2008 Thoughts from The Australian

[Pangloss]

I often bemoan the awareness of US political issues overseas. Then they go and prove me wrong.

 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11296126%255E25377,00.html

 

This fellow seems to have an excellent grasp -- more so than a lot of Democrats, I must say. Democrats keep picking northern liberals, and they keep losing. You'd think they'd have learned that lesson with Clinton, but apparently they needed to learn it again. This author doesn't touch on the subject of early primaries, but that's the reason why, and if Democrats are smart they'll find a new way to pick their candidate in 2008.

 

Anyway, the article above has some excellent insights and is worth reading. Here are a couple of excerpts I found particularly interesting:

 

The Democrats keep picking northern liberals and keep losing with them. Every northern liberal they've chosen in the past 40 years -- Hubert Humphrey (1968), George McGovern (1972), Walter Mondale (1984), Michael Dukakis (1988) and John Kerry (2004) has lost.

 

The only winners the Democrats have had in that time -- Jimmy Carter (1976) and Bill Clinton (1992 and 1996) -- were southern governors, Bible-based Christians who ran as conservative Democrats.

 

So the natural Republican strategy in 2008 is to choose a popular southern governor with a strong record of attracting Hispanic votes. Jeb Bush scored a smashing re-election victory in Flordia last time. If his surname were anything but Bush, he would be the natural Republican candidate, bound to win Florida, the only big state in the south that was close in 2000, or could be close again. He would also win Texas and the rest of the south.

 

But here's the kicker. Jeb Bush always does even better with Hispanics than his brother does, partly because of his Mexican wife and his fluency in the Spanish language.

 

And of course if Clinton and Bush were running against each other, they would each neutralise the charges of nepotism that could be levelled against both of them.

 

(chuckle) The author obviously has a sense of humor, which always makes things interesting. Anyway, check it out, it's a good (and short) read.

[bloodhound]

US media keeps using the term "Liberal" very often. I dont understand what it means. I think it has a different meaning in UK. could you explain what "liberal" tag means in US of A

[Pangloss]

The Wikipedia has some good stuff on this. Try these articles:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

 

The last article may be the most pertinent to the term as it applies to the most recent election. It's fairly logical to lump most of these issues into one big boat and call it "liberal":

 

Fairly well-accepted "mainstream" liberal positions (often accepted by people on the right, just not as commonly):

- Abortion choice should be "yes"

- Gun control is a good thing; more gun control is a better thing

- We don't do enough to help people in need

- Bigger government, smaller businesses (obviously I'm painting in very broad strokes here)

 

To the farther left (rarely accepted by the right), we reach positions like these:

- Jobs are a right, not a priviledge; never mind what makes them, government owes us

- Everyone should be given at least a "living wage"; doesn't matter if they're earning it or not, if you pay them more then it's good for everyone automatically

- Tax the rich to feed the poor -- income should be actively redistributed

- Pretty much anything that would cause Ayn Rand to turn in her grave

[Sayonara]

Isn't "liberal!" what you are supposed to shout at people who disagree with you, before you shoot out the tires on their truck?

[Aardvark]

Isn't "liberal!" what you are supposed to shout at people who disagree with you, before you shoot out the tires on their truck?

 

Their eco friendly LPG people carrier surely?

[Pangloss]

Isn't "liberal!" what you are supposed to shout at people who disagree with you, before you shoot out the tires on their truck?

 

Yeah. I mean, you could try "PROGRESSIVE!", but it just doesn't have the same ring to it, and it might lead your friends to try and locate a second rope.

[Douglas]

Isn't "liberal!" what you are supposed to shout at people who disagree with you, before you shoot out the tires on their truck?

Liberals don't drive trucks, they drive Yugo's

 

Conservatives drive pickup trucks, with a shotgun in the rear window of course.

[Douglas]

To the farther left (rarely accepted by the right)' date=' we reach positions like these:

- Jobs are a right, not a priviledge; never mind what makes them, government owes us

- Everyone should be given at least a "living wage"; doesn't matter if they're earning it or not, if you pay them more then it's good for everyone automatically

- Tax the rich to feed the poor -- income should be actively redistributed

- Pretty much anything that would cause Ayn Rand to turn in her grave[/quote']

To the farther left, I'd add..........

 

Partial birth abortion is fine.

 

30,000 exterminators lose jobs, thanks to the "save the cockroach" crowd. (Endangered species, you know.)

 

350,000 acres of prime forests burned, complements of the "save the brush" anti forest thinning folks.

 

From our education pinheads...Teach oral sex,... the best and most satisfying way to masturbate (thanks Jocelyn Elders, but I learned on my own), How to put on a condom and a dental dam.

 

Teaching Ebonics should be mandatory, from the tetra lingual people.

 

Soooo Bloodhound, should I continue or is that enough?

[Aardvark]

What is 'Ebonics'?

 

It sounds scary.

[Douglas]

What is 'Ebonics'?

 

It sounds scary.

Well, it is kind've scary.

Ebonics is an afro American lingo, a dialect with english as it's roots.

 

I think it was the state of Oregon's educational system that tried to get ebonics established as an elective in school......I think they were laughed right out of the school system.

 

Anyway, tune to........to listen

http://www.funnyjunk.com/pages/ebonics.htm

turn up your volume and enjoy a little ebonics.

[Aardvark]

I'd like to think that was a joke.

 

I was right, it is scary.

[Douglas]

I'd like to think that was a joke.

 

I was right' date=' it is scary. [/quote']

Aardvark, it ain't no joke, it's real life.

[Sayonara]

Liberals don't drive trucks, they drive Yugo's.

Ah, my mistake.

[john5746]

Jesus was a liberal. Had all these wierd ideas about loving everyone, forgetting about monetary things, healing the sick, caring for the poor, etc. That is why he was crucified by the conservatives.

[Tetrahedrite]

Jesus was a liberal. Had all these wierd ideas about loving everyone, forgetting about monetary things, healing the sick, caring for the poor, etc. That is why he was crucified by the conservatives.

 

This is an extremely good point!! I have often wondered how christians are able to align themselves with the right and extreme right side of politics. As I have said in another thread, this side of politics seems to be selfish and morally questionable, attributes that are often given to "liberals".

[john5746]

Yep. I am not a christian, or even religious. Most 'christians' do not even attempt to follow a christian path. It is very interesting how people don't think the government should be involved in redistribution of wealth, but they should control how everyone lives, except gun ownership of course.

 

Keep in mind though, that many christians voted against Bush, and many people who voted for Bush probably have some gripes with him. It was still a close election.

[JohnB]

I have often wondered how christians are able to align themselves with the right and extreme right side of politics.

 

Um, because the left side views them as whackos?

 

There is also the thing about "morals". Generally (Very wide brush alert) the left views morals as "relative" dependent on time and place, whereas by their very beliefs, any religionist must believe that morals are "absolute", if for no other reason than "God said so".

 

The two views are diametrically opposed, religionists side with the right simply because the left doesn't agree with their basic value.

 

John, a simple question. Are there any "left" organisations that do as much good or are respected as say, The Salvos? The left are great at saving trees, but don't actually do anything to help their fellow man. International Socialist Soup Kitchens? Nope.

 

Part of the problem is that there any number of "left" groups that will protest and chant about what is wrong, but it's those "right-sided" religious groups that get in there and get their hands dirty. People see that, and remember.

[r1dermon]

thats wrong, im a liberal and i drive a dodge ram pickup truck. ahh, just like a shortsighted conservative radical to go generalizing...i've put up with a year and a half of being called a liberal like its a sin. its time for conservatives to grow up and get a little intelligence in that thing called a brain.

conservative viewpoint consists of

-if I dont have the ultimate power, then i'll shoot you, so i CAN have the ultimate power.

and thats about it. can't blame em, all they do is shoot animals and then tell people that they should worship god because its right....thou shall not kill. america is saturated with hypocracy. i can't take it anymore.

[Douglas]

Jesus was a liberal. Had all these wierd ideas about loving everyone, forgetting about monetary things, healing the sick, caring for the poor, etc. That is why he was crucified by the conservatives.

Good one John.....I wonder if Jesus was Pro choice.

[Douglas]

John' date=' a simple question. Are there any "left" organisations that do as much good or are respected as say, The Salvos? The left are great at saving trees, but don't actually [b']do[/b] anything to help their fellow man. International Socialist Soup Kitchens? Nope.

Yes JohnB, the tree huggers have no compunction about "laying off" 3000 lumberjacks to save a spotted owl that is now shown to be on it's way to extinction anyway, or preventing the farmers from having their land irrigated because it might be harmful to the habitat of a small fish.

 

And as you say, the "left", who consider the religious folks to be right wing whacko's, have forgotten about the Salvation Army and other religious organizations who help the "poor" and the "down and out".

 

BTW, my wife, who is a registered democrat, but a devout catholic, volunteers her time at the Corpus Christi food kitchen.

[Tetrahedrite]

Yes JohnB' date=' the tree huggers have no compunction about "laying off" 3000 lumberjacks to save a spotted owl that is now shown to be on it's way to extinction anyway, or preventing the farmers from having their land irrigated because it might be harmful to the habitat of a small fish.

[/quote']

Grrrrrrrrr.........Anger rising!!! I can't believe how short sighted these comments are. This is the right wing way, rape and pillage at all cost so one or two people have their jobs!!

Who gives a stuff about anything else as long as we are making money!! Who gives a stuff about everyone else, as long as we are making money!

Would you have any objection to the continued poaching of elephants, or rhinos, mountain gorillas to extinction so that a few poachers keep their jobs? How about we hunt the whales to extinction and sell the meat to the Japanese, this should give a couple of thousand people jobs for a couple of years (no ones gunna miss them, right). How about we dump mercury and radioactive waste straight into the harbours because this will save the companies money! In fact why don't we dump all our waste in the ocean, it has to be cheaper than doing the nasty left wing thing of being responsible! We can chop down all of the forest because salination, erosion and global warming aren't problems in the world!

And hey, keep burning that oil - its never gunna run out! If we run out, we'll just invade some countries that have some to spare!

Just keep on irrigating as well! Use as much pesticide as you like! The more pesticide, the bigger the profit.

Raping and pillaging is great when you make so much money.....the good times will never end!

 

 

And as you say' date=' the "left", who consider the religious folks to be right wing whacko's, have forgotten about the Salvation Army and other religious organizations who help the "poor" and the "down and out".

[/quote']

 

I don't know what the Salvation Army is like in your country, but you can be damn certain they don't agree with most right wing social policies here! They are publicly opposed to all measures that increase the rate of poverty (for example social welfare reform, casualisation of the workforce, abandonment by the government of the disabled, mentally ill, poor and disadvasntaged, abolishment of funding for health and education etc etc)

 

Abandoning these people is not a very "christian" thing to do and my point was that I don't know how the religeous right can align themselves with political parties that have these policies.

[Sayonara]

Perish the thought that anyone should have to take up a new job just to protect biodiversity. Honestly, this fragile cradle Earth places such a burden on people's beautiful lives.

[Tetrahedrite]

As a follow up to the previous post, I would like to point out that being liberal doesn't automatically make you a "tree hugger" (or greeny as we cally them), as many people on this forum seem to think. I believe in liberal policies (as you may have guessed!) but was raised in a town where forestry was the main employer and I am all for sustainable forestry. I am now a geologist and chemist and deal with lots of environmentally friendly mining operations. I am all for nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels.

My point is that you can make money and be environmentally responsible at the same time. Leaning to the left of the political spectrum does not mean you are a greeny.

The best arguement demonstrating this is the nuclear and chemical wastelands created by the soviet union

[Aardvark]

My point is that you can make money and be environmentally responsible at the same time.

 

In the long run not being environmentally responsible will cost money and jobs.

 

Chopping down forests without replanting, denuding soils and polluting water may save some money and maximise income immediately, but will end up costing jobs and income.

 

So with an eye to the bank balance, lets not completely bugger the environment up.

[JohnB]

Abandoning these people is not a very "christian" thing to do and my point was that I don't know how the religeous right can align themselves with political parties that have these policies.

See my comment re relative and absolute morals.

 

Tetra, where there really seems to be a disagreement between left and right regarding social policies is that the right generally believes that people should learn to look after themselves, the left believes that government should do so.

 

This leads to the interesting state of affairs (in Oz at least), that the party that causes the most poverty (people unable to find a job and provide for their families) is also the one that pushes for more government spending on those "in need". An interesting situation, cause the problem and then claim to have the cure.

 

Also I'm not fully in agreement with the Howard government in some areas. We had a $6 Billion surplus last year. Okay, tax cuts were fun, but a few dollars here and there for most of us wasn't a big deal. All I could think of at the time "Damn, how many Nurses and Teachers could we employ for that? Build a couple of Hospitals out of the change too."

 

On the environment, I'm no friend of "The Greens", the sooner they disappear and are replaced by a decent Green Group with reasonable policies the better for all of us. You see, I believe we should have clean air and water, not because some evil "Big Business" is making a profit but because we need clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. (Or in the case of Melbournians, any water at all would be a plus. )

 

If I may ask, where do you get your figures that the current government is abolishing funding for health education etc.? Funding for education this year is $17 B, up 5.4% from last year. Family and Community Services are getting $65.86B, up about $1.6B. Ageing is some $6.7B increasing by $500M per year for the next three years. In most areas, things seem to be looking up.