it isn't what you expected. You realize that few people make choices based on objectivity and that members of the Democratic party are almost as superficial as Republicans. In some ways the Democrat is even more annoying then the Republican; at least with a Republican you expect subjectivity and traditional thinking - you know what you are in for! With the Democrat the lack of intelligent thinking comes as a surprise.
Just last week I changed my registration from Republican to Democrat. I voted Republican from Reagan until the 2004 election when I voted for Kerry. Why? George W Bush and the Neocons have devastated this country with their war in Iraq and their trashing of the constitution- this is not conservatism - conservatism avoids foreign entanglements and preserves rights.
I plan to vote for Obama in the primary and in the general election. McCain and Clinton are just more of the same. I also plan to vote for Democratic candidates across the board in order to punish the Republican party; hopefully this will convince the Republicans to rethink their disasterous direction.
I would also add that I will not vote for Hillary if she is the candidate - I will vote for a third party candidate in that case.
I have been registered as an independent since I started voting in '84. I voted for McCain in the Michigan primary. I am less enamored of him now, especially given how the Republican party has abandoned all fiscal responsibility (their only saving point.) The Republicans have forced the middle of the electorate to the no-longer-liberal Democratic party (anyone who considers Clinton the 1st as anything but a moderate hasn't been paying attention.)
I like Obama and switched to a Democratic registration to vote for him. H. Clinton is slandering him and hurting the Democratic party's chances. I will have trouble voting for her over McCain.
I am a white, 43 y.o. male with an advanced degree. I will switch back to a non-affiliated registration after the election.
I changed my party affiliation from Socialist to Democrat because I'm so excited about the US Senate race. By voting for Steve Novick, I feel like I finally have a candidate in the party that won't be enforcing politics as usual. It's about time we elect someone the party insiders hand-picked.
oops, I meant: "it's about time we elect someone the party insiders DIDN'T hand-pick"
You know you have an edit button, Molly. It's the little pencil.
I was listening to the show and heard Brian, an unaffiliated-turned-Democrat because he's so excited about voting for Obama. I had to post and say that my husband and I are both lifelong unaffiliated voters (myself primarily in California, here in OR since 2005) who are re-registering as Dems in order to vote for Clinton. Not only do we agree that Clinton is better on domestic policy, healthcare, and human rights (particularly in her outreach to the gay and lesbian community, an area where Obama has been evasive at best), but we are appalled by the media-promulgated acceptance of misogyny in the rhetoric of this primary. Although we're both far more left-leaning than either Obama or Clinton, we feel it incumbent upon us to register our discontent with both the status quo and the Obama cheer brigades by voting for her. Clearly, this move is pragmatic, or even cynical, but as Democrats we will, of course, participate fully in all party elections and events and continue our political activism as organizers and fundraisers. Since we both vote primarily Democrat (the notable exception for me being my vote for Matt Gonzalez, Green Party candidate for mayor of San Francisco, and for Nader prior to that), it is a sensible move in terms of supporting our party of, if not choice, default.
I should add that, in either case but particularly if Obama wins the nomination, I will be sorely tempted to vote for the Nader/Gonzalez ticket. Gonzalez is a true progressive, unlike either Dem. Although I want to avoid a reign of McCain, and although being in Oregon unlike the much bluer California will probably sway me to vote Dem, I agree with the poster above who remarked that having a two-party system in a "democracy" is ridiculous, and believe that we have to stand for systemic political change with our votes as well as our activism.
I don't yet have a vote in Oregon but hopefully will be the presidential election. But I wanted to share an online experience I had recently. I participate in a parenting discussion board - no political content. Approximately 40 women are active on the board, from all over the country. The question was asked who people had voted for in the primaries. 4 republican women in states where it is possible to switch parties for the primary vote, admitted that they had already, or intended to, vote for Clinton in their primary as they felt McCain had a better chance against her in November.
I think that Pelosi betrayed the clear mandate that Democrats showed in the last election to impeach and try Bush/Cheney.
What does it take to bring this country back to the moderate center?
I think it is great the democratic party is in disagreement or divided if you like. Why shouldn't it be? Where did this absurdity come from that we think it shouldn't be divided? Elvis and the Beatles? Is that all there is? Its a complex world - should politics not reflect this? Does everything need to be prepackaged?
What this is truly about is that people want to win! Winning is apparently more important than discussion. What an intelligent democracy we have... .
Retaining people in the party is irrelevant - retaining votes is.
I am a pro-life Democrat. Pro- ALL life, from fetal all the way to the elderly and all animal life. If you look at which candidates promote policy that supports the largest percentage of life on earth, they are inevitably Democrats or Green Party candidates.
I started as an independent (non affiliated) voter when I started voting in Oregon in the 1990's.
I was disappointed to find out that I my choices in the Primary election are limited no matter what affiliation I chose. Oregon's closed primary format is the reason I recently changed my affiliation to the Democrat party.
Oregon voters are disenfranchised in the national primary process by having our vote soooooo late in the year. This may be the only election in my life that my primary vote can actually make a difference!
I look forward to being able to vote for Barak Obama in the primary. My preference for the Presidental candidates this year are, 1) Obama 2) McCain. If Obama does not win the nomination, I will vote for McCain.
I am not very attached to any party affiliation. I think it is limiting that our current political system is monopolized by only two parties, and we voters are urged to pick a side (red or blue). I will continue to change my registration to enable myself to vote for the primary candidates I am most interested in.
It seems the show's already over by the time I got registered to post. Well, anyhow, I have something to say.
I am pro-life, and I could never in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate. Even though I may often agree with the Democrats on other issues, I am discouraged from voting from them when I know they would vote against my position on the sanctity of life. I would like to see more pro-life Democrats.
This position will never change and it never should.
Sometimes you need to state the obvious, because it is so often overlooked: The Democrat is (generally) liberal; by definition liberal means "open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." Being anti-choice is fundamentally against what it means to be liberal. You are asking the Democratic party to do the impossible!
It is philosophically incongruous to be anti-choice and democratic; you can't mandate the right of choice to others and rightfully be considered open-minded and tolerant.
Actually, I would submit that I'm being more open-minded to ask that the party that is supposed to care about people instead of business cares about the most helpless folks.
Let's be fair, you are pro-abortion, since that is the only choice you include under your title. What other choices are you in favor of that I can't come to an agreement over? Who is trying to claim high ground when it is a one issue appellation? Pro-life is actually a more accurate title for us, since we believe that the baby is alive and its life (and its mother's) is important: hence "pro" meaning "for" and life. It is consistent with my opposition to the war in Iraq (life is lost for pathetic reasons there, too) and my opposition to the death penalty.
So why is that a problem for the Democratic party? Does "open-minded" and "tolerant" mean I should care any less about more than half a million Americans getting killed every year in the name of "choice"? This is why I have no choice, I like many other moderate "pro-life" Evangelicals have to put up with the Republicans if I want both to participate as an informed member of the electorate and to vote my conscience.
I don't have to be pro-abortion to be pro-choice. I can simply be agnostic on the issue, having not made up my mind, but willing to give people the choice to decide for themselves. How funny you have no "choice" considering religion invented "free will." You have a "choice" and you have "decided" within the scope of free will.
Let other people make choices for themselves and if you're correct in your anti-choice view then I am sure your god can take care of the baby killers. What's a "moderate evangelical" - an oxymoron apparently.
Wow, I'm impressed by how little you must have understood what I said.
The choice I don't have is in the election process to be able to vote for someone who cares about life, all of it.
So being for life is "anti-choice"? Interesting abuse of the language. Yes, I've heard such before, but still it is illustrative.
You and I well know that if I actually post what happens to a baby in an abortion, the post will be pulled, in spite of the facts. So I have to debate on dialectic use with someone who chooses to rewrite the rules when he doesn't like the results. Odd, that, not really worth much time, is it?
Your last paragraph is classic, I do appreciate that you are making my point for me. Thanks.
Got it the first time. Your series of choices have led to the choice of voting for the Republican party. In the same way a pro-choicer will be "forced" to vote democratic. Or perhaps your choice to be evangelical wasn't a choice either? And your choice to be "anti-choice" wasn't a choice either?
It will follow if you vote for the Republican party you are also supporting the war and capital punishment by proxy; you will have decided the "life of the unborn" is above the "sanctity" of the life of the troops and above the "sanctity" of life of those affected by capital punishment. If you really intend on practicing what you preach, don't engage in weighing the value of one life over another by casting a vote at all. If you still wish to vote and not pick and choose "lives" - you need an independent candidate to support who doesn't elicit a Sophie's Choice.
Yes being against a woman's right to choose is "anti-choice" in respect to a woman's right of choice. I am sure in many other areas you are open to choice.
Make the choice and post "what happens to a baby in an abortion" - see if it gets pulled. I can't imagine why it would.
ok, Scott, lets double check with Mr. Miller about this.
Mr. Miller, do you object to my posting a detailed description of just one type of proceedure, the most obvious being "partial birth abortion"?
Without your permission, I'll leave the topic be, with it, i would advise that parents not let children read my response.
Our Commenting Guidelines outline the various reasons a post might get pulled.
The relevant guidelines for this thread, I suppose, are the first three:
"Write with civility and respect. No ranting, name-calling, or tantrum-throwing.
Engage arguments, not motivations. (And criticize points, not people.)
Trolling ? commenting for any purpose other than sincere conversation, assuming an identity to disrupt a thread, or deliberately baiting another commenter ? will not be tolerated."
Now, applying these rules is obviously a subjective enterprise. But I can imagine a scenario in which writing a description of a "partial birth abortion" could fall into the category of "deliberately baiting another commenter." I can also imagine it as part of an intense, civil, and good-faith dialogue.
So I guess I'll throw the question back to you: is your purpose to shock, or to illuminate? We're all capable of googling the phrase "partial birth abortion." Is this thread -- and the larger conversation, about politics and political parties and now, yes, abortion -- going to be furthered by including a graphic description of a particular abortion procedure?
Not knowing exactly what you're itching to post, nor the particular context, I'm inclined to think that the answer is no. But I'm also inclined to think that I wouldn't erase your comment. All I can tell you is to use your best judgement, and try to follow the spirit of this growing community.
Thanks for the clarifications. Perhaps the best course of action in this debate is to encourage you to consider a topic on abortion, inviting both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" proponents.
My experience so far has been that all but the most hard core folks in the "choice" community may be able to google the description, but never have. For example, my mum (adopted, not birth) supported "choice" vocally for years until she heard a surgeon describe the procedure I mentioned (her horrified comment when he had finished was "oh my God!"). The emotional emphasis many of us in the "pro-life" community feel isn't based on our wanting to interfere, but our growing horror at what we as a society are willing to do to our own. I can also say that we generally, and I specifically, are just as concerned for the poorly informed mothers as the child. My intent would have been to show we have justification for our agitation.
But a case could be made that my continuing to pursue this here is not furthering the discussion, and might risk violating your rules. I do want to participate in this community in other areas, and rather than cross the lines, I'll leave the thread. Thanks for answering, I?ll let Scott have the last word(s) if he wants.
Oh, and please: call me Dave!
You have 50 millions abortion around the world every year. How do you think you are going to stop it???? abortion is a dead issue. leave it legal.
Study romania. 20 000 women died in back alley abortions. Because of him ruining the lives of millions, he was arrested and shot along with his wife. Then Abortion became legal! No one force you to have one! so let people decide of what is right for them.
Kucinich is the only one who really thinks creatively and comes up with new ideas. I hope that whoever wins will try his ideas on at least a small testable scale.
I remember when I had respect for Republicans as the loyal opposition, and Oregon produced some great and creatively thinking Republican leaders, but now that conservatives have taken over their party, I have no respect for Republicans at all.
I think that the Democratic party has been taken way too far to the right, has gotten too conservative, I think we need to return to the center, the middle way.
Oh, and by the way, I loved Howard Deans enthusiasm, I liked that scream! I'd much rather have that than the angry hateful lies of the likes of Bush/Cheney/FoxNews.
Being enthusiastic and having fun while doing the peoples work, what a great concept for politics.
I registered to be a democrat on my 18th birthday in 2004. My boyfriend has been an independent for the last few years, in part because he was unimpressed by Kerry and has a strong dislike for Bush. He recently registered as a democrat so he could vote in the primary for Obama. We both feel that Obama is both inspirational and a great leader. Time magazine gave a synopsis of past presidents, their accomplishments and their level of "experience" prior to their presidency. Experience doesn't seem to be an important factor. I am voting for Obama because he has the ability to unify this Nation and to change how the world perceives America.
It is possible, contrary to OPB's claim, to "not think." Emily Harris, following the knee jerk THOUGHTLESS verbal habits of her peers,referred in this program to the possibility of democrats wooing "pro-life" democrats. This phrase, "pro-life," glosses over the fact that such alleged "pro lifers" are, in effect, "anti-choice" --- that is, they reject a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. But verbal habits such as these mean that those who have opposed choice have won the name game. They are never called what they are. And, by implication those who are against these "pro-lifers" must be anti-life or "pro death." It's easy to choose sides once the discussion proceeds along these lines.
+The same thing happens when those who support a woman's right to choose are wrongly termed "pro abortion," eliding the fact that it is the question of CHOICE which they favor, while not necessarily favoring abortion. Many who support choice also work hard to minimize the choice for abortion, even tho they do not reject the right to choose one way or another
All this may seem a super-subtle point, but the fact is that such THOUGHTLESS labeling clearly favors the anti-choice people because it casts their opponents in the worst possible light, as if they were a rabid crowd of murdering abortionists eager to advertise their services as a convenient form of birth control. The fact that Ms. Harris"thought out loud" by using this terminology suggests to me that she, like her peers, has not THOUGHT sufficiently about the vocabulary in use whenever this sensitive political issue is raised. Again, it is possible, despite OPB's slogan, to NOT think.
Hi GREEKS, I used the language that Meredith Wood Smith had used, deliberately because of exactly the not-so-subtle points you raise. You're right, it is a label and in retrospect I should have used it but with context.
Actually, I think you did use it within context, I was the one that your online host quoted, and that was my terminology. You didn't cliam to be on our side, or theirs ("pro-choice" or more accurately "pro-abortionists").
In fact, while I found the democratic leader's response rather formulaic, at least she didn't try to antagonize as some of the poster's have. Rather than distract from my point in responding to you, I'll pick one of them to answer on their choice of words and the problem they miss.
To make sure that my point in this one is clear to everyone else, if TOL wants participation from people who see both sides of an issue, they have to at least be considerate: Ms. Harris has done so, IMHO.
I agree with the not-so-"super-subtle point" you made. However, Ms. Harris should receive a bigger piece of elastic then you seem willing to give. Despite the fact that we can't read her mind - it seems clear she thinks!
We should hardly be willing to throw the baby out, even if it cries now and then. Think Out Loud is a good show and its host(s) generally seem altruistic, broad-minded and of good will.
I actually changed my citizenship for the oportunity to vote for Obama in May and November. I've lived in the US since I was 7 years old, I'm 26 now, but when Obama announced was when I finally filled out the paperwork and paid the $300. I was sworn in last month a registered as a Democrat that afternoon.
The republican party has proven it is not competent to govern this country. I hope Democrats win and will will for many years to come.
One of the most important issue is health care. It is time that america look how universal health care works in other countries. For all other industrialized countries, health care for all, is a right! Just like the right to education. This country is the only one in the industrialized world who do not have a system who covers all americans. Also America has the most expensive healt care system in the world! So, time to jump on the wagon like everybody else!
What some of you do not understand is that Obama and Clinton have the same program. You may not like Clinton but she will be a much better choice than MC cain. If you want 4 more years of the Bush agenda, then vote MCCain.
Republicans are regressive, Democrats are progressive. Looking at both, democrats have much better ideas, and common sense. The republican party has been a disaster for this country, they have proven, they cannot govern a country like the usa. Also, MC cain may reinstore the draft, so if you have kids, think twice before you vote for him. He will stay at war with Iraq for ever and will ruined this country.
I voted Democrat for years. then I realized I did not know enough about either party to be a member. I am non affiliated which means that in my state I cannot vote in the primary, that means my vote in the general is more important to me since it is all I get to say about the candidates. I personally do not see a lot of difference in the two men. they both say what we all want to hear. they are both good at making speeches. so I say bring it on and impress me you have a couple of months. frankly I wish we could get rid of the outdated Electoral college and have a straight vote, also why even have parties. the candidates both say they break from the party line. so why have them, just have the people who want to be elected make speeches. the air time on tv and radio would be donated for a large debate.
Comments are now closed.