Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think there are probably 4M in CA alone.

2.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
In 1984, Reagan won every state except Minnesota. I don't think babyjesus carried Massachusetts for him. So what you're saying is that Bush I and Reagan both won elections without having to pander to baby jesus. And Bush II won one election by doing so.

We'd have president Gore now if one didn't pander to the right. But if one took a different strategy fro the outset, I assess differently where you'd end up. Yes, you'd lose some votes. But right now the assessment apparently is that you'd lose less votes that way than by continuing to pander.

I love him, but Reagan pandered to the religious right. If you think not, you are either too young to remember or weren't watching closely enough. I cede that in 84 there was less of a need for pandering and in selective states pandering wasn't necessary, but it doesn't change how he got to 84. And the Religious right has more sway now than it did in Reagan's day, thanks in part to Bush and Rove. If the party wants to remake itself and shoot for the WH in 2020, jettisoning the religious right makes sense, but if they want to contest in this decade again, they gotta dance with she who brung em.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I disagree with that. Not everything has to be an abolsute, but I also disagree with the liberals guiding principle that there are no absolutes.

I don't recall ever saying that there are no absolutes. However, in deciding whether or not something is absolute, you are forced to look at everything relatively. The only other alternative is to admit you are drawing lines arbitrarily, which is the height of relativism. Or are you suggesting that you alone have some sort of divine insight, such that your judgment and yours alone is the only one that matters?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I don't accuse you of those things and have the appropriate love and respect for you, unless you are secretly a bagman for the Daleys, then all bets are off.

Some day, perhaps you will realize that "I didn't mean you" is really not much of an apology.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I think the calculus will change, because if Bush needs to nominate a hard right-winger, instead of just the usual toady, his enslavement to the bible-thumpers will be complete, and apparent.

Please, let it be so.

Amen. PTL.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Understatement of the year:

“It will make the clubs less fun.”

I doubt I will go either way, but I don't know. Then again, I would sooner sink the cashish into hookers and booze in a nice hotel room than a lapdance (mainly because my one experience proved that my addictive personality is incapable of one, or twenty...or thirty...)

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
2.

Assuming that is true, and I am a little skeptical, where are the 4M hiding, NYC?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
That can't be right, can it? Pregnancy other than by intercourse? What are they going to do - inspect all the turkey basters? That makes no sense? And if they do determine you've done the turkey baster, is it a fine?

Interesting to think that the babyjesuschristsuperstar (or I guess, technically, theblessedvirginmarysuperstar) would be totally screwed under this law - his unmarried mother conceived him without intercourse.

(I wish I could take credit for this insight, but I picked it up elsewhere).

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't recall ever saying that there are no absolutes. However, in deciding whether or not something is absolute, you are forced to look at everything relatively. The only other alternative is to admit you are drawing lines arbitrarily, which is the height of relativism. Or are you suggesting that you alone have some sort of divine insight, such that your judgment and yours alone is the only one that matters?

The babyjesus or his dad, as applicable, guides the universal moral compass.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Some day, perhaps you will realize that "I didn't mean you" is really not much of an apology.

If you are going to internalise criticism of philosophy or Party Platforms or governance in a political discussion then there is no way to avoid being offended. It's an immature outlook, imnsho. You aren't a party leader and unless I am missing something the heirarchy of the DNC couldn't give a rat's arse as to what you or Wonk think. So what grandiose delusion makes you think that when I criticise them it somehow includes you? Schizophrenics internalise comments directed at others in this way. Perhaps you guys need meds. Maybe fringey can share?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
If the party wants to remake itself and shoot for the WH in 2020, jettisoning the religious right makes sense, but if they want to contest in this decade again, they gotta dance with she who brung em.

Apparently Rove disagrees. There's one more presidential election this decade--as of now, the far right is a liability, because it's spending like a drunken sailor while pushing a conservative agenda that has brought strong reaction. The Schiavo matter clearly didn't poll well, outside of a few churches in the south. And now Rs are embarassing eachother by declining to give back bridges to nowhere for which the money could be spent helping the poor in Louisiana. Besides, do you really think that the right will pull the lever for Hillary out of spite in 2008?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The babyjesus or his dad, as applicable, guides the universal moral compass.

That involves a choice. It requires you to view the Judeo-Christian God as relatively superior to other Gods.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Assuming that is true, and I am a little skeptical, where are the 4M hiding, NYC?

I would think you would be frightened to realize that Hilary has already figured out that, yes, 4M are hiding in NYC, and a bunch elsewhere as well.

The R's have been lucky that the D's candidates since 2000 have been so utterly unconvincing that they, like Bill Clinton, "get it" and that the moderates matter and will be better served by D's than R's.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Apparently Rove disagrees. There's one more presidential election this decade--as of now, the far right is a liability, because it's spending like a drunken sailor while pushing a conservative agenda that has brought strong reaction. The Schiavo matter clearly didn't poll well, outside of a few churches in the south. And now Rs are embarassing eachother by declining to give back bridges to nowhere for which the money could be spent helping the poor in Louisiana. Besides, do you really think that the right will pull the lever for Hillary out of spite in 2008?

No, I think that they will sit out like they did with her husband. Or vote for some third party candidate if one emerges, like Bauer or Keyes. I am confused as to how the far right/religious right is on a spending spree. I don't think that issue plays with them like the social issues do.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
That involves a choice. It requires you to view the Judeo-Christian God as relatively superior to other Gods.

Exactly.