Indie Thoughts

[Balta1701]

Having dealt with Evan Bayh for waaaaaaaaay too many years, I think he is someone who could emerge for the Dems, but I don't think that they will have someone from Indiana at the top of their ticket.  Bayh could be an interesting pick for Veep, and has the potential to swing a very Repub state to the Dems.

Well, if you can chime into this thread, so can I.

 

I wouldn't put it past Bayh to win the nomination honestly, in sort of the way that Kerry did. If it seriously comes down to a primary based on "Electability", which was the buzzword that a large majority of the people voting for Kerry in early primaries cited in exit polls...it may well come down to Bayh versus Warner (former Virginia governor). Edwards might have a shot in this vein also, but I think being out of office since 04 and having only served 1 term in the Senate may hurt him.

 

On the other hand, I don't think even Bayh could swing Indiana to the Dems. Usually you can tell whether the Republicans are going to win the Presidency by whether or not Indiana goes to the Repub candidate by 20% or 10%. Even though he's from Indiana, he'd have a harder task of winning his home state than Gore did in 2000.

[Texsox]

From Kinky an autographs

 

I will sign anything but bad legislation

 

and once elected, Musicians, not politicians will rule Texas.

Willie Nelson as Head of the Texas Rangers

[kapkomet]

Well, if you can chime into this thread, so can I.

 

I wouldn't put it past Bayh to win the nomination honestly, in sort of the way that Kerry did.  If it seriously comes down to a primary based on "Electability", which was the buzzword that a large majority of the people voting for Kerry in early primaries cited in exit polls...it may well come down to Bayh versus Warner (former Virginia governor).  Edwards might have a shot in this vein also, but I think being out of office since 04 and having only served 1 term in the Senate may hurt him.

 

On the other hand, I don't think even Bayh could swing Indiana to the Dems.  Usually you can tell whether the Republicans are going to win the Presidency by whether or not Indiana goes to the Repub candidate by 20% or 10%.  Even though he's from Indiana, he'd have a harder task of winning his home state than Gore did in 2000.

 

First of all, it kills me when someone thinks that we're "republicans" simply because we defend Bush from the absurdity.

 

Second of all, if Indiana is so popular "Republican"... why did Bayh win LANDSLIDE elections as governor and senator? He will deliver Indiana to the Democrats if he runs, because he's very popular in Indiana, like it or not. I also think that is one major reason why Bayh will have a hard time winning. He's from Indiana, and the electoral doesn't matter... therefore, he's not "important" because he won't pull in electoral votes.

[Texsox]

First of all, it kills me when someone thinks that we're "republicans" simply because we defend Bush from the absurdity.

 

Second of all, if Indiana is so popular "Republican"... why did Bayh win LANDSLIDE elections as governor and senator?  He will deliver Indiana to the Democrats if he runs, because he's very popular in Indiana, like it or not.  I also think that is one major reason why Bayh will have a hard time winning.  He's from Indiana, and the electoral doesn't matter... therefore, he's not "important" because he won't pull in electoral votes.

 

We think you are Republican because your opinions fall in line with GOP doctrine. Press, Judges, Iraq, Capital Punishment, Cheney, Dubya, National Debt, etc. But we like you anyway, despite your shortfalls

 

Perhaps they can find a candidate from the electoral juggernaut, Arkansas to run

[kapkomet]

We think you are Republican because your opinions fall in line with GOP doctrine. Press, Judges, Iraq, Capital Punishment, Cheney, Dubya, National Debt, etc. But we like you anyway, despite your shortfalls

 

Perhaps they can find a candidate from the electoral juggernaut, Arkansas to run 

 

And you've just stereotyped me. Evidently you don't read close enough.

[Texsox]

And you've just stereotyped me.  Evidently you don't read close enough.

 

Everyone likes to think they are in Independent, and if we truly had a pile for Independents, it would make for an interesting party. However, *If* I had to place *Kapkomet* in a Dem or GOP pile, Kap would have to go in the GOP pile, just like *Texsox* be in the Dem pile. I would probably sort Bob and Jim differently. Shall we take a poll and see what everyone else thinks?

 

I don't believe it is a stereotype, it as an opinion based on reading almost every one of Kapkomet's posts in SL&P and Filibuster. Believe it or don't, I do read your posts and try and understand and appreciate your views.

 

Do I have to remind people just reading posts is rarely an accurate gauge on someone's real personality? Some people are gifted as great writers, some are better oraly, still others have to be seen to believe.

 

I find it interesting that I could have many pleasant conversations with the now ex-head of the Republican Party in Hidalgo County, without the righteous indignation that follows some discussions here. We'd laugh at each party and the silly crap they try and sell to the American public. I never felt the urge to defend every little thing that a Dem did, as I sometimes do here. So real life is much different than soxtalk life. Just look at the Texas Governor's Race. I'm still backing Perry for re-election, a GOPerhead. Last I recall, you still hadn't found a candidate. I'm guessing when it is all said and done, you'll be backing Strayhorn in her Independent bid.

[Texsox]

New topic, it varies by location and office, but making the ballot as an independent is hard work, requiring a lot of volunteers. Even a "3rd Party" is difficult at best. Where should the line be drawn between a ballot with only

 

John Q. Republican

Jane A. Democrat

 

and one with 174 candidates?

 

Should it be money? signatures? an "independent board" to verify the candidate? some other? Open ballots?

[kapkomet]

Everyone likes to think they are in Independent, and if we truly had a pile for Independents, it would make for an interesting party. However, *If* I had to place *Kapkomet*  in a Dem or GOP pile, Kap would have to go in the GOP pile, just like *Texsox* be in the Dem pile. I would probably sort Bob and Jim differently. Shall we take a poll and see what everyone else thinks? 

 

I don't believe it is a stereotype, it as an opinion based on reading almost every one of Kapkomet's posts in SL&P and Filibuster. Believe it or don't, I do read your posts and try and understand and appreciate your views.

 

Do I have to remind people just reading posts is rarely an accurate gauge on someone's real personality? Some people are gifted as great writers, some are better oraly, still others have to be seen to believe.

 

I find it interesting that I could have many pleasant conversations with the now ex-head of the Republican Party in Hidalgo County, without the righteous indignation that follows some discussions here. We'd laugh at each party and the silly crap they try and sell to the American public. I never felt the urge to defend every little thing that a Dem did, as I sometimes do here. So real life is much different than soxtalk life. Just look at the Texas Governor's Race. I'm still backing Perry for re-election, a GOPerhead. Last I recall, you still hadn't found a candidate. I'm guessing when it is all said and done, you'll be backing Strayhorn in her Independent bid.

In case people hadn't noticed, Kap has differing opinions then Bob. Kap likes to stir the pot.

[Texsox]

In case people hadn't noticed, Kap has differing opinions then Bob.  Kap likes to stir the pot. 

 

And while you are trying to stir counter-clockwise, Tex is stirring clockwise

[NorthSideSox72]

New topic, it varies by location and office, but making the ballot as an independent is hard work, requiring a lot of volunteers. Even a "3rd Party" is difficult at best. Where should the line be drawn between a ballot with only

 

John Q. Republican

Jane A. Democrat

 

and one with 174 candidates?

 

Should it be money? signatures? an "independent board" to verify the candidate? some other? Open ballots?

 

I like the German electoral system. It encourages candidates who aren't necessarily in line with a dominant party, but still allows the people to speak their minds on their belief set. Let's see if I can remember this correctly...

 

Germans vote in national parliamentary elections with two votes. They vote once for the candidate they want to represent them, and once for the party they favor. The votes for party (I believe there are 4 or 5 parties in GE big enough to gain seats) are counted up, and they are used to split the house. For example, of Party A got 40%, Party B got 35% and Party C got 25%, then those percentages are applied to the total size of parliament, and that is how many seats each party gets. Then, if Party A has 100 seats, then the top 100 vote getters from that party fill those seats.

 

I might be wrong on some of the details, but you get the idea. It allows for specific candidates to shine, and find a seat, but also allows for broad platforms to remain important. I like it.

 

As far as money goes, I tend to favor much stricter ceilings on individual and corporate donations per year, and anything else that would make the process less about money and more about winning support.

[kapkomet]

And while you are trying to stir counter-clockwise, Tex is stirring clockwise 

Hey jerk, why do *I* have to be stirring counter-clockwise?

[Texsox]

Hey jerk, why do *I* have to be stirring counter-clockwise? 

 

I figured a smart guy like you would see the obvious, I was thinking you would be stirring down on the left and up on the right . . .

 

You have to admit, that was damn fine thinking.

[kapkomet]

I figured a smart guy like you would see the obvious, I was thinking you would be stirring down on the left and up on the right . . .

 

You have to admit, that was damn fine thinking.

You mean you thought that far ahead? I'm impressed.

[Texsox]

You mean you thought that far ahead?  I'm impressed.   

Yes, I did. You know us Dems, always thinking . . .

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

As far as money goes, I tend to favor much stricter ceilings on individual and corporate donations per year, and anything else that would make the process less about money and more about winning support.

 

 

While you're at it there should be laws in place that deny Labor Unions the ability to use union dues for political purposes unless the membership approves.

 

I found it SOOOOOOOO funny that they were so vocally opposed to that measure. I mean God forbid they use their money on what the membership actually wants it used for.

[southsider2k5]

Well, if you can chime into this thread, so can I.

 

I wouldn't put it past Bayh to win the nomination honestly, in sort of the way that Kerry did.  If it seriously comes down to a primary based on "Electability", which was the buzzword that a large majority of the people voting for Kerry in early primaries cited in exit polls...it may well come down to Bayh versus Warner (former Virginia governor).  Edwards might have a shot in this vein also, but I think being out of office since 04 and having only served 1 term in the Senate may hurt him.

 

On the other hand, I don't think even Bayh could swing Indiana to the Dems.  Usually you can tell whether the Republicans are going to win the Presidency by whether or not Indiana goes to the Repub candidate by 20% or 10%.  Even though he's from Indiana, he'd have a harder task of winning his home state than Gore did in 2000.

 

Evan Bayh for some ungodly reason owns the state of Indiana as much as it pains me to say that. I can not stand the SOB, and would be thrilled if he never held elected office again. Despite all of that, I honestly believe that Bayh is the one Democrat alive who could swing IN to the Dems.

[Texsox]

While you're at it there should be laws in place that deny Labor Unions the ability to use union dues for political purposes unless the membership approves. 

 

I found it SOOOOOOOO funny that they were so vocally opposed to that measure.  I mean God forbid they use their money on what the membership actually wants it used for.

Would that also apply to the NRA? Both groups spend the money for the same reasons, to advance their membership's mission. I didn't notice the NRA allowing me to opt out of its' contributing to GOP candidates.

 

LOL, this is really about the GOP, who is anti-Union trying to stop funds going to candidates who are pro-Union. Don't pretend it is anything else.

[EvilMonkey]

Would that also apply to the NRA? Both groups spend the money for the same reasons, to advance their membership's mission. I didn't notice the NRA allowing me to opt out of its' contributing to GOP candidates.

 

LOL, this is really about the GOP, who is anti-Union trying to stop funds going to candidates who are pro-Union. Don't pretend it is anything else.

Tex, the NRA members give their money to the group voluntarily, not thru forced deductions like unions. Don't like what the NRA is doing with your dues? You can quit and never pay again. Don't like what the union is doing with your dues? Good luck trying to quit the union. While you could always quit your job, somehow that doesn't seem like a fair comparison.

[Texsox]

Tex, the NRA members give their money to the group voluntarily, not thru forced deductions like unions.  Don't like what the NRA is doing with your dues?  You can quit and never pay again.  Don't like what the union is doing with your dues?  Good luck trying to quit the union.  While you could always quit your job, somehow that doesn't seem like a fair comparison.

 

Then elect new Union leadership. Don't like the PR campaign the Union is running? Elect new representation. The fact of the matter, the lobbying efforts of the Unions are a prime benefit to their members, or at least it is an important part of the Unions' activities. Want to prevent off shore products from coming in? Elect those representitives that will be sympathetic to your cause. Want tougher workplace laws? Help get those people elected. This is where the Union can have their greatest impact.

 

We are saying it's for political reasons, and that is correct. But isn't that a major reason why unions are still around? I'm not pro-Union, but I can see why a law preventing them being active politically is unfair. You know the executives and the companies are donating, why not the Union?

 

And no one can tell me the GOP would be objecting if the money was flowing their way.

[Rex Kickass]

I was thinking about pulling a Norma Rae at my sales office and walk around the office holding a big sign that just says UNION.

[NorthSideSox72]

Is anyone else tired of the consistent pattern, where 95% of the discussions on this board devolve into s***-mortaring from the wings?

 

I'm all for lively debate, and intense argument, on heavy issues. I enjoy it, in fact. But it drives me nuts that a few Dems on this board (only a small few, but that's all it takes) want to criticize everything Bush does on first glance, with no substance at all. And even worse is what the right-wingers do (in much greater numbers than the left-wingers), which is to immediately label any criticism of Bush (even when well-supported) as sour grapes, and then make some dismissive blanket statement making all who disagree with Bush and/or the GOP on that position out to be buffoons.

 

So here is my call out to my fellow 'busters on Sox Talk - can we try to stick to substantive arguments? I see them here everyday, but they seem to get drowned out (by both sides) by rhetoric and blanket indictments. And then, I get so frustrated, I find myself doing it! So please, can we strive towards intelligent debate?

 

/rant

 

Sorry, had to get that out. The idealist in me was boiling over.

 

EDIT:

One more thing. I've taken some of those online tests to see where I am on the spectrum, in net, and I am usually close to the middle. But here, I seem to end up on the left more often than not. What is up with that?

Edited February 23, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[Rex Kickass]

Truth is in today's America - the middle is more and more being seen as "the Left." Because politics is being dominated by "the Right."

 

I often wonder where I am in the order of things left to right. I'm probably left leaning but more middle than I give myself credit for.

[kapkomet]

Truth is in today's America - the middle is more and more being seen as "the Left." Because politics is being dominated by "the Right."

 

I often wonder where I am in the order of things left to right. I'm probably left leaning but more middle than I give myself credit for.

That is a good point. The spectrum has shifted. I think most people are 'conservative', but not the 'conservative' that the righties of American loudmouth media would want you to think. The reason I say that is most Americans are 'content' with where they are in life and do not want society to radically change. Therefore, by that definition, they're 'conservative'.

[Texsox]

That is a good point.  The spectrum has shifted.  I think most people are 'conservative', but not the 'conservative' that the righties of American loudmouth media would want you to think.  The reason I say that is most Americans are 'content' with where they are in life and do not want society to radically change.  Therefore, by that definition, they're 'conservative'.

 

Good point, and it goes along with my statement that a truly nuetral press will look liberal to the conservatives and conservative to the liberals. The media isn't anymore left or right leaning that it ever was, it still strives for the center, but conservatives want a program that reflects their exact views, which are well off conservative.

[YASNY]

Good point, and it goes along with my statement that a truly nuetral press will look liberal to the conservatives and conservative to the liberals. The media isn't anymore left or right leaning that it ever was, it still strives for the center, but conservatives want a program that reflects their exact views, which are well off conservative.

 

I agree with this part of that sentence, as the msm has been well left of center for at least 30 years. And no, I don't think it even pretends to strive for center.