|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 20:46:36 GMT -5
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jan 4, 2008 20:46:36 GMT -5
I found the same to be true, SD, and I still have numerous friends in those countries as a result. Hence my use of the word "reception" rather than "experience." It's simply a threshold to be overcome. My main point is that that threshold has gotten higher as a result of the Bush administration.
Stig - in 2000 I was welcomed with open arms and smiles as an American. In 2006 I had to explain myself as an American. That's the difference I was talking about.
Easy, bubbrubb. I didn't intend for my statement to sound "smug" or be a shot at America or be a "shining example" of how someone else does it better. I don't know if you travel at all, but all I was doing was pointing out that yes, the Bush administration's policies affect how Americans get treated abroad - you'd have be blind and living in a cave not to know that. And I'm not condoning it - I'm simply pointing out my experience with it. I actually found most Kiwis and Aussies to be much more welcoming to Americans than, say, your average Italian, and visiting the exact same place in two different years puts in stark relief how even foreigners who like Americans like our friends in the Pacific treat us based on how the actions and words of our president. Is it right? Do I agree with that behavior, or knee-jerk America-bashing? Would I do that to anyone based on their national origin? No, no, no, and no -- it's NEVER ok to judge or pre-judge someone based on national origin or think that all people agree with their leaders. Just because someone is liberal or green doesn't mean they agree with Penn or think Chavez is a good guy any more than if someone is conservative with regard to Alan Keyes. Just because someone wants to see positive progess for his country and sees some things abroad that could be tried here does not make him anything like what you so undiplomatically described. So get off your high horse.
I think MMP works in NZ - I never suggested it would work here, and I don't think it would work well here, not the least of which because our system of party politics, single-member districts, and three branches of government are strcuturally different than the parliamentary system, and our president is not necessarily the head of the party with the most seats in the legislature). Having, like, 1% of the US's population makes for much easier politics in NZ. I was pointing out that the way we do it isn't the only way, and I simply admire the Kiwis' ability to peacefully and effectively bring about a change in their structure of governance that provides greater choice to their people. One of the biggest problems in American politics, IMNSHO, is the idea of one's vote being wasted if one doesn't vote Dem or Rep. This is one area in which hifi and I agree - this nation needs at least one other viable party. I'm not arguing that any other nation does it better and we should smile and follow in lock step: I'm arguing that looking beyond our shores gives us perspective, which some Americans are badly in need of.
I would go further and have 2-3 viable parties and coalitions in the legislature. Reasonable people can disagree about whether that's a good idea, but with the existing stranglehold the 2 parties have on the system, I haven't seen much, in 9 years in DC and traveling extensively around the rest of the US, the kind of deabte or change that you describe. I think it can happen, but not so long as the Ds and Rs are more concerned with getting elected and staying in power than they are about what people actually want from their government. It's no wonder that both the president and Congress are as unpopular as they are. It's not the Constitution's fault - it's the parties.
Rosslyn, I'm not sure what your comparitive politics courses covered, but my experience studying politics while in NZ and trying to keep up with how MMP is working in NZ suggests that it has and will continue to work there. I agree that it would probably not work in the US -- too many people, too many special interests. Rather than being politically homogenous, I found that Kiwis consider wider reaches of the political spectrum "mainstream" than I find Americans to do - best examples are socialism on one end and xenophobia on the other. I find mainstream American politics to be sadly homogenous compared to the rest of the Western world.
[/tirade]
|
|
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 4, 2008 22:17:13 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 4, 2008 22:17:13 GMT -5
On the issue of Bloomberg, I think he should proceed carefully, and his change to independent status may have been hasty. He has been successful as a mayor, and so was Giuliani, whose record on national issues such as security has, perhaps, more transferability to the nation's highest office. Yet, we saw in Iowa that even that and Giuliani's leadership on 9/11 was not enough to generate any kind of traction. It appears that the same will be said after NH and "Tsunami Tuesday" given Giuliani's willingness to avoid competing until FL. Bloomberg is a different man, but I don't see much grassroots interest in a Bloomberg candidacy.
On the issue of a 3rd party itself, I think the idea of independence exists with decent policymakers in both parties. McCain had/has a good faith position on campaign finance that irked the party leadership at the time. One can go on. The problem, as I see it for fans of independents, is that they don't like that a McCain, Clinton, et al. have these kinds of carrots out there but are not independent when it comes to the divisive issues of the day, whether it is the war in Iraq or something else.
The problem from a realist point of view is that the story of American politics has historically been an "us v. them," Manichean one where one person wins, and the other loses. The challenges in our history - Cold War, war on terrorism, Civil War, etc. - have been conceptualized as us v. them and with 2 dominating positions - slave/anti-slave, democracy/terror, democracy/Communism, and down the line. Americans are used to thinking in these terms, and, electorally, very few are true independents. The majority of independents traditionally support candidates of one party over another.
In this present election, where "change" seems to have some weight, an independent rejection of the status quo probably won't have the traction that it would have generated in a race like 2004 given that the major candidates will offer something "independent" and meaningful in the race that is compelling enough to "independent" voters.
My $.02.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jan 5, 2008 6:33:37 GMT -5
From Ambassador:
"Yet, we saw in Iowa that even that and Giuliani's leadership on 9/11 was not enough to generate any kind of traction."
Giuliani ceded Iowa. Caucusing takes a lot of time. Unless you're a hardcore Giuliani supporter, you know he's not going to win. The incentive to show up for a few hours and caucus just isn't there.
Coast:
"I find mainstream American politics to be sadly homogenous compared to the rest of the Western world."
I find this a strength. Parties are forced to appeal towards the center, where the majority resides. Parties based on one issue or that don't appeal to many can be viable in other countries, where they have a chance to win seats. This is bad, because single-issue parties then have the potential to become kingmakers (as in Israel, where appealing to right-wing religious parties has caused a lot of bad blood). America in its history has had a rich tradition of third parties, and that third party has once or twice knocked one of the Big Two out.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 5, 2008 13:35:31 GMT -5
Post by hifigator on Jan 5, 2008 13:35:31 GMT -5
The President is elected via electoral votes, not popular votes. Delegates are chosen in Iowa this year by caucuses, not primaries. All candidates know the rules ahead of time. That being the case there is no room for griping about the results. If you want the rules changed in Iowa, move there and work to bring about the change. If you want Presidential elections by popular vote, start working to amend the constitution. Despite what some have said, it's merely sour grapes. By the way I would not have voted for either Obama or Huckabee. It is so nice to hear someone with a logical opinion. Being from Florida, all we heard since 2000 was how Bush "stole" the election. I understand people disagreeing with many of his policies and I understand people flat out thinking totally differently, but I get irritated everytime I hear some nitwit regurgitate absolute hogwash like "bush stole the election" or "war for oil." Those utterly shallow and entirely baseless sayings are nothing but liberal-thinking, feel-good nonsense. People say it to make themselves feel good. Gore won the popular vote, but as you point out that isn't how a President is elected. Incidentally, that is primarily to prevent the largest 6 or 8 cities from getting together and essentially monopolizing government. But in any case, as ed points out, everyone knew that going in. If you think that is unfair then work to change it, but don't complain about it after the fact. As for "stealing" the election, what is always pointed out was how Katherine Harris -- a known Republican and friendly cohort of George W. Bush's brother, then governor of the state in question, Jeb -- used her power to "stop" the recount and submit the original results. On the surface and without digging into it, that might appear shady. Here are some things you never here: The Florida State Constitution addresses the issue specifically and has a structured timeline. The results are to be submitted no later than a specified point and if there are not newly certified results, then Harris is instructed to submit the original results. To NOT do so, would overstep her authority and more importantly, violate the Constitution. Secondly, there have been multiple recounts by different independent agencies and every single one of them confirmed the original results anyway. In fact, the gap between Bush votes and Gore votes widened in every single recount except for the totally ridiculous version where only votes were recounted in the strongly democratic counties and then only when the most liberal rulings were used judging the ballots. Every single recount that recounted all ballots confirmed the result. Yet the left continues to babble about "only wanting every vote to count." Thirdly, some point to the infamous "butterfly ballot" and suggest that it was somehow confusing for the poor elderly or uneducated in that particular county. Again, that issue is specifically addressed in the Constitution. The ballots are to be submitted by a certain date and then approved by all parties. Each party had seen and approved the ballots months before the election. Yet after the results were in and the outcome was so close, those who were on the short side of the stick were grasping at any straw they could possibly find to try to challenge the result. While I understand that sentiment, I think we would all agree that objecting to the ballot after the fact and after everyone had accepted it months earlier is absurd. Yet you never hear that mentioned either. Lastly, the Gore team tried to have absentee ballots from armed forces soldiers disallowed. Essentially it came down to the manner in which the absentee ballot was sent out. In all honesty, I can understand the objection in that at least there is some ambiguity in the system. If you or I want an absentee ballot then it is our responsibility to personally request it. However this has not applied to military personnel stationed outside of the United States. Given the close margin, and given that the military traditionally is strongly republican, it is easy to see why the Gore team might want those ballots disallowed. However, the Gore team was constantly and incessantly trumpeting how they wanted "every vote to count." That feel good nonsense was absolutely bogus. They wanted all of their votes to count. I still remember a political cartoon that was totally aprepos. I don't remember the exact wording, but essentially it says that "they want every vote to count -- hanging Chad, dangling Chad and dimpled Chad -- just not Prvate Chad Anderson, stationed in Germany or Officer Chad Thompson stationed in Japan." The bottom line is that I understand that in a major election of that sort that was so incredibly close, that each side will look for every possible vote they can find. I have no real problem with that. But at least in these particular cases, if there was one side to blame for ethical irregularities, I think it would clearly be the left. Yet to this very day, you still hear crap about Bush stealing the election. I apologize for my soapbox, and I am sure some of you will find some way to criticize me for something, but this is one thing I feel strongly about. As for the entire primary business, I am still not sure I understand the need to scatter them out over a couple of months. What is wrong with having them on the same day -- even if we then had a second primary election after the top 2, 3 or 4 had been chosen?
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 5, 2008 13:43:36 GMT -5
Post by The Stig on Jan 5, 2008 13:43:36 GMT -5
I don't think anybody here was complaining about the 2000 election.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 5, 2008 14:02:26 GMT -5
Post by hifigator on Jan 5, 2008 14:02:26 GMT -5
Stig, my comment (longwinded as they were), were in reply to ed's words. Some were complaining about caucuses in general. Others questioned the timing of them and the possibility that it could give an unfair advantage to a particular candidate or could give an otherwise unworthy state, more influence. He pointed out that everyone knows the rules and that they are the same for all. If you want to change them, then work on changing them but don't complain about them. Like I said, that just brought back memories that I had to challenge on a daily basis for a couple of years, and some that still come up to the day.
Although I wouldn't mind hearing some different points of view on the subject.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,781
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 5, 2008 16:56:17 GMT -5
Post by DFW HOYA on Jan 5, 2008 16:56:17 GMT -5
I tend to gtow a bit weary of the Europhiles among the blue state crowd (particularly those in print media) that look down upon the American primary system and ask how the uneducated masses from (insert your favorite Midwest or Southern state here) could have possibly voted for George W. Bush. Simple: he spoke to their interests in a way the traditional Democratic party has been largely incapable of doing for 30 years.
Which is, in a way, why the media is so bowled over by Obama right now. The MSM were already putting together their seating charts for the Hillary inauguration when Barack came in and won over an independent-minded and largely dissatisfied Iowa electorate. He spoke with them, not to them.
Had Hillary won in Iowa, the die might have been cast, but Barack has tapped into a well of discontent among voters that could gush into these next few primaries. So, can Hillary or John Edwards cap the well before old fashioned "mo" (aka money) moves to the Obama camp?
As for the GOP, ugh. How about having an open convention and let them have it out then?
|
|
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 5, 2008 17:33:11 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 5, 2008 17:33:11 GMT -5
Romney is on the board with a win in WY, a state that was not contested and has not received the attention that the IA and NH contests have received. WY, I believe, has been punished by the Republican Party for moving up its contest and interfering with the NH/IA calendar.
In any event, Romney would be wise to get this news out there more considering he is about to get his head handed to him in NH on Tuesday.
|
|
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 5, 2008 23:54:35 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 5, 2008 23:54:35 GMT -5
From Ambassador: "Yet, we saw in Iowa that even that and Giuliani's leadership on 9/11 was not enough to generate any kind of traction." Giuliani ceded Iowa. Caucusing takes a lot of time. Unless you're a hardcore Giuliani supporter, you know he's not going to win. The incentive to show up for a few hours and caucus just isn't there. This is a chicken/egg debate. There is a fundamental reason why Giuliani is not competing in these early states. As best as I can tell, IA voters do not match the demographics that forms the Giuliani base, and my take is that "ceding" IA is a result of a careful calculation that it was more than likely to hurt his candidacy if he competed there. This being said, I think he had a good debate performance tonight along with Fred Thompson. Giuliani made the points he wanted to make and did so in a more casual manner than I think many Democrats generally do. The Republicans may be in for a long process here. Huckabee really hurt himself tonight I think with that shot on Romney about flip-flopping. McCain may have the momentum coming out of NH, but the question is: where next? Maybe he heads to NV and then tries to build a geographic bloc near his home state on Super Tuesday with CA, CO, AZ and maybe adds in MN. Giuliani will have his bloc in NY, NJ, and CT, I think. The midwestern states, I think, barring a candidate generating overwhelming momentum before 2/5, will make the difference in terms of who "wins" Super Tuesday on the Republican side. This "win" may not be enough to end the primary campaign, however.
|
|
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 7, 2008 14:23:40 GMT -5
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 7, 2008 14:23:40 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 7, 2008 14:37:48 GMT -5
Post by Elvado on Jan 7, 2008 14:37:48 GMT -5
After tomorrow, I expect a reprise of that Munchkinland favorite,"Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead" as Lady Roadham gets back on her bike and peddles away with the former Fornicator in Chief.
|
|
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 7, 2008 14:48:55 GMT -5
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 7, 2008 14:48:55 GMT -5
After tomorrow, I expect a reprise of that Munchkinland favorite,"Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead" as Lady Roadham gets back on her bike and peddles away with the former Fornicator in Chief. If Drudge is correct (sometimes a big "if"), then you may be right. www.drudgereport.com/flashhn.htm
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 7, 2008 15:33:46 GMT -5
Post by Boz on Jan 7, 2008 15:33:46 GMT -5
There's no crying in politics. I wouldn't put it past HRC that this was a calculated move on her part, but even if it wasn't, I'm pretty sure that only people stupid enough to ask a candidate, "who does your hair?" are also the only ones who would be swayed by this display.
(and why would you want to know anyway; her hair is horrific!)
For me, she is the least palatable of all serious candidates on either side, so the less chance she has to win, the happier I am.
Of course, I'd prefer McCain or Rudy or even Romney (Thompson is lost and Huckabee really is not up to it in any way), but if I can't get that, I'd feel better knowing it ain't her. Too bad Biden couldn't do better, I think he was the best qualified on the Dem side, but he never had a chance.
(I don't really buy that HRC as the nominee is the only chance a Republican has to win, but her sky-high negatives sure do help; Obama would be much tougher to beat, Edwards less so, but still tougher than Clinton)
(I also think Bill would be secretly ecstatic if Hillary dropped out)
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 7, 2008 15:36:34 GMT -5
Post by Bando on Jan 7, 2008 15:36:34 GMT -5
After tomorrow, I expect a reprise of that Munchkinland favorite,"Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead" as Lady Roadham gets back on her bike and peddles away with the former Fornicator in Chief. You stay classy, Elvado.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 7, 2008 15:45:21 GMT -5
Post by Elvado on Jan 7, 2008 15:45:21 GMT -5
No worries. Come to think of it, a little bike riding might do the old girl a little good as she could lose a little off that can of hers.
|
|
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 7, 2008 16:17:59 GMT -5
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 7, 2008 16:17:59 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 7, 2008 16:27:53 GMT -5
Post by Elvado on Jan 7, 2008 16:27:53 GMT -5
Nice to see that the former Prevaricator in Chief is not above playing the sexist victim card on behalf of Lady McRodham.
The sad truth (a curse word to the Clintons) is that they are a perfect soulless match. Neither one has a single core conviction beyond self-aggrandizement and the accumulation of power.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 7, 2008 16:28:05 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Jan 7, 2008 16:28:05 GMT -5
Best guess is it's calculated to make her more human. At any rate, do we want our President crying if things don't go her way?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 7, 2008 16:29:43 GMT -5
Post by Elvado on Jan 7, 2008 16:29:43 GMT -5
Wouldn't she have to be human in order to be made more human?
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Iowa!!!
Jan 7, 2008 17:52:17 GMT -5
Post by Cambridge on Jan 7, 2008 17:52:17 GMT -5
I agree. My brother is working in India right now. Works on micro-development and economic reform with asian business leaders. Anyways, he is by no means a conservative or an admirer of the current administration, but finds himself engaged in defensive rhetoric whenever he hangs out with young asian academics. Just last week, he lashed out at a couple Bengali and Pakistani young men who were railing against the United States and its "horrible", "inhumane", "undemocratic", "fascist" nature, and my brother turned to them and pointed out that the price of democracy was that sometimes those you disagree with take power, but that the real test of a nation was how you reacted to that transition. I went back last August 2006 and I can say without hesitation that my reception as an American was much, much colder than in 2000. Ughh. So what? This type of smug sentiment has been around for the last eight years as a cheap potshot for the rest of the world to lob at the United States. Nothing more, nothing less. Excorcist is right; apparently the only country for whom this type of blanket criticism is acceptable is the United States. I know very few Americans, and even fewer who are educated as well as we have been fortunate enough to become, who would ever think poorly of someone because of his/her country's policies. However, U.S. citizens aren't willing to call out this kind of criticism for what it is: petty xenophobic bitterness/jealousy. What's worse is that people like C2C even more smugly hold it up as a shining example that America/Americans need to change, as if living away from these shores somehow automatically makes a foreigner an expert on what the United States needs to be. What a load of hypocrisy! One of the greatest things about America is that debate works, in that it peacefully brings about change when change is wanted, and this has been going on longer here than in any other country in the world. I didn't mean for this to sound as rah-rah-USA as it might, but while Iowa may be mildly retarded, I'm not going to let a potential rise in the smug of a foreign country affect my opinion of the political reality in the States. Americans who have let that happen over the past eight years should grow some stones and let the debate end at our shores. ON EDIT: Good post Rosslyn, especially the bit about the MMP. A little analysis goes a long way, and it makes C2C and his admiration of such a blindingly wonderful system seem a bit like Sean Penn and others who travel to Venezuala and the like to proclaim to America how "reasonable" people like Chavez are (although not to that extreme, of course).
|
|