"We have a duty and responsibility to cast our electoral votes behind the president if he wins West Virginia," Capehart said. "Because that's what the Republican Party expected when they chose us."
This is a telling statement. Shouldn't Capehart be more concerned about this guy representing the popular vote, in other words, the voice of the majority of people of West Virginia...instead of standing "behind the president?"
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. He said "if he wins West Virginia". The states DO represent the popular vote, and the only way this joker can be the elector would be if Bush does win the popular vote.
If Bush doesn't win the popular vote there, then the Democrat electors will cast the votes in the electorial college.
There are two sets of electoral college voters... one for each party.
The US two-party-only system has always baffled me. Every thing I learn more about the system supports the concept that it is pretty much by law only a two-party state.
For example, your above comment. What would happen if an independant candidate won a state? Who would be the electoral college voter?
It is a two party system because of emergent effects from the voting system [denbeste.nu] (about 1/3rd of the way in to that piece). I also think that link is the best defense of the current system. I used to think our voting system was flawed for the usual reasons trotted out on Slashdot but now I think not many people understand how well our system works; voting between "two evils" is actually something of a feature.
Also note that today's Republican Party is a third party. They killed off the Whig party a long time ag
Raidcal leftists? Explain. Your asterisk led me nowhere*. Like, I know some radical leftists, like say, anti-social anarchists, and they're a far cry from anything the Democratic party even comes close to, even, being in the same universe as.
*Did you mean your note on "Loonies"? Maybe your definition of radical differs from the one generally well understood in most politcal or social theory, but "radical" theory is not required at all to have to do with changing one's mind or considerations on evil. It
Sorry, it was meant to lead to the "Bi-partisan note", which was meant to show I think there are "loonies" on both sides, or at least were in the recent past. (Of course the Republicans haven't 100% removed them, but they no longer set the agenda.)
I define "loonies" as I did, as I also define "liberal" and "conservative" damn near everytime I use them, because there are so many definitions of the words that when you see them in isolation, they are worse than meaningless. On my blog, I have alternately used "liberal" to mean "conventional, vaguely left people", "classical liberal of the 19-th century (where we get the term "liberal arts")", "economic liberal", and "person who tends to concentrate on individual effects vs. social effects" (one of my faves [jerf.org]). That last one in particular has no apparent connection to the literal meaning of the words, but don't blame me for starting down that road, I'm just following other's usage.:-)
I particularly define "loonies" as the ones who won't change their minds, even when shown facts, particularly when they do spectacular mental gymnastics to convert the plain facts into something that supports their views, because they are the dangerous ones. The democrats are currently way too controlled by people seriously running around claiming Bush is worse than Hitler; while I'm personally not impressed with some of the authoritarian actions his administrations has taken, he's a far cry from Hitler.
The reason they are so dangerous to the Democrats is that just like the Loonie Christian Right (and bear in mind as I say this that I consider myself a Christian), they are so disconnected from the mainstream that they don't realize how crazy their accusations sound to the mainstream, and how they marginalize the mainstream. Off the top of my head I can't think of any equivalent for the Christian Right, but I suppose watching the 700 Club for a week will fill you in adequately; I wasn't politically active during the height of their power.
An example of the leftist loonies are most of the protestors at the RNC (though presumably not all of them).
(Generally, though this is necessarily vague, I'm looking at political, social, and academic "leftness", not economic leftness (socialism/communism), and I tend to think of anarchists on the libertarian/populist axis because I've seen both left and right anarchists, arguing against government for almost entirely opposing reasons, but ending in the same place. Yeah, there's overlap; if only the world were so simple.)
Of course the Republicans haven't 100% removed them, but they no longer set the agenda.
You mean the republican agenda to cut taxes whenever possible, end government oversight of industry, cut civil liberties in the name of security, privatize or eliminate social services, unilaterally and selectively enforce UN resolutions, end all abortions (even when required for the mother's health), and write gay bashing into the constitution isn't radical?
The democrats are currently way too controlled by people seriously running around claiming Bush is worse than Hitler.
What a joke! Who is saying this? Please show me an elected democrat, democrat running for office, or democratic party official who said anything like this. You can't take an internet message board and say that it represents the party leadership.
This is just the most recent example, which I ran across earlier today:
I think that local republicans still look to the loony christian right for support. It may not be a prominent part national platform but it's still there. Consequently the republicans have things on there platform specifically for the loonies or worded in a way to avoid loony offence. To paraphrase a Saudi reporter railing on muslim extremists: All republicans are not right wing christian loonies but most (if not all) christian loonies are republican. I'm not sure if the democrats have a radicalized group
I think that local republicans still look to the loony christian right for support. It may not be a prominent part national platform but it's still there.
Yes. It is the prominence, not the presense, that has changed. As my linked article points out, they are never going to disappear because they have nowhere else to go.
The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem.
-- Peer
Stand behind the president? What? (Score:2)
This is a telling statement. Shouldn't Capehart be more concerned about this guy representing the popular vote, in other words, the voice of the majority of people of West Virginia...instead of standing "behind the president?"
tcd004
Re:Stand behind the president? What? (Score:3, Insightful)
If Bush doesn't win the popular vote there, then the Democrat electors will cast the votes in the electorial college.
There are two sets of electoral college voters... one for each party.
As an outsider... (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, your above comment. What would happen if an independant candidate won a state? Who would be the electoral college voter?
Re:As an outsider... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also note that today's Republican Party is a third party. They killed off the Whig party a long time ag
Re:As an outsider... (Score:3, Informative)
*Did you mean your note on "Loonies"? Maybe your definition of radical differs from the one generally well understood in most politcal or social theory, but "radical" theory is not required at all to have to do with changing one's mind or considerations on evil. It
Re:As an outsider... (Score:3, Informative)
I define "loonies" as I did, as I also define "liberal" and "conservative" damn near everytime I use them, because there are so many definitions of the words that when you see them in isolation, they are worse than meaningless. On my blog, I have alternately used "liberal" to mean "conventional, vaguely left people", "classical liberal of the 19-th century (where we get the term "liberal arts")", "economic liberal", and "person who tends to concentrate on individual effects vs. social effects" (one of my faves [jerf.org]). That last one in particular has no apparent connection to the literal meaning of the words, but don't blame me for starting down that road, I'm just following other's usage.
I particularly define "loonies" as the ones who won't change their minds, even when shown facts, particularly when they do spectacular mental gymnastics to convert the plain facts into something that supports their views, because they are the dangerous ones. The democrats are currently way too controlled by people seriously running around claiming Bush is worse than Hitler; while I'm personally not impressed with some of the authoritarian actions his administrations has taken, he's a far cry from Hitler.
The reason they are so dangerous to the Democrats is that just like the Loonie Christian Right (and bear in mind as I say this that I consider myself a Christian), they are so disconnected from the mainstream that they don't realize how crazy their accusations sound to the mainstream, and how they marginalize the mainstream. Off the top of my head I can't think of any equivalent for the Christian Right, but I suppose watching the 700 Club for a week will fill you in adequately; I wasn't politically active during the height of their power.
An example of the leftist loonies are most of the protestors at the RNC (though presumably not all of them).
(Generally, though this is necessarily vague, I'm looking at political, social, and academic "leftness", not economic leftness (socialism/communism), and I tend to think of anarchists on the libertarian/populist axis because I've seen both left and right anarchists, arguing against government for almost entirely opposing reasons, but ending in the same place. Yeah, there's overlap; if only the world were so simple.)
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
Of course the Republicans haven't 100% removed them, but they no longer set the agenda.
You mean the republican agenda to cut taxes whenever possible, end government oversight of industry, cut civil liberties in the name of security, privatize or eliminate social services, unilaterally and selectively enforce UN resolutions, end all abortions (even when required for the mother's health), and write gay bashing into the constitution isn't radical?
The democrats are currently way too contro
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
This is just the most recent example, which I ran across earlier today:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131946,00.html [foxnews.com]
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
Re:As an outsider... (Score:2)
Yes. It is the prominence, not the presense, that has changed. As my linked article points out, they are never going to disappear because they have nowhere else to go.