KK
Konspiracy Korner: American Elections
a three-pointer either way should do it

Posted by

jemanji
1/30/16
96

.

In 2012, after Obama beat Romney, James wrote a political piece that included this good-natured chide:

.

Post-Election and Sportscasters

In a basketball game, if one team jumps off to a 20-11 lead and holds the lead until late in the game, the broadcast color man in most cases—19 times out of 20—will spend most of the game browbeating everything that the trailing team does.    They can be trailing 83-78 with two minutes to play, and the announcer will still be dogging them:   They have no energy, their offense is out of sync, they’re not taking care of the ball, they’re not blocking out on rebounds, etc., etc.   If it’s 41-38 at halftime, the halftime analysis will score about 70-15—an endless series of criticisms of the team which has, in truth, merely missed one three-pointer or failed to defend one.  

What the Republicans are going through now is the same thing:  an endless loop of greatly exaggerated criticisms of everything they have done—they’ve disrespected women, they’ve forgotten the middle class, they’ve sold out to Wall Street, they’ve alienated Latinos, they have presented no vision for the future, etc., etc.   Guys, it was 64-60.   Knock it off.

.

Yeah, I think it's worth remembering that American elections are close.  This is good.  James follows on the point that it is good:

.

In modern American politics, the two parties split most elections almost 50-50—so much so that a 64-60 vote is considered a rout.    Political commentators will talk about how remarkably evenly split the American electorate is.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the electorate being evenly split.   It results from political parties adopting positions that maximize their coverage.   The Republicans may want to ban abortion entirely (certainly some of them do), but they also want to win elections.  The Democrats may wish to legalize infanticide (certainly some of them do), but they also want to win elections.  If either side adopts a radical position, they lose elections, lose power, and have to adapt their position.   

The Republicans may wish to devote 70% of the federal budget to military spending; the Democrats may wish to cut it to 5%.   If either side pushes too hard, they lose elections, and have to adapt.   The positions taken by each side on every issue are constantly adjusted and adapted to form a compromise between the extreme positions and the center of the country—hence, elections in a two-party system are always pushed near to the 50-50 balance point.  

One would think this was obvious, but believe me, I watch a LOT of political analysis, and 90% of the political analysts don’t have a clue that this is what is happening.

.

Baseball teams shift their 8 fielders around like the pseudopodia of an amoeba, trying to capture 71% of the field rather than 70%.  Similarly, the RNC and DNC slide their positions and sound bites around so as to retain 48% vs 47% on the Day Before.  Donald Trump is, of course, a pretty extreme defensive shift :- )

I saw one comments thread where a liberal man was, very sincerely I thought, BEGGING somebody to tell him ANYTHING that would appeal to a rational person about Donald Trump.  (On BJOL most of the readers consider him a "whimsical" candidate.)

Another reader replied, drolly, with a truncated list like this:

Wall

Anti-PC

Pro-business 

Pro-military

Tough negotiator

Stands up to media

Pro-America

And, Dr. D thought to himself, what is so Platypusal about Donald Trump other than his veneer?  Certainly the guy has flaws; personally, I do not like Donald Trump.  He's one of the last people in the world I'd go to dinner with.  Also, his lack of Presidentiality makes me sigh deeply at the thought of him holding George Washington's job.

But isn't that what Republicans have pleaded for, these past two decades?  For any politician who won't Play Ball with the lobbyists and PC media?  Well, this is the kind of "whimsical" approach it's going to take, to be heard through the MSM monolith.  

When Trump blew off the Megyn Kelly debate,* it was preposterous --- > when viewed through the lens that the media has given us.  Walking away, when you don't like the terms, is not preposterous in terms of the way Trump negotiates deals.  The very next day, he got offers from Cruz, Rubio and Fox News for lucrative debates under better terms.

.

To Hillary's critics, her private hard drive for Secretary of State-level secrets is the quintessential Clintons.  Yes, we do things back channel, and no, you can't see what they are.  If Susie Mainstreet wants to believe that the U.S. government is a bigger version of the local P.T.A., that's great.  Susie can keep driving to soccer while we get our hands dirty that hers might stay clean.

The New York Times defends the Clintons as doing what government does.  I think the NYT has its issues, but this has traction.  Whatever fearful things go on in the U.S. Government, we are not talking Rafael Trujillo or Saddam Hussein here.  Like James says, it's a closer ballgame than the commentators make it sound.

Which is why some of these people fight so desperately.  In the NBA, a single three-pointer will swing the game.

Respectfully,

Jeff

Blog: 
KK
Tags: 
Hillary Clinton

Comments

1

Clinton's campaign is getting crushed in the most delicious, bipartisan way I've ever seen.  Sanders minions are digging up dirt and handing it to Politico and The Hill, MSLSD is blasting her, Fox News is doing the heavy lifting of diggin up the facts on her email scandal, nonprofits like Judicial Watch are burying her in legal actions and requiring her to hand over the data...it's glorious.  It's also sad that it is taking this much of an enormous effort to even slow her down because of who she is and who she knows and how much money she's worth.

2

This conversation is comparable to --- > the blog-o-sphere electing Spectator the most qualified baseball commentator in Washington State, and then his asking everybody to mark whether their articles on Seager or Trout should be attached Mariners or Angels.

There are 1,000s of Americans in lesser positions who would be instantly fired and prosecuted for putting this kind of material on their private computers.  But the smartest of them all just kinda spaced out, no harm intended?

It's nothing more than an attempt to muddy the water, so that casual Americans will think there's wiggle room to debate it.  If there were 1 thing this year I objected to in politics, it would be those who are complicit with Hillary in this defense.

3
RockiesJeff's picture

RockiesJeff (not verified)

A sports thread and in politics all are still friends! Congrats! Enjoyed all the comments. I just know that my private health policy from Blue Cross was terminated as illegal, the replacement they deem suitable will cover even less but will now cost me far more than double and with a higher deductible...add it up and almost $30K ($500 per month for drugs that do not count towards the deductible) before I even start to get any help through the almighty deductible. To me that is a picture of the collective failures on both sides that now seem to be too deeply embedded in the infinite layers of bureaucracy....well, simply put, makes you look forward to Spring Training!

5

I'm not quite of the opinion that Hillary Clinton's campaign is getting creamed by anybody else other than her own actions and poor choices. Here the press is doing its job and her opponents are being, well, oppositional.  She may be unable to slide by because she doesn't have the personality to carry it off.  She just isn't very likeable, which is still an important factor in national politics.  Oh, she's a very capable politician and would have remained a potent senator from New York, had that satisfied her.  But her stint as Secretary of State has tied her to failed policies and seemingly illegal behavior.    But to tell you the truth, I am not yet sure that she's sunk, as far as getting the nomination.  Much depends on the Department of Justice and how far they expand the investigation.  It seems clear that there is a growing tide within the FBI that supports a "formal" "criminal" investigation, but I could see that not happening (if it does at all) until late inthe campaign cycle, long after she may have locked up the nomination.

And to answer diderot's question, I think the three issues that resonate loudest among Republicans are:

1.  Security, both at the border and overseas.  Immigration and Radical Islam/Border Patrol and Military Spending.

2.  Constitutional Guarantees:  The 2nd Amendment and the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment.  These are highly emotional issues and bring highly emotional support

3.  A simplified tax structure.

4. (Bonus)  Obamacare, which is blowing up as we speak.  This one is less of a big deal to some Republican voters than others, but that is changing.

And a reminder about the Republican race, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and beyond.  On the GOP side, all of the primaries/caucuses up until March 15th award delegates on a proportional basis:  Get 28% of the vote in Iowa and you get 28% of the state's delegates.  In such a system, "winning" is nice, but may not do much to actually give you a big edge to get to the 1144 (IIRC) delegates needed.  After March 15th, every state awards delegates on a winning-take-all format.  Get 28% of teh vote in Iowa, finishing 1st, and you get something like 11 delegates while the guy who finished 2nd at 25% gets 10.  But get 28% and win in Oregon in May and you get all 30 delegates.  I thinnk I have the numbers right.  Momentum helps, but there is reason for a well-funded Jeb Bush to stick around until late in the cycle.  A trump victory in Iowa and New Hampshire is no guarantee that he's the GOP man.

BTW, I do consider Trump a Republican, as he's registered as such and he's running as such.  Whether he can demonstrate a Republican political background or philosophy is another thing.  In that light, I don't see him as a Republican, or even as a populist, but rather as an opportunist.  His conviction is that Trump can "save" the nation, not that particular policies or political ideologies can.  In many circles, that is exactly the definition of a demagogue. 

6

Earlier I asserted that Hillary was covering for Obama in order to become President. She has the dirt on him, I think, but can only use it if Obama sabotages her candidacy and if she's going down in flames anyway. This MIGHT cause a sudden burst of anger and remorse over her lying for him and others. The Benghazi deception makes no sense apart from the reporting done in Edward Klein's book:

http://nypost.com/2014/06/22/clinton-bristled-at-benghazi-deception-book/

Hillary played the good soldier in order to run unopposed for President. She's covering for the man at the top who ordered the White House appartus to flog the demonstration story, and covered his own tracks quite well. Hillary, who had nothing at all to gain for promoting a flat out lie like this, was nevertheless willing to go along at the funeral (little people without microphones), but there was no way she was going to go on all the talk shows on Sunday and flat out lie for Obama with bogus talking points. So she had Susan Rice do it (who was promoted after the election). This account rings true to me, and ties the whole sordid affair together. Except for why in the heck our Ambassador was there in an unsecured location in the first place. 

Incidentally, the released emails also show that political advisor Mark Penn urged her to consider resigning after Obama's hot mic incident in which he assured the Russians he'd have more flexibility to give them what they wanted after the election. Penn told her that Mr. Obama’s not-so-secret words “may be about the stupidest thing ever said by a president in foreign policy.” 

Hillary Clinton is a tragic Nixonian figure in my mind, with a tragic flaw or two that are doing her in - a willingness to lie and an ambition for power.  Shakespeare could do a real job on this one: She cut her teeth working for the Watergate Judicicary committee, and was accused for some ethical violations. She then hitched her political wagon to Hubby Bill and then Barack Obama, who both created additional ethical and moral baggage for her. She indeed had to bake cookies for her hubby, and cover for his abuses with women while she played First Lady and bided her time.  Well, the men both got to be President. But her willingness to go along with their shenanigans caused her to be sullied by both, perhaps beyond repair. 

Or not. Mark Penn was wrong. Nobody in the press really cared that Obama was clueless regarding Russia. Turns out Romney was right: the 80's were indeed calling and wanting their foreign policy back.  Despite Obama's assurances, Iraq was disintegrating without the US presence that he could not for some reason negotiate to keep, even as his Defense secretary and Pentagon and loyal opposition begged him to (compare this with his willingness to go far beyond reasonableness to get Iran to agree to receive their frozen funds back in return for self policing their nuclear program). Thus, the JV Terror team known as ISIS was given free reign to seize territory hundreds, thousands of Americans died to liberate. I guess the 70's were calling as well. 

I think Hillary would actually be able to conduct a capable and pro-U.S. foreign policy if left to her own devices, rather than have to clean up other men's messes. But, at this point, she probably belongs in jail. 

7
RockiesJeff's picture

RockiesJeff (not verified)

I shake hands with one President and have a book from my Grandfather with a note signed...and it was Richard Nixon.

Kind of like my boys telling me to quit buying Mariner rookie cards as those pitchers kept getting hurt!

Rick, you are as sharp with politics as you are with baseball. Keep the comments coming this Spring please for those of us too far away!

 

 

9

You guys know I'm a bit of a political wonk.  You can't avoid such in my family.  A year ago I said that Marco Rubio was the best candidate, hands down, that the GOP could nominate.  His personal story, his uplifting presence in front of the camera and, by the way, his Conservative Bonafides (check out how many conservative groups give him a 100 rating) would make him a Florida juggernaut come the fall.  All of that is still true.

The graciousness of his speech last night, set against the grating quality of Cruz's ramble highlights his superb touch, timing and presence.

All of that remains true today.  Would he be the best president of the Republican bunch?  How do you ever predict that?  He would certainly be better than Trump as Caesar and Cruz-the-Unliked.  I think it says much about Ted Cruz that the people who work with him the most closely, on either side of the aisle, basically can't stand the guy.  And like it or not, the presidency still demands somebody who can work with the other side.  At least a presidency that works best demands it.  The current presidential mess is a great case in point.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that the governors in the GOP race would be the equals (or better) of any of the non-governors as president.  "Tis often the case with Gov's, as they have cut their teeth on getting legislation passed, not merely ranting about it (and here I point at Cruz). I like governors.   Kasich, Christie and Scott Walker have all been effective governors in very democratic states.  They've got stuff done, where the rubber meets the road.  As president, any of those guys would run rings around Clinton or Saunders.  Martin O'Malley would too, btw. But none brings the compelling electability package to the table that Marco Rubio does.

And none brings Florida, although Ohio would be nice.  Oh, Jeb Bush you say?  It's been 10 years since he's governed, and his schtick falls flat in an election cycle thet demands a message of some urgency.  He's yesterday's candidate, at best.

I suspect that Trump will rue the day that he skipped a debate due to being afraid of big bad Megan Kelly.  But I'm sure he will get hammered by someone (likely Bush) asking the simple question, "Donald, how will you be able to sit across the table from Putin if yhou're afraid to sit across the table from Megan Kelly?"

Rubio guys.  His rocket is beginning to warm up.

10

Here are some undeniable facts:

1) Women tend to like candidates that project an aura of caring, strength, and positivity.  They don't vote for grating, negative candidates.  Cruz will not do well with women voters.  Rubio will.

2) Hispanics have not supported conservative candidates very well other than George W. Bush (who got 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2000), but they would surely support Rubio (and not just because he's Hispanic...but because he shares their story and frequently shows real sympathy for their issues).

3) The black turnout will be considerably lower in 2016.  They aren't going to turn up in droves to back a 74 year old socialist or a country club white democrat.

4) White, working class voters are abandoning the democrats in droves in state, local and congressional races.  It is only a matter of time before their final defection in a presidential race comes forward unless democrats do something to message to them specifically.

I am less confident about how the GOP will do in the Senate races, since the map is highly unfavorable to them this year, but I believe if we nominate Rubio, we will see a perfect storm scenario and Rubio will garner a much larger vote share than we've seen from any victor since 1984.

12

The Times has been looking for dirt on Rubio for a long time now.  The best that they have come up with, to date, is that he bought a tiny fishing boat while he was already in debt, and that he put some personal financial transactions on a GOP credit card while he was trying to get a loan to cover his first senate campaign.  If that's the best they have...there is no problem.

14

If you're really going to make a gigantic deal over Rubio temporarily using a GOP card until he could get the loan he needed (and then immediately paying it all back, as he later revealed when he released his records) or making a perhaps unwise purchase for his family (a 16,000 dollar fishing boat...which is a really...really cheap boat)...you'll never like any candidate for political office anywhere.

I don't tend to care, even for a democrat, if the issue is something that ticky-tack.  I care, for example, when someone purjures themselves, lies repeatedly to the American people and never apologizes, or mishandles classified data (as various democrats of recent vintage have done), but not about things like this.  I similarly don't care that Ted Cruz reported a big bank loan on one form but not on the other.  I only care when there is obvious, permanent personal gain from breaking the rules, or when the rule brekaing endangers Americans, the rule of law or the Constitution...or when the rule breaking shows really...really questionable character.

15

Let's say that were the worst thing Hillary ever did = run up her personal credit cards (as I personally have done)?  How many think that would make the list of the top 20 immoral things she has done in her life?

I've got a serious boggle here.  An unwise* purchase of a boat ... that creates a vague moral equivalency here?  Is this rhetoric, or a sincere paradigm?

.....

I always LIKED that about the Obamas, that they seemed to come from a debt background kind of like mine, and I was happy for them that their rise in government created prosperity for them.

Sorry, this equivalency* (they both did something wrong, so it kind of cancels) is hard to understand.

17

Rubio relentlessly tells the story of his parents fleeing the bogeyman Castro in Cuba.

Except that Castro's revolution occurred in 1959...and the elder Rubios came here in 1956.

In other words, he's clearly lying.

Does that give you pause?

18

Because I understand that history is not made of separate movements with clear barriers in them.  Castro didn't take power until 1959, but Communism was rising through the late 1950s.  He's not lying..the threat of the country collapsing under a communist regime was very real years before Castro official took the title.

19

I haven't listened much to Ted Cruz - turned on the TV and it was a long stretch of Cruz thanking people and taking shots at the Democrats.  Okay, fine, but his *manner* made it a real chore to listen to him.  Tried to get through it about four times, channel surfing, and was left with a vague sense of sourness.  If you get a big surprise win and your celebration leaves a guy like Dr. D sour, that's a red flag.

Have seen Rubio much more.  My impression of him, when interviewed by GOTCHA! journalists, is that he is articulate times 3 - comparable to Bill James, kind of, when giving sound logic and detailed analysis to a spontaneous question.

Rubio also seems warm, charming and authentic.  As far as I can tell he's got a legit backstory behind that.

Sparkling post Moe.

20
Montucky's picture

Montucky (not verified)

This guy can't figure his own money out. At what point does America get to 're-shuffle' the deck?  These final five are truly horrrible presidential candidates and EVERYONE knows it. Its sad that one or two of them will be president/VP. With that said, what choice has America given you/us? Youse guys make it sound like you actually like this guy, as opposed to choice of lesser evils...

I will admit I don't know a ton about Rubio, but what I was able to find, in minutes, was a bunch of issues that paint this man as a new verison of the same old politicians we already can't stand. Personal money issues, campaign finance fines, the worst campaign contributors OWN him, illegal use of govt credit cards (which I'm sure he paid back when caught), contracts for 'friends', women's health issues, climate change denier (sorry to bring THAT one up SMatt, ;)) latinos and mexicans DON'T support him (cubans do), and that's just the tip.  He's the embodiment of a career politician (so are the rest); its just too bad it takes 30 years for the populace to flush these people out.

Granted, I can paste this list by ALL their names; there is very little difference between the top five as polictical leaders. They advocate different policies, but to say one embodies OUR voice is pure poppy-cock. Its a well paying job that can be leveraged into millions and probably today billions of dollars.

Hey, America the free and all that, vote for whoever floats your boat. If Rubio's your guy, ok, one man's trash is another's treasure, IMO. I just had this conversation with a co-worker...the WOW, can you believe what passes as a PRESIDENTIAL candidate these days conversation. We all have to agree how sad this reality is.

As a dem, I haven't found a single person willing to vote for clinton, so it shocks me that she got as many votes as she did. The other side, eesh, how many pounds of spagetti can one side throw?  Sounds like something finally stuck with GOP voters, well the unified 23 % of you, that is.

Ol' Bernie may not have much hope against The Machine, but what choice am I, the left leaner, uh, left with? Cra-Cra on the right, or same ol same again on the left...re-shuffle, please.

 

 

22

Not everybody follows politics closely.

For those who barely watch, except to go vote, I wonder how many Latino votes Rubio would pull in a Rubio vs Hillary race, because of his ancestry?  Does anybody have an educated guess?

26

His father and mother came to Florida in 1956.

The story about them fleeing the evil Castro is an outright lie.

27

If you think Castro woke up one day in 1959 and said...you know...I'm gonna take over Cuba today!...I don't know what to tell you.

29

Note that this account does not have to twist itself into a semantic pretzel to cover for his story.  Note that the false claim comes from HIS OWN WEBSITE:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/21/marco-rubio/sen...

But my point is not to witn this argument...or say you shouldn't vote for him.  But just to point out that far before he ever has to meet Clinton or Sanders, he better have good answers for his background for the attacks coming from Trump and Bush and (if necessary) Cruz.  

Sooner or later 'who hates Hillary most' will not be the predominant theme of the GOP campaign (I think!)

30

Politifact, BTW, is not an unbiased source.  Fact-checking is not an unbiased business, no matter how hard we wish it were.  Politifact is run by former democratic operatives.  Rubio has multiple times addressed this question.  His parents knew the dangers that were coming and fled before they arrived.  In fact...if they had waited until Castro came to power, they never could have left.

32

The version I read when this story first broke was (slight paraphrase):

"When Castro came to power in Cuba in 1959, my parents were political exiles."  He clarified the story at a later time to make it clear that they were already here when the official rise began - that was my understanding as of 2011.

The politifact linkage has wording that sounds less honest - maybe there was another version.

I'm going to a town hall he's holding tomorrow in my home city here in New Hampshire.  Perhaps I'll ask him about the issue. :)

I'm less worried about this being some sort of epic problem than you seem to be, but if he was, at first, telling a misleading (embellished) version of the story, that's unfortunate.

Not as unfortunate as "if you like your health plan you will be able to keep it.  Period"...but yeah...I'd be mildly annoyed.

33
lr's picture

lr

I'm surprised you lump Sanders in with the rest of the 4. I'm a liberal on most issues, though I hate the political process as a whole and don't like

many politicians, D or R. Clinton is pure evil, and anybody the right props up is going to have MASSIVE issues. That said, curious how you put Sanders

in with that lot? You said you could put up a list on any of the 5 comparable to the one you built for Rubio. Care to give it a shot on Sanders?

34

And why are they, inherently, worse than other contributors?

Personal finance issues is not an issue for me unless they reveal something about his character that is not pretty (such as that he would be a proflagate spender)...I don't see that...I see a guy who didn't have a ton of money and who was doing the best he could to move up in politics with limited resources.  Campaign finance fines...I'd have to see the specific instances, but the vast majority of them are caused by the rules being so complex that no one without an army of lawyers could possibly understand them to avoide running afoul.  Seriously, this is part of the reason why we have super-PACs now...campaign finance law is so ludicrously unconstitutional and so over-burdened by insane complexity that you have to have a firm running the show for you now.  And an upstart, like Rubio, who was trying to beat a liberal republican for the Senate, didn't have access to the firms.  I would advise you to read sources beyond those that are routinely committed to attacking Republicans while ignoring the problems with democrats.

35
lr's picture

lr

Thanks again for taking time to articulate some answers to my questions. You were a good sport, so I'll return the favor.

For one, I've stated in this thread that liberals on the whole are doing damage by ignoring the level of extremism and brutality prevalent by Islamic fundamentlists. There's a real misunderstanding as to where this kind of threat comes from. It isn't some crazy, off the wall interpretation of the Quran and Hadiths. Those texts are filled with straight forward messages of inflicting harm onto infidels, of waging holy wars, of treating women like cattle, the list goes on and on. Liberals generally tend to either ignore this or are unaware of this.

Second, I don't like the suffocatingly intolerant pc culture that's spreading. Sure, bullying is a problem and needs to get snuffed out, and sure, people shouldn't be walking around hurling insults at gays or minorites or anyone, but people are becoming too easily offended. I'm reminded of Nobel Prize winning scientist Tim Hunt being fired last year over a silly off hand remark he made about his female coworkers. Yes, it was silly, and maybe a tiny bit insensitive. But the internet liberals got out their pitchforks and demanded justice and so it was delivered. Or not delivered. Seriously people, grow up.

 

If I might ask another question, I'm really curious if you come down on the conservative side of all these issues, as this was the idea behind my initial inquiry into whether you broke from any conservative principles. I've gleaned a few off your comments, but am curious about some others. I'll just list them. You don't have to explain each or any, just curious if you consider yourself outside mainstream conservatism on any of these issues.

death penalty, embryonic stem cell research, physician assisted suicide, gun control, immigration, passenger profiling, seperation of church and state, and same sex marriage

36

I'll open by saying that actually, one of the biggest problems with conservatism in America today (this isn't my conservatism, per say, but the conservatism that is commonly associated with Republican politics) I actually already hinted at further up threat.  When I talked about how the GOP was an awkward coalition of parties that make strange bedfellows sometimes, what that frequently boils down to is how those groups define conservatism...what they're trying to conserve.

Social conservatives are trying to conserve a way of life that was common in many parts of America, rather than trying to conserve the core ethics and philosophy behind the American founding.

Libertarians believe themselves to be "Americanist hawks" - as in...they see themselves as the purest form of true conservatism...defending the Constitution to...the...letter.  In fact, libertarianism, today, is beseiged by infighting as various strains fight over whether other strains are libertarian enough.

Conservative populists and tea parties are trying to conserve the same ideals that libertarians are except one...they are also trying to preserve America's existing demographic structure, or...at least...keep it from changing too quickly for society to adapt.

And traditional Republicans are trying conserve Republicanism (the brand associated with the party...which is an amalgam of the others)

I am a conservative...but I have a hard time pegging myself as any of the four groups listed above because I am also a conservative Catholic.  I am fighting to conserve the core philosophy of faith and reason that forms the backbone of the Catholic understanding of the world and our place in it, as well as fighting to keep the government small enough that our rights may be protected.  You may be surprised by my answers to your issues questions (momentarily).  I would also like to thank you for taking the time to comment on some of the pitfalls of current leftism.  I emphatically agree with you about Tim Hunt and the PC culture in general and appreciate you further clarification of your read on Islam.

On the death penalty, I am opposed to any government deciding who lives and who dies.  I see that as God's role, and I do not trust the state to accurately assess who deserves life and who cannot be redeemed.  I celebrated the recent Supreme Court ruling on Florida's implementation of the Death Penalty and believe we are only a decade or two at most away from ending it entirely in the US.  That puts me at odds with the GOP, but not with conservatism as I see it.  Conservatives should distrust all exercises of government power that deprive a man of his inalienable rights, and life is the first of those rights. As it happens, I am in agreement with the Catholic church here.  Mainstream conservatives support the death penalty because they believe that it is a deterrant to violent crime (it isn't), and because they believe it is appropriate justice for taking lives (it isn't...Jesus corrected that error in the way Old Testament folks build their law codes)

On embryonic stem cell research, I am opposed to such practices as they are completely unnecessary and there is no evidence whatsoever in the scientific literature that such research has ever produced a medical advance that adult stem cells would not also have produced.  We may have, for example, found a way to reverse Multiple Schlerosis.  With ADULT stem cells.  There is no need to murder a foetus to do medical research.  None.  That aligns me with the GOP and with most other strains of conservatism.

On physician assisted suicide, I am opposed to government sanctioning of the process.  The value of life is paramount - when societies lose their drive to fight death and treat life as absolutely sacred, they quickly lose their moral compasses as well.  History is replete with examples, and current EU policies toward PAS are already resulting in the rapid expansion of what conditions qualify as meriting the legalized use of PAS - up to and including handicaps, depression, other mental illnesses, ordinary aging, and memory loss.  In fact, in a few places in Europe, some euthanasia is performed without patient consent.  Decide that you are qualified to determine what quality of life is worth defending, and you will immediately open the door to others deciding who deserves to live. Here, I agree with mainstream conservatism as well.

On gun control - there is no such thing as someone who believes in gun control.  If you are in favor of taking certain types of guns out of the hands of citizens, what you really favor is deciding who carries the biggest guns and who does not.  The left often argues that only the police and the military should have access to certain classes of firearms while, on the other side, arguing that the police are too militarized and have way too much power (this seems contradictory to me).  I believe a well-armed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny and I believe that is more relevant now that it was when the amendment was written, not less.  I favor background checks (as do most conservatives) and I even favor common sense steps to screen for mental illnesses that would make someone prone to violence, but I do not favor confiscatory policies, nor do I favor arguments predicated on what types of guns a person "needs".  It's a bill of rights...not a bill of needs. And here again...I align reasonably well with conservatives, though my rationale is more in line with libertarians than Republicans.

On immigration - I am not a protectionist (as the populists are on my side of the political spectrum), and I don't believe there is much sense in attempting to control demographics.  However, I am also not a fan of leftwing (and libertarian) arguments in favor of amensty for the existing illegal immigrants or the notion that our border should not be policed properly.  It is an issue of both national security and common sense that we should have and maintain a legal border, that we should welcome people who immigrate here legally, that we should expand H1B visas for seaosnal work (with an eVerify system to make sure we are tracking them), that we should staple a green card to your college degrees if you come here legally to be educated and wish to stay, that we should try to accommodate refugees with certain conditions applied (I have elsewhere proposed that we agree to take in Syrian refugees on the condition that they consent to regular interviews and surveillance for an extended period, because that is the only way we're ever going to be able to properly vet them while getting them here faster so we can help and without arousing serioud concerns among our security personnel), and that we should manifestly NOT be taking in too many unskilled workers at any given time through the legal system (because our economy can't handle them so we're not really helping them or the disadvantaged poor in our country already by admitting them). That places me somewhere between Marco Rubio and Rand Paul on immigration.  Oh and one other thing - so-called sanctuary cities cnnot be allowed to continue and states cannot be prevented by the feds from enforcing existing immigration laws...neither of those things is permitted in the Constitution.

Passenger profiling - this is a loaded phrase.  People define profiling differently.  I believe the current way we do airport security is a joke and the data backs me up on that belief.  The Israelis know how to secure and airport - I'd be taking notes from Tel Aviv.

On the separation of church and state - another very loaded phrase - I believe the founders' intent was very...very clear.  Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion.  That means that Congress cannot pass a law requiring citizens to participate in any one religion.  That manifestly does not mean that public places cannot play host to religious displays.  HOWEVER - having studied the history of the Catholic Church, I will say this.  The church has always tried to do the right thing, but when they have erred, they have done so because they became too linked to secular government.  The Spanish Inquisition, the last few (unsuccessful and wildly misplayed) crusades, Emporer Constantine's attempts to direct the path of the church, and Charlemaign's brutal campaign of forced conversions against the Saxsons are great exmaples.  Beginning with the Napoleonic concordante, the Church has learned to forego the idea of temporally governing from the faith, even if remotely done to her great benefit.  This means that I believe it is in the best interest of Christians to let their values guide them in life and in politics, but not to let their churches dictate their politics, as some southern denominations are known to do (and as Obama's pastor was known to do...just saying, it ain't just conservatives).  This makes me more Catholic than conservative.

I don't believe the state should be in the business of sanctioning any marriages.  Straight or gay.  Marriage is a religious matter for the faithful and a contract for the secular.  It should be treated as such.  That is a libertarian position, rather than traditional Republican position.

Does that paint a picture? :)

38
lr's picture

lr

You spent detailing each one, was not expecting that. We aren't crazy far apart on all issues, but there are a few things I'd like to follup up on.

Regarding PAS: You don't think the government should get be allowed any say whatsoever in the process. Ok. What about a direct doctor patient relationship? If I go to my doctor, should I be able to determine on my own that I want to end my life peacefully and without suffering. Say I have Parkinsons, or Alz, or cancer, what have you. Are you against any sort of system at all that doesn't prosecute my doctor for helping me peacefully end my life? I know you will probably come back with, well who gets to determine the baseline, the cutoff for conditions met. Fair enough. There will have to be some level of public involvement in determining such baselines. But if we can all (or mostly) agree that in principle people of sound mind ought to be able to determine the conditions of their death where possible, how big a leap is it to allow some local body to draft some sort of protections under the law for those people willing and capable to participate? There's one similarity to the gay marriage debate here that springs to mind. If you don't believe in PAS, then don't have one. lol

Regarding gay marriage: Understandable, I'd heard the libertarian view on this before. One follow up. Do you think two men or two women getting married should carry the same weight and be viewed as completely equal to heterosexual marriages, religious or not, whoever sanctions them?

Regarding gun control: One quick note. You suggest the left contradicts itself when advocating for the removal of certain types of heavier weaponry, that it's meant for police and military use, yet then they claim that the police is too militarized.. It seems to me you are lumping together two entities that are not equal nor or performing the same task. Domestic policing /= military operations. American towns and cities don't need tanks and gas mask wearing AR-15 armed policemen to be patroling the streets. Those things are appropriate for combat zones. Advocating that maybe we shouldn't be selling automatic rifles with drum magazine clips or rocket launchers as a general rule doesn't mean there isn't a specific purpose for those types of weapons. I don't see the contradiction as you describe it.

Regarding the rest, I understand you come from a particular religious perspective and this forms the backbone for much of your opinion. We probably aren't going to get much accomplished going point by on that stuff, and my goal wasn't to go point by point anyway, rather to get solid footing on where you come from. I feel I've learned a lot about your position, so I'd say mission accomplished. If you'd care to respond to my above follow ups that would be great. If not, it's been fun anyway.

39

I also do not ascribe the the belief that suffering is bad.  I believe there is great value to be had in suffering and struggling to live, even when it is exceedingly difficult to go on.

No, I don't believe there is any justification for intentional PAS.  Now...I do believe that patients have the right to mitigate physical pain with the help of their doctors.  This is how I draw the line.  The goal should never be to cause the death of your patient.  If, however, the amount of morphine required to stop excruciating pain is large enough that it could cause respiratory failure and the patient is a DNR, I believe it is licit to give that medication and leave the results up to God.  But I don't believe that people have any particular "right" to choose the manner of their death because I don't believe life offers those sorts of guarantees...attempting to create them causes many...many more problems than it solves.

Regarding gun control, No matter how you slice it, taking choices in guns away from the citizens and reserving those choices only to the government (at any level) is, IMHO, inherently dangerous.  The left doesn't trust the military either...that is why they frequently force the military to be "gun free" on their own bases.  For security...or something.  I think more folks on the left should pick up and learn to fire a gun.  Perhaps the mystique and the fear surrounding them might ease a bit if they did.

On gay marriage, I don't believe the government should confer any privileges other than "next of kin"/legal proxy/inheritance/estate related privileges to a marriage of any type.  Do you know where the whole idea of the states issuing marriage licenses comes from?  The segregationist south.  To stop interracial marriage. :)  So...yeah...the government has no place in marriage other than to enforce contracts through the civil court system.  Marriage contracts should appoint the rights I mentioned above as the partners see fit, as well as deal with offspring and the consequences of violating the terms of the marriage.

40
lr's picture

lr

You wrote "But I don't believe that people have any particular "right" to choose the manner of their death". Substitiute "the manner of their death" with, "the person they want to marry", or, "how many children they want", or, "how many gallons of gas they can burn in a week" and see how it strikes you. Its pretty obvious this is a projection of personal religious belief onto other people, and in doing so determining what "rights" others may or may not be allowed. Seems like an awfully slippery slope, wouldn't you agree? As a person who has a mix of libertarian principles, it would seem rather difficult to figure out where and how you draw the line on live and let live in some cases and not in others.

You said that allowing ANY level of PAS would create way more problems than it would solve. I would challenge that. Is the pain and torment millions of people go through during end of life stages not a problem for each and every person that lives through it? I'm of the opinion that allowing some level of PAS with strict and sensible requirements having to be met would be a great and welcome service to many, many people. Again I say, if you don't want a PAS, don't have one. Telling people that are enduring through terrible suffering that it's good for them comes off as preachy and doesn't strike me as good enough reasoning to deny them the right to die comfortably.

As for guns, I shot guns growing up a lot. It's not always a fear thing. I just think it's a sensible thought that taking high capacity magazine automatic assault rifles and rocket launchers away from the general public would prevent more massacres.

41

Feel free to fight with straw Matt...it looks like fun.

It doesn't take a "religious belief" to view history objectively and see that when societies don't put a huge thumb on the scale for making life paramount, extremely bad, evil thinking shortly follows thereafter.

42
lr's picture

lr

are that you see suffering as good, which looks an awful lot like Mother Teresa's position. In the description you yourself gave on where you draw the line you said "I believe it is licit to give that medication and leave the results up to God". And now here you're distancing yourself from using religious belief to form your opinion on the matter? If you want to present your case, as you've made insinuations toward, that soceities will always deteriote into evil chaos when preserving life isn't held to the utmost paramount, then state THAT case. You didn't.

I believe it is licit to give that medication and leave the results up to God - See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/comment/111628#comment-111628
I believe it is licit to give that medication and leave the results up to God - See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/comment/111628#comment-111628

Reread the first two lines of your comment prior to this one and explain where you derive your belief that "suffering isn't bad, and there is great value to be had in suffering and struggling to live, even when it is exceedingly difficult to go on". Those beliefs that you hold have no religious context to them at all? Let's get real.

It's abundantly clear I'm not straw manning your argument. This is what you always do when we debate. I quote you directly, raise questions, give you a chance to respond, and rather than just explain yourself clearly you blow up and start yelling straw man while ignoring most of the direct questions or concerns I'm raising.

I also do not ascribe the the belief that suffering is bad.  I believe there is great value to be had in suffering and struggling to live, even when it is exceedingly difficult to go on - See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/comment/111628#comment-111628
I also do not ascribe the the belief that suffering is bad.  I believe there is great value to be had in suffering and struggling to live, even when it is exceedingly difficult to go on - See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/comment/111628#comment-111628
I also do not ascribe the the belief that suffering is bad.  I believe there is great value to be had in suffering and struggling to live, even when it is exceedingly difficult to go on - See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/comment/111628#comment-111628
43

I think he meets William F. Buckley's axiom that we fellow Conservatives should nominate the fellow Conservative with the best chance of winning.

In these days of loosening of Cold War tensions between the U.S. and Cuba, we see our two nations offering each other gifts.

Political immigrant Marco Rubio is Fidel Castro's gift to the GOP and thus America: his policies have given us our own JFK: young, dynamic, charismatic, a tax cutter, foreign policy hawk, and a politician who can speak in complete sentences.

In return, the Democratic party is offering to bring our two nations closer by offering its own version of a Fidel Castro "soak the rich" "free health care" socialist: Bernie Sanders.

45

Here's the debate I'd pay to see: Bernie Sanders vs. Fidel Castro. Well, it'd probably end up being a love fest as they both whined about the 1%: Sanders would complain about American billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg, Castro about those greedy Cuban ballplayers who flee on ramshackle boats to come to America and sign obscene contracts.

46

I've enjoyed reading through this post and most of the comments. I'm from New Zealand so don't have much of a horse in the race. My primary insight into American politics is friends Facebook posts and comedy shows so I probably don't have anything useful to add. Sanders seems like the obvious choice to me but what would I know.

Pages

Add comment

More information about text formats

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

shout_filter

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.