BBC's Kay said "values voters" can "take a gamble with Giuliani" because Supreme Court is already conservative
On the November 11 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, during a discussion of whether Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, if he "does make it to the general election," would "stick with the pledge" he made to "appoint Supreme Court justices like [Samuel] Alito and [Antonin] Scalia," BBC Washington correspondent Katty Kay said, "In a way he's quite fortunate, because he's already got a conservative Supreme Court that he's inheriting. In a sense, I think, that's what he's able to hide behind at the moment. That's what the values voters are also able to hide behind." Kay continued: "They'll be able to say, 'We can take Giuliani as our president because we know we've got a Supreme Court that is already very conservative.' ... [T]hey can take a gamble with Giuliani because Giuliani's selling fear of two things: he's selling fear of Osama and fear of Hillary. And Hillary trumps in this case."
By adopting the label "values voters" to characterize those voters who might be willing to "take a gamble with Giuliani" because they "know [they've] got a Supreme Court that is already very conservative," Kay joined other media outlets -- as documented by Media Matters for America -- in advancing the myth that social conservatives are the only political constituency that votes their "values." As conservative columnist George F. Will wrote in his May 18, 2006, Washington Post column, titled "Who Isn't A 'Values Voter'?," the phrase "values voters" "is used proudly by social conservatives, and carelessly by the media to denote such conservatives." He added, "This phrase diminishes our understanding of politics. It also is arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values and everyone else votes to ... well, it is unclear what they supposedly think they are doing with their ballots."
Similarly, on the October 7 edition of ABC's This Week, Will stated: "[T]here's a vanity in this group right now -- they call themselves 'values voters.' I have news for them: 100 percent of the American electorate are 'values voters'; they vote their values. And this kind of semantic imperialism that they have when they say, 'We vote values' -- everyone else votes what?' "
From the November 11 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: We put it to the "Matthews Meter," 12 of our regulars. If Rudy does make it to the general election next November, will he stick with this pledge he's made to appoint Supreme Court justices like Alito and Scalia? The verdict -- this is rare on this program: unanimous, 12-zip, the meter says Rudy will stick with his pledge if he's president. Katty, when you're bought, you stay bought. Is that the old rule of politics? Amazing. He's going to be the tough, strict constructionist judge-picker that he promises to be.
KAY: I mean, in a way he's quite fortunate because he's already got a conservative Supreme Court that he's inheriting. In a sense, I think, that's what he's able to hide behind at the moment. That's what the values voters are also able to hide behind. They'll be able to say, "We can take Giuliani as our president because we know we've got a Supreme Court that is already very conservative." He's not going to get rid of Alito and Scalia and those people.
MATTHEWS: So they've had enough --
KAY: So that doesn't -- so I think they feel they've got something that they can bank already, and they can take a gamble with Giuliani because Giuliani's selling fear of two things: he's selling fear of Osama and fear of Hillary. And Hillary trumps in this case.
"[T]hey can take a gamble with Giuliani because Giuliani's selling fear of two things: he's selling fear of Osama and fear of Hillary. And Hillary trumps in this case."
Perhaps it begs the whole question here, but upon what basis is this statement of fact being made by this woman? if Hillary is indeed the bigger fear for these people, then god help us.
These so called "values voters" fear Hillary more than Osama.
"Values voters." God that's rich. I cringe every time I hear that applied to Republican party voters. Their "values" fly in the face of everything the Bible teaches, yet they are able to reel in the Evangelical vote, all because of a few issues: abortion rights, gay marriage, and civil rights.
Here's an Evangelical/Republican values recap:
A) No on abortion (yet they don't want to pay for the underprivledged child after it's born).
B) No to anything gay (even though many of their leaders and politicians have been dragged out of the closet).
C) No to minorities.
No to any of the above, and hell no if two or more items are applicible.
That's the Republican slogan!
"Vote NO on minorities!!"
In the future, may I qoute you?
I think its more than just the values voters that fear Hillary. I think it's the rank and file GOPers that fear her even more.
Electing Hillary repudiates the last 7 years like nothing else we can do. Returning to Clintonian leadership crystalizes the dismal failure Bush has been more than Obama or Edwards or anybody else.
That's what they fear. And its coming.
Electing Hillary substantiates the last seven years.
She supported the invasion of Iraq, has argued for continued occupation. She has publicly boasted of accepting lobbyist contributions. Plus, she receives more money from big pharma and the military industrial complex than any other candidate.
With Democrats like her, who needs Republicans?
It wouldn't hurt to have 2 more conservatives in the SCOTUS for balance. When Stevens and Ginsberg go, 2 conservatives in their place would be wonderful. And then there's Breier: don't get me started on him.
Interesting definition of "balance" you have.
In order to know what balance is, you have to BE balanced. And judging by his moronic right-wing posts, Les is More is very unbalanced.
It would be better if Scalia and Thomas resigned in disgrace and were replaced by two ultra liberals.
I guess the statement that "we've got a Surpeme Court that is already very conservative." can be condidered conservative misinformation since it's not true.
Other than that I'm not sure why MMFA is highlighting this.
As was made clear to everyone but Ripper I guess...the misinformation is that only social conservatives vote their values...I vote my values and I am strongly and proudly liberal.
Talk about a non-issue, wow.
The term "values voters" is in common usage to refer to people on the religious right. Everybody knows that's what it means. I can see where people might take issue with it because it is vague and really non-sensical. So are alot of things though. I haven't seen anyone make the argument that others don't vote their "values." What are they going to do, vote against their values?"
Seems like MMFA is trying to argue a point nobody is making.
MMFA is arguing against an argument that IS being made through the false frame that values are something only conservatives are concerned about. If you seriously believe false framing isnt an effective tactic, you havent been paying attention. It is an attempt to push an attitude into conventional wisdom that reasonable pundits wouldnt make directly. It is a more subtle form of when did you stop beating your wife.
It's kind of like how the term "progressive" is applied to the liberal left.
Actually its nothing like that. Dictionary definition of liberal
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.Its a synonymCould you post a little smaller next time?
I assume "progress" doesn't apply to oh say... developing more nuclear energy as an alternative to dependence on oil? or maybe new oil exploration in Alaskan wilderness?
No. Feel free to assume whatever you want. Progressive is inherent in the definition of liberal. I dont care what you think about nuclear energy. Or assuring the oil companies make more profits, compromising one of our last wilderness areas for minimal gains. Bottom line being liberal and being progressive mean the same thing.
I'll agree somewhat. But, like your "values voters" argument, conservatives are not "anti-progress". The only kinds of "progress" we oppose are issues like gay marriage and other policies that are against traditional values. We are for progress in all kinds of areas like science, the military, industry, education, and so on.
"Progressive" only refers to a certain kind of progress - just like "values voters" refers to a certain kind of values. Maybe neither are acceptable, but we need to be consistent.
The difference is I never claimed they did. The term progressive IS a synonym for liberal it is just that simple, so there is no concurring implication that means conservatives are against progress beyond the very definition of conservative which is
con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj. 1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.Anymore then when you talk about conservatives anyone takes that to mean progressives are against conservation. The values voters thing is quite a different and dishonest frame."MMFA is arguing against an argument that IS being made through the false frame that values are something only conservatives are concerned about." ~ SOLON
That is exactly my argument: that "progressive" implies that progress is something only liberals are concerned with.
Not it doesnt it is what we are called as I pointed out no one thinks that since YOU are the conservatives it means liberals are against conservation. You cant begrudge us what we are called. We arent complaining that since you are conservatives that means that we are not seen as having the positive attributes of what you are CALLED. The whole values voters thing does NOT have anything to do with what we are respectively called you are reaching.
This entire article is complaining that we are called "values voters." That is what we are called. I don't know who started it, but that's the way it is.
Like I said, it generally refers to traditional values of the conservative religious right, not whatever values liberals traditionally have.
At least be consistent and stop changing your views based on who the subject is.
I am being consistant and YOU arent making sense. The whole values voters is a false frame period. It is dishonest. I have values I vote on them. The terms conservative and progressive are the way the two sides were divvied up. As I have pointed out twice. No one on the left is complaining that we arent seen as wanting to conserve and no one is claiming conservatives have a kneejerk opposition to progress. Assigning something well beyond what we are called to one side when it doesnt make sense is a false frame. It is dishonest.
Dogrun, you just explained why conservatives ARE anti-progress. In your own words, conservatives are pro-"traditional values". You like the status quo, you don't like change.
Change to what?
Are you opposed to changing the "no prayer in school" policies? Does that make you "anti-change"?
Where did you get that definition anyway? The DNC? "free from bigotry", "tolerant"?
Try this one: Liberalism
a: often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil libertiesI got mine from an online dictionary. Where did you get yours. I dont know what liberal has to do with protestantism. However even YOUR definition says"
a political philosophy based on belief in progress,
Belief in progress... progressive. Are we going to fast for you?
Mine is from Merriam-Webster. I am not interested in the liberal version of "progress". Progress is not inherently good if you are progressing in the wrong direction.
By the way: In terms of social progress, a higher percentage of Republicans over Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was passed despite a lengthy filibuster attempt led by Democrats.
Yeah I dont really care what you are interested in. And we have all heard about the voting rights act. This isnt your fathers GOP anymore. All those racist southern Democrats became racists southern Republicans. I cant really think of anything less relevant to todays politics.
Robert Byrd led a 14-hour filibuster against the Act.
Most conservatives are not racist. We only oppose many socialist policies.
I am not a Republican fan in general. I only agree with them more often than Democrats. Almost all the politicians are dirty and corrupt to some extent.
Yeah he did. I dont think Republicans or conservatives are racist in general. That doestn change the fact of what I said. The GOP did use the politics of racism and admitted it. There was a wholesale defection of Southern Dixiecrat racists after the civil rights act. I am with you on your last point. I am not even a Democrat and am not happy with them I left the party I just agree with THEM more than the GOP so we are the same on the opposite page. I know several conservatives personally and they are good people we just see things differently
The problem (at least from the Republican perspective) is that whenever the GOP opposes some liberal social program, they are accused of things like "starving the children" or "stealing from the elderly" or bringing back segregation. The most recent example was Harry Reid accusing Bush of not caring about children for vetoing the SCHIP bill.
If we could get rid of the outlandish hyperbole, maybe we could have some real debate on these subjects.
Of course some of it goes both ways: with R's accusing all the D's of treason and hating America.
I totally agree. And you are right. Both sides do do it. It has gotten worse since the Limbaugh AM radio 24/7 attack on our side. The right accuses us of hating the military or abetting the enemy for wanting to bring our soldiers home. They accuse us of hating America for criticising the president who works for us when they are pretty quick to criticise Dem presidents. It is a toxic political environment. If you have an answer I would love to hear it. Dont expect Dems to listen if it is basically that our side should unilaterally disarm.
I am afraid that the only answer may be for something far worse than 9/11 to rekindle the American spirit in some common ground. We don't like hardships, but they often bring about something good.
~As an aside: people ask why God lets bad things happen? The greatly simplified answer is that we need them. A child who always has everything and is not disciplined turns out to be a spoiled brat. ......Wow, that was preachy.
I dont think it will take something that extreme. I think things like this go in and out of favor and eventually people will get sick of the rancor and civility will return. The AM radio hatefest on liberals is not helping that is for sure. I know I used to be civil no matter what the provocation until I got sick of being on the recieving end of rude insults over and over again. It seems to me, and maybe I am wrong, that people who LISTEN to liberals being demonized over and over on these shows dont really see themselves as being rude when they repeat what they hear. They think it is just regular discourse. There is no question there are no liberal counterparts to Coulter or Savage, they simply dont exist.
There's Bill Maher for one.
NO. Bill can be caustic but until you can cough up him saying things like we should beat conservatives with baseball bats, that Antonin Scalia should be poisoned. That we should torture people as a televises sport, drop daisy cutters at random throughout an area of his choosing, or kill one hundred million people he is NOT the equivelent of the two deranges individuals I named above. In fact he isnt even close.
Sorry, Dogbone, but those stats are misleading. How many of the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Bill were what became known as "Dixiecrats"? Many of them later became Republicans, as most Southern states slithered into the Republican column in rebellion against desegregation. Do a little research on Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and get back to us.
I'll never understand how pandering to Confederate bigots was ever twisted into such an innocuous term as "southern strategy."
Thanks Nerzog. The old worn out argument that it was really the GOP who gave us the 1964 civil rights bill is pitiful. I have noticed over a period of time that each time a right winger tries this argument and is refuted by the factual data you gave, the debate suddenly ends. No responses, no snide comments, no further reaching for the truth that ain't there.
So much of our populace is uneducated about our own history. I imagine DOGRUN has seen that talking point work when done by Hannity and rather than research to see if it was indeed factual, he has simply repeated a falsehood. It's probably worked on folks who don't know any better. When a person posts here they learn quickly to back up their assertions. I know I did.
In any event, isn't it funny how in situations like this right wingers can suddenly change their perception of the Democratic party. Usually, according to them, all Democrats were and are far left liberals. But, since it is impossible to frame an argument around the premise that liberals were opposed to civil rights, it then becomes convenient to change the perception to "only some Democrats are far left liberals".
Solon is exactly right, "values voters" creates a false frame. We shouldn't even allow this phrase, it has no basis in reality and it promotes ignorance as well as a superiority complex among the wingnuts who consider themselves the "values voters" chosen ones !
I do not know where this values voters BS came from but its wrong, it sends the wrong message that Democratic Candidates are not supported by people how have values. Whos values? Pat Robertson?
What's the first thing that pops into your mind when you hear the term "values voter?"
I picture someone who is a righwing Christian. I do not think, "Hmm, values voter...they must be the only ones with values. People who aren't "values voters" have no values!"
It's a stupid and innacurrate phrase. I don't think it's anything more than that.
-----"Talk about a non-issue, wow. ... It's a stupid and innacurrate phrase. I don't think it's anything more than that."-----
Therefore we should ignore it whenever the media makes stupid and innacurrate statements.
Right. Everybody got that?
Isn't that congruent with what our righty posters keep trying to sell us?
If MMFA ignores it, it will go away.
The media uses stupid phrases all the time. It cuts both ways.
It may cut both ways, but more so against the left. Items such as this help to dispell the "Liberal Media" myth the hate talkers keep pushing on their weak minded followers.
Why do you call people with different views than yours "hate talkers?"
That's a buzz phrase like "Values Voters."
The fact that someone disagrees with your politics does not mean that they "hate."
It just means they have a different view than you do.
Well, when that difference of opinion includes comparing you to nazi's, communists, murderers, rapists, and is backed up by calls for internment, imprisonment and/or death (and none of those claims has any proof to justify it) I'd say that sounds like hate speech, vs the right who's definition of hate speech is a difference of opinion. Nice try at projection though...
Don't purposely misinterpret what I wrote. I'll frame my words myself, thank you. I'm fine with those who disagree with my political views. Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, and O'Reilly are hate talkers. I'm certain they disagree with my views, but that's not what defines them as hate talkers. Talking hate is what makes them hate talkers.
"hate talkers?"
What mainstream media outlet has used that term synonymously with "conservative?" Further, which has used it that way as often as "value voter" is used synonymously with "fundamentalist Christian conservative?"
That's the problem. People are free to call themselves whatever they please. But the mainstream media should (and proclaims to) strive for a balance and not a bias. Using the language of one side when talking about politics is biased.
If a mainstream media outlet was in fact using "hate talkers" as you suggest to refer solely to conservative evangelicals, that would be just as wrong. You seem to be arguing that both are perfectly fine with you.
Right. In fact, the MORE stupidity or misinformation the media generates, the more we need to ignore it and just expect it (cuz they do it all the time).
That's not lowering our standards at all, if that's what you're thinking.
And we should discourage and criticize anyone who wants to talk about said stupidity.
No need to hold the media accountable. It's a "non-issue".
I assume you are ok with groups like Media Research Center then?
Personally I am fine with them. I wish they were more professional but I certainly dont think all the ethically challenged are on your side.
I'm glad I could finally post something without being ridiculed. Thanks.
There are a lot of crazies on both sides out there.
Your comments seem pretty snarky to me. Not all of them but a whole lot of them. If you are talking about the issues and leaving snarkyness out like where did you get that from the DNC, you will get reasonable responses. If you want to BE a sniper you will get a return serve.
Well I try to color the comments up a bit so they are not all bland and boring.
Seriously, where did that definition come from? It seemed pretty biased to me.
Sure it did because it didnt fit YOUR biases. I told you I got it on the online dictionary
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal
Wow, I never knew there was a liberally biased dictionary. Compare the American Heritage Dictionary (your link) to Merriam-Webster's (2nd usage).
[link to www.merriam-webster.com] see
http://www.bartleby.com/61/25/A0122500.html
vs
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affirmative%20action
Can you honestly tell me that there is no bias in the AHD vs M-W?
It is not liberally biased thats dumb. It is the definition of the word. You are barking at phantoms
Dogrun81 is a PHANTOM-BARKER !!!
[haven't seen one of those since I stayed at my uncle's dairy farm one week when I was eleven]
---"I assume you are ok with groups like Media Research Center then?"---
I don't have a problem with Media Research Center.
But I think, from what I've read there, that the tone they set is different than the tone here.
Last time I looked, MRC seemed to throw in a good deal more opinion, more snark, and fewer source references or transcripts than Media Matters.
Also, I don't think MRC offers a forum, like Media Matters.
In any case, it wouldn't occur to me to post a message there criticizing the site.
Let them post whatever they want, and mind their side of the street.
You've gotta understand, telling conservatives that you don't like stoopid and inaccurate media is like telling junkies you don't like heroin.
It's just your opinion, don't start getting into their business.
The only misinformation here is Kay's claim that the Supreme Court is already conservative. That's false. The Supreme Court is still a centrist court. If Kennedy was replaced by an actual conservative justice then the Supreme Court would be a conservative court. Until then, the Supreme Court will be evenly divided.
Yeah sure that is how YOU see it. Here in the reality based universe it isnt that centrist a court. The idea that only conservatives vote their values is STUPID and its misinformation. That is plain and simple.
The reason they call them values voters is that most of them aren't very well off and would be better off voting for Democrats because the Dems would give them all kinds of benefits. But yet they vote for Republicans because of their values on issues like abortion and gay marriage. That is why they are called values voters. There's no misinformation here.
I guess you didn't notice that Ripper's already come in to do "Why Is This Here?" duty. You can move on to another topic, I'm sure they haven't all been taken yet.
Thats bunk Rhino. Your biased take is not the definitive take on factual reality. It IS misinformation by dint of pushing a dishonest frame whatever YOU think YOU should define the term values voters the bottom line is the implication is that only conservatives are interested in values. Its baloney. We all get why you would like to see that false frame become conventional wisdom but its FALSE. So it should be called out.
Nah, they call them values voters because these right wingers are stupid enough to think a 2nd baptism and a switch in religion somehow saves you more than the 1st one did. No real christian calls for the murder of abortion doctors to advance a cause, or murder of liberals to advance a cause, or murder... etc., etc., etc....
"No real christian calls for the murder of abortion doctors to advance a cause, or murder of liberals to advance a cause, or murder... etc., etc., etc...."
Who does that?
VALUES VOTERS !
Geeeeez.
Ann Coulter saying that someone should put rat poison in a Supreme Court justice Creme Broule. Savage saying We ought to kill one hundred million Muslims. Coulter says you should beat liberals with baseball a baseball bat. Those are exhortations for murder and mayhem
Hmmm. So two extremist shock jocks now represent all values voters. Nice one Solon.
Gee did I say that? No I aswered THIS question
Who does that?
From your post. Try to keep up. Conservatives dont represent all values voters either. You really arent very good at this. The real shame is after all this time you arent getting any better.
This was Snoopy's post:
"Nah, they call them values voters because these right wingers are stupid enough to think a 2nd baptism and a switch in religion somehow saves you more than the 1st one did. No real christian calls for the murder of abortion doctors to advance a cause, or murder of liberals to advance a cause, or murder"
You implied that you agreed with this in your answer. He lumped all social conservatives into this false stereotype and you went along with it.
I implied no such thing. You just make things up in your head and apply them to the post you are reading. You asked WHO is advocating murders and I answered THAT question that is all I did. If you have a problem with Nerzogs post take it up with Nerzog
No I didn't, I lumped all right wingers into the pot called values voters. You are the one assuming that group of misfits includes social conservatives. You are also pretty much excluding anyone democratic leaning by your lack of mentioning them in your defense of "values voters". But I intentionally did say all right wingers, and based on your arguments definitely stand by that lump sum definition of hipocracy. It doesn't matter if it's two right wing talking heads and extremist religious leaders or 1000 of them calling for murder, death and imprisonment of liberals or anyone else who doesn't agree with them, they oh so definitely do represent the current republican party because they say they do and the republican party will not condemn them for those statements.
They represent y'all, and keep getting invited to speak at conservative conventions, your so called values conventions, and any other convention with an (r), (v) or (a) in the title. You personally condemning them means nothing, your leaders want this hate and vileness to speak for them, and there sure are 100,000's to perhaps millions who think they are values voters who just love to attend those conventions, buy the books, raise their hands and say "amen! I'm saved!" and stand in line to get a picture and an autograph of their favorite hate mongers.
"they oh so definitely do represent the current republican party because they say they do and the republican party will not condemn them for those statements"
Ummm, Savage isn't even a Republican. He's an independent. So I don't know how an independent could even represent the Republican Party. Savage hates the Republican Party almost as much as the Democratic Party. He doesn't think there's hardly any difference between the 2 parties. And don't use word parsing to try to differentiate between conservatives and right wingers. It's the same thing. Conservatives are right wingers just like liberals are left wingers. If you claim that conservatives aren't right wingers then you're basically saying that they're centrists.
Perhaps Savage hates both parties as you say, but he's made his living from trashing democrats and spreading hate and bigotry, which is 180* from the left. Limbaugh gives you red meat at lunch time, and Savage is your desert. Shame on all you followers. And it's your ilk that says we are koolaid drinkers.
I've only listened to Savage once and didn't like him at all. I think he's a complete nut. He doesn't represent the views of Republicans or even conservatives. I like Limbaugh but don't agree with him 100% of the time. His audience has also been proven as one of the most knowledgeable audiences in the country. It's simply B.S. to say that conservatives are Kool-Aide drinkers who can't think for themselves.
Rino,I will give you that, at least according to this survey, Rush's audience does a lot better than Fox viewers.
According to the study I have seen Limbaugh listeners CONSIDER themselves the most well informed but in fact were among the least well informed. For instance THIS survey shows Limbaugh listeners to be somehwere in the middle of the pack
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319
Being beat by Jon Stewart, Major Newspaper websites, O'Reilly, PBS, and NPR
"According to the study I have seen Limbaugh listeners CONSIDER themselves the most well informed but in fact were among the least well informed"
How do you figure that? The stats show that of the shows listed Limbaugh's audience was #6 out of 16. That's still in the top half. O'Reilly was #4, which also disproves the point that was being made by some liberal posters here.
I cant find the study I had archived in my other computer. They studied several groups according to their major news source and took the issue of Health care reform then asked how informed they THOUGHT they were and then asked questions on the issue. Limbaugh listeners considered themselves to be the BEST informed and were in fact the LEAST informed of any group.
And the most knowledgeable audience was at 54% high knowledge while Rush's was at 50% high knowledge. That's barely a difference at all.
Whatever THIS was your claim
I like Limbaugh but don't agree with him 100% of the time. His audience has also been proven as one of the most knowledgeable audiences in the country.
I dont see that the evidence supports this opinion
Rushs audience is NOT among the best informed according to this PEW study. They are barely in the upper third.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319
Rino, sorry I missed your comment Monday night. I'm retiring early this week to support our EMR team, but enough of that.
Now, You seem to like building strawmen out of my statements. I say it doesn't matter if it's two or two thousand, you say "but savage isn't a republican". The bottom line is the republican leadership doesn't denounce any of them. They invite all of them to their many different conventions to speak. Try to stay with the program instead of bringing up fleas when the subject is tidal waves, OK?
No I didnt. Show me where in MY post there is any such implication. You cant. It isnt there. I answered a question you asked that makes no implication about anything ELSE. Just because you WISH that were true doesnt MAKE it true.
All votes are values voters. I vote for the things that I value just like you do. The current crop of voters who call themselves "values voters" seem to believe they possess a moral superiority over others when they don't and I truly believe they are not entitled to be called values voter over any other voter. This is some Frank Luntz crap usurping the language to spin it toward the positive for Republicans and to the negative for all those who Republicans have declared war on.
RH,
YOu have said if it were up to you, abortion docs would get the death penalty, right?
Yes, that would be done by creating a new law and carrying out the law. I don't support vigilanteism. I just think that abortionists who are responsible for the deaths of thousands of babies should be put to death.
They arent babies because you SAY they are. A fetus is NOT a baby.
Of course. It's simply a mass of tissue that only looks like a baby. I knew that.
It isnt up to you. You can call it whatever you want you dont get to define reality. You dont know and neither does anyone else when it becomes a seperate life.
Actually, at the time the vast majority of abortions are performed, the fetus doesn't really look like a baby at all, it looks like a blob and it is nearly indistinguishable by laypeople from the fetuses of other mammals.
Btw, love the if-it-looks-like-X-it-must-be-X logik !
If you wingnuts do manage to change the law to make a fetus a baby, can I take a deduction for it then ?
RH,
Two things, a court of 9 cannot be evenly divided. I think your view (everyone has their own bias) is very skewed. It appears to me that you think the only "true conservatives" are Thomas and Scalia where others would find them extremists. To me (and my bias), Kennedy is conservative and therefore, if he is the center, the Court is very conservative. Different strokes for different folks though.
It's all relative. If you are far to the right, the court looks liberal, if you are far to the left, the court looks conservative.
Conservatives definitely don't see Kennedy as one of them except on a few issues. He has sided with the 4 liberals quite often.
That was my point DogRun, its all perspective. Could you do me a favor though? Could you find me 3 or 4 recent cases where Kennedy sided with the 4 liberal judges. I am having a hard time remembering those decisions.
Thanks in advance!
Kennedy sides with the liberals on a lot of big issues. I don't see how you can call him a conservative. He's a swing justice who votes sometimes with the conservative block and sometimes with the liberal block. Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are the four conservative justices, and Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, and Suiter are the four liberal justices.
Ginzburg and Stevens are the ONLY ones on that list anywhere NEAR as liberal as the four conservatives are conservative.
Sure, that's why Suiter and Breyer vote with those two the vast majority of the time. In the major cases the court always breaks down 4-4 with Kennedy as the swing justice.
Votes have to do with cases. Do you have any evidence that the major cases ALWAYS break down that way or did you pull that directly out of your ass like most of your baseless assertions?
Kennedy was appointed by Raygun.
Souter was appointed by Bush the smarter
They arent liberals just because they disagree with YOU.
And Kennedy appointed Byron White as well who ended up being pretty conservative. You just never know. Bush and Reagan simply pandered to the left wing Democrats and tried to please them rather than appoint an originalist Supreme Court justice. The Democrats tried to get George W. Bush to do the same thing, but Bush didn't fall for it. He stayed strong and has had the best record of appointing Supreme Court justices.
RH,
Please clarify what you mean as the "best record" of appointing the SC justices.
Also, I think Souter was a surprise to GHWB, was he not? I don't think Reagen pandered to anyone, did he? Doesn't that tarnish his legacy almost completely if he did?
I meant that he appointed justices that ended up being originalists who simply interpreted the law rather than force their own political views on people. He appointed people who didn't fool him and become justices who believe that the Consitution is a "living, breathing, document."
And that might be best as far as YOU are conserned. I think he has the WORST record for appointments on the SC.
And it probably wasn't fair to say that Reagan pandered to the Dems. He just had to appoint someone more acceptable to the Dems after Bork got rejected.
What I know is they are NOT liberals just because you SAY they are. Your scale is skewed so anyone not a Jesse Helms clone is a liberal. I KNOW if they were outright liberals Raygun nor Bush the smarter would have appointed them.
Kennedy was looking for a moderate and no one ever thought White was a liberal. He was chairman of the CONSERVATIVE party of the Yale Political Union, a debate society. He may have looked conservative on the Warren Court but he certainly wasnt Scalia or Thomas he voted to uphold affirmative action. He is described as fact specific. Its not like he was a kneejerk conservative so you really have no point.
Again, I asked Dog Run, could you show me how often Kennedy sides with the 4 "liberals." Not discrediting you, just curious.
Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, Ashcroft v. ACLU, Roper v. Simmons, Gonzales v. Raich, Kelo v. City of New London, Massachusetts v. EPA, and Gonzales v. Oregon
Fine examples, and thank you, but how do you define "centrist?"
Here is a fun graph for you from 2004:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/supremeCourtVoting.html
Notice that Kennedy, through this point, (I tried to find more recent #'s) agreed with Thomas and Scalia 69% and Rehnquist 78% of the time. He did agree with Stevens 45%, Breyer and Ginsburg 54% and Souter 61%. Just a fun chart, too bad its not updated
I think that Kennedy probably agrees with the conservatives on the court more often than the liberals, but on the very biggest cases he often tends to side with the liberals. But he's still the closest thing to a swing justice and a centrist as the court has.
RH,
I think you are reaching here. Just because there are 9 justices the SC is not necessarily centrist.
You just agreed with me that Kennedy probably votes with the conservatives more than the libs and he is the center. By your own admission, the SC is not centrist if the center is not voting 50% with one side and 50% with the other, right?
With regards to your Reagan argument, I think you just knocked him way down the ladder of strong conservatives if you think he pandered to Democrats. It seems that the conservative movement is looking for "another Reagan," but if is just someone who caves, why would they want that?
As far as your Constitutional argument regarding Roberts and Alito, I fail to see how "originalism" can be justified. Do you think Dred Scott was poorly decided? When did the Constitution stop evolving? Did the founders expect the technology we have today? How do you equate Originalism with the NSA wiretapping program and the Fourth Amendment?
I realize I asked you a lot of questions, but I am just curious.
I doubt if it's possible to be 100% centrist. Maybe moderate is a better word. Kennedy does probably vote with the conservatives more often, but he voted with the liberals in the biggest case of all, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. That's the main reason that conservatives despise him so much. Congress passes statutes dealing with technology and the Supreme Court has to interpret those statutes. I don't really see where you're getting at there. There's also the amendment process if you want to change the constitution. I think that that is the way to amend the Constitution rather than through Supreme Court justices. And the NSA Wiretapping program hasn't come before the Supreme Court. If it does some of the originalist justices may well vote to strike it down. Scalia has been known to be somewhat libertarian on these issues. Until that happens we won't really know how the justices will vote. Dred Scott was obviously incorrectly decided because the Constitution says that you can't discriminate on the basis of race.
Originalism is ludicrous. The constitution is written in broad concepts not specifics. Originalism would reduce us to mind reading of the dead or seances.
RH,
Obviously its impossible to say anything, unless he was 50-50 with both sides to be centrist, but because he votes more with conservatives than liberals, the Court is, by definition, conservative.
There is one problem with your Dred Scott analysis, RH: it was legal at the time to discriminate based on race, was it not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
I know you believe in the Constitutional amendment process, RH, but don't you think it has gaps?
You are aware of the two judges who have voted down more acts of Congress than anyone else, are you not? This may make them "activist judges," correct? Why, in your opinion, are Scalia and Thomas the most "originalist?"
If acts of Congress go too far they should be struck down. That isn't being "activist." That's applying the law correctly. The federal government has at times gone too far and has done things that the constitution does not authorize it too do. It has taken away state rights and has legislated in areas that the Constitution doesn't authorize. So striking down Congressional laws does not make a justice a judicial activist. But in the Dred Scott case, the court actually struck down a law passed by Congress that was completely constitutional. The Court had no reason to strike it down. It was simply engaging in judicial activism.
Have you ever disagreed with Scalia or Thomas?
This always turns out to be the crux of your buscuit. That they are activist judges when they DISAGREE with you and good judges when they AGREE with you.
RH,
Forgot to ask you this, are there any current decisions that you disagree with Thomas and Scalia on? Would you disagree with them if they struck down the NSA wiretaps?
http://null/wiki/Gonzales_v._Oregon
That's one case I can think of that I disagree with them on. The state of Oregon in this case voted overwhelmingly to allow doctor assisted suicide, and there isn't anything in the Constitution which stops them from doing that. There was simply an executive order which prevented Oregon from carrying out the law, and I don't think that's enough. I don't think that an executive order should over ride the will of the people. But I can't think of too many cases other than that. I would have to research the NSA case further before I could make a decision on whether I would disagree with them or not. I just have a problem with people who declare the program illegal when the courts themselves haven't even declared it illegal. My view is that we should just let it go through the courts and let them rule on it before we make pre-mature judgements.
Do you ever read the arguments and make a decision before reading Thomas and Scalia?
Yes. But just for the record I've never claimed to know more than you about these things. You're a lawyer and have more expertise in this area. But I think it's safe to say that I still know more than the average person. I just like giving my opinion and debating these things.
RH,
I was just curious as to how closely you do follow these things. I can tell its an intense interest that you have. I never meant to imply that I thought you were saying you knew more than I did. Sorry if that came across.
It just seems, from reading your posts, that you don't think Scalia and Thomas have ever been activist (correct me, please, if I am wrong), but they have voted against Congress (the will of the people so to speak) more than any of the other justices. To some, that is activism; especially in sections where the Constitution is ambiguous. I know quite often they frame their views as "originalist," but to me "originalism" is near impossible. We don't know what the Founders would have thought of certain things and I am guessing they kept much of the language vague as a framework for future issues, but even the greatest document of government ever written (as I see the Constitution) will not be able to anticipate every new situation and/or need for justice.
I think that "activist judges" are judges who create rights that the Constitution says absolutely nothing about. Abortion and gay rights are two examples. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about these two issues, but yet liberal judges somehow created rights for these two things. My opinion is that the people should simply get to vote on issues the Constitution is silent. Just let the democratic process work.
Until then, the [nine member] Supreme Court will be evenly divided.
Lemme guess: You've got your own math, too?
Ripper..."Talk about a non-issue..wow"..then don't.
If some people are value voters, what are the others, unvalued voters? And will they be "de-valued" when the Dems win the next election?
Also, why is Guiliani afraid of Clinton? Shouldn't he be afraid of those running against him?
"If some people are value voters, what are the others, unvalued voters? And will they be "de-valued" when the Dems win the next election?"
That's kind of my point. It's a silly phrase. I really don't think anybody is trying to say that non "values voters" don't have values, or any value themselves.
I think people are looking for a boogey man that's not there.
Again if you think this kind of dishonest framing doesnt work you havent been paying attention.
Giuliani is a lock for the GOP nomination. His natural aggression and authoritarianism are exactly what the religious right and war supporters are looking for.
Of the GOP candidates, he can most effectively tap into the fear, suspicion, and greed the Republicans rely on to win votes. On top of all that, he looks and sounds moderate, and so can draw many independents who are tired of Southern faux-cowboys like Bush and Thompson.
The country may hate the war, but most people still have jobs. By itself, discontent with Bush may not be enough for Clinton to win big.
Clinton vs. Giuliani will be a very close election. And a close election means a stolen election.
Very true. And with Rudy's connections, it would be a stroll in the park for him to steal the election.
Make no mistake; the Troglodytes are willing to overlook Rudy's past sins in return for a nutjob President who is more likely to initiate Armageddon. If he gets to nominate another neanderthal to the Supreme Court before Jesus returns...that's just a bonus.
Wow. It's no wonder the Democrats have such a hard time getting evangelical Christians to vote for them. Your contemptable view of them is the same way most Democrats look at them, and evangelical Christians aren't going to vote for people who disrespect them and insult them.
Yeah, like the knuckledraggers would ever vote Democratic, anyway. These people believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old...I don't hold out much hope of them catching up to the Enlightenment any time soon.
You try and make us look like extremists on this issue, when I've linked to polls over and over again which show that most people believe the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. Once again, you're the extremist on this issue, not us.
Also, the Earth revolves around the sun.
Sorry for espousing my extremist views here, but I thought it should be known. One day, this will be accepted as general knowledge.
That's something that has been documented to be a fact. Evolution is simply a theory. Even the scientists keep changing their minds about what happened. As more and more of their theory gets debunked, they have to change their theory to account for that.
Yeah not among knowlegeable people. The age of the earth FAR beyond 10,000 years has also been documented. Ever hear of radio carbon dating? Potassium Argon dating?
Yeah, I've heard of UFO's too.
So on your bizarre planet, PHYSICS, which is the basis for potassium/argon and radiocarbon dating are on a par with UFO's. You really are ignorant.
And here's a source refuting it:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
First your wingnut site isnt compelling. Try a REAL science site if your evidence is REAL it shouldnt be that hard to find.
Second I know radiocarbon dating is only good for about 40,000 years but A) that is more than 10,000 and B) I also included potassium/argon dating good for about 2 billion years and unaffected by the industrial revolution. Ya got nothin, what a shock.
And you didn't refute a thing the link said. You just looked at the web address and concluded that it wasn't valid based on that. Maybe you should actually try to read the points there, if you can even understand it.
I DID refute it. It ISNT a science site. That IS a refutation. I could link to GREENPEACE but what good is an advocacy group SAYS without documentation which THEY DID NOT have. Notice I MENTIONED the argument about the industrial revolution. How would I know that was an argument had I not read it. Also you keep avoiding the potassium/argon dating which they didnt mention at ALL. Ya got nothin and you are so weak with this argument
From Rino's link, the site whose motto is-
"Believing it. Defending it. Proclaiming it."
(Not exactly the order you want those things in when pursuing science.)
"Creationists ultimately date the earth historically using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which bears the evidence within it that it is the Word of God, and therefore totally reliable and error-free."
This is in response to the flaws the site finds with scientific dating methods.
You're right, of course. The Creation "Science" approach is backward. They start with the answer and try to twist the evidence to fit it. They've discovered that if you hit a square peg with a big enough hammer, it will, indeed fit into a round hole.
What Rhino cites as a flaw of science is actually its virtue. The fact that Evolutionary theory must change as new evidence emerges is exactly the way science works. This drives black and white thinkers like Rhino crazy, so they retreat to the comfort of their fairy tales, which never change, regardless of the evidence.
"They [creationists] start with the answer and try to twist the evidence to fit it." - Nerzog
Just like climate change "skeptics" as evidenced by this effective hoax.
Heliocentrism is a theory, according to Wikipedia. Kyle's comparison is actually perfect. It's something that was theorized and argued against by the church. And if you believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, I wonder how you can accept it as "fact".
"Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.""
The Bible is supposed to be the literal word of the Lord, but yet science disagrees with the big guy. How can you side with science? Good luck in Hell.
As to your unbelievably stupid comment about UFO's, how did heliocentrism get established as "fact"? Scientists used scientific methods, just like they're using to examine the age of the earth. But for some reason, the methods that they used to debunk the Bible's geocentrist passages are fine, but the methods they use to prove the earth is more than 10,000 years old are equivalent to stories about extraterrestrials. Very odd.
And really, isn't any acceptance of scientific fact based on what you've "heard"? Have you proven that the earth revolves around the sun with your own research? Or are you just going by what all those anti-religion scientists tell you? Honestly, if you believe that scientists are trying to scam people when they say the earth is more than 10,000 years old, then why aren't they trying to scam us regarding heliocentrism? If you believe they have some agenda to be dishonest, I don't understand how you accept anything science tells you about anything at all.
No it just doesnt make you an extremist to accept what the evidence says no matter what the majority decide they WANT to believe. However I want to see some evidence the majority believe the world is less than 10,000 years old according to this poll less than half of CHRISTIANS polled believed this
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/5143890.html
Out of 797 polled, 43% believed the Earth is less than billions of years old.
According to a 2001 poll more Americans believe that the Earth is millions of years old than that it is only 10,000 years old
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
According to a 2001 Gallup poll,[63] about 45% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 37% believe that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process."[64] Only 14% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."[63]
So lets review that is 45% for less than 10,000 years and 51% for millions of years. Once again you show that you NEVER know what you are talking about not ONLY are those of us that believe the Earth is millions of years old NOT extremists WE are with the majority. Do you EVER have even a DIM idea what you are talking about or do you just spew whatever nonsense floats to the top of todays menu of delusions?
Here you go:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
This even says that 47% of John Kerry's voters believe that God created human beings in their present form. It also says that 50+% of Kerry voters want creationism taught along side evolution. Are these Kerry voters "neanderthals" as well?
I didnt call anyone a neandrathal. I just pointed out once again you DONT know what you are talking about and of course, as usual, you DONT. First 47% is NOT most people it is a MINORITY that would be most people believing the OTHER THING. Second you changed your assertion which WAS:
linked to polls over and over again which show that most people believe the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. Once again, you're the extremist on this issue, not us.
OK so Kerry and God creating people is IRRELEVANT to whether the Earth was created 10,000 years ago which was your claim. Now the poll I linked to was done on CHRISTIANS and the MAJORITY of THEM, which is another way to say MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE, did NOT beleive the Earth was only 10,000 years old so again. Do you EVER know what you are talking about or do you just spew out whatever floats to the top of your menu of delusions, which you then CHANGE to whatever you can find some slim back up for when it is pointed out that ONCE AGAIN you are COMPLETELY WRONG, as you almost always are.
"First 47% is NOT most people it is a MINORITY that would be most people believing the OTHER THING. Second you changed your assertion which WAS"
That was simply KERRY VOTERS! The overall amount was much higher. Actually click on the link and read it. And people who believe that God created humans in their present form believe in creationism and thus must believe that the earth is 10,000 years old.
Its official. You NEVER know what you are talking about and just spew whatever floats to the top of that menu of delusions I will generously call your BRAIN. NOTHING in the Kerry poll has anything to do with the age of the Earth NOTHING. Just assuming that everyone who believes God created man believes the way you do is just stupid. As the poll of CHRISTIANS I cited showed many Christians who believe the bible STILL believe that the Earth is billions of years old. From the previous link
Some believe in the "Gap Theory" that states there is a long period of time between Genesis 1:1 where God created the heaven and the earth and Genesis 1:3 where the six days of creation begin. Others support this view by interpreting Second Peter 3:8, "one day is like a thousand years with God"
You really arent very good at this at all.
No, the poll validated the fact that the vast majority of people believe in creation science. The poll stated that most people believe that God created humans in their present form 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. They reject the theory of evolution which says that man evolved from apes. You also didn't even address the fact that the vast majority of voters want creationism taught along with evolution. You conveniently fail to mention that. Even among KERRY VOTERS the number was close to 50%.
Rino, as much as you seem to love the vague term "vast majority", actual numbers would be much more impressive. Especially if they support your position.
Read the link I posted. It's there. It wouldn't hurt to click on it and read it as painful as it might be for you.
Except it in NO POSSIBLE WAY supports your claim that most people believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and those who dont are extremists. Not even close. You have a huge reading comprehension problem. The poll NEVER at ANY TIME mentions the age of the Earth, like say the poll I cited which shows less than a majority of CHRISTIANS believe that.
"The poll stated that most people believe that God created humans in their present form 6,000 to 10,000 years ago."
No, it did not state that, as far as I see. It said nothing about the timespan. Solon addressed this already. Even if you believe that God created us in our present form, that does not necessarily mean you believe the world is only thousands of years old.
No they dont. Apparantly you CANNOT READ AT ALL. NOTHING in that poll mentions the age of the Earth at ALL. It is IRRELEVANT to the claim you made that the majority of people believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. The poll I cited is on THAT subject not one YOU think is vaguely related. The poll I cited is not only ON that subject it is of CHRISTIANS and less than half of them beleive the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. You are flat out wrong. As you almost always aer.
It doesn't really matter how many people believe that the world is 10,000 years old. It doesn't matter how many people think it's only 6,000 years old. The fact is, the world is quite a bit older than that. Some scientists say in the millions of years. Other scientists say in the billions of years. In any case, it doesn't matter that, as you say, a "majority" of voters believe that the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old - it's just plain wrong. Trotting out numbers, stating that the majority of people "believe" something to be true doesn't make it true.
If 40 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
According to Rhino, the majority of the scientific community are "extremists" because they don't believe dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
I rest my case. If these people are allowed to choose our next president, we're FUBAR.
You are so dishonest or so dumb its embarassing. When you asked who is saying we should murder people I give you two examples and what is your response. You accuse me of saying they represent all conservative value voters. One poster says something you see as disrespectful to Christianity and you go directly to most Democrats are disrespectful to Christianity a frankly stupid statement since the majority of Democrats ARE Christians. Another pathetic and hypocritical post by you.
"One poster says something you see as disrespectful to Christianity and you go directly to most Democrats are disrespectful to Christianity a frankly stupid statement since the majority of Democrats ARE Christians"
No. Your statement is an outright lie. I said that Democrats are disrespectful to EVANGELICAL Christians. They compose only 1/3 of the population, and they vote overwhelmingly Republican. The majority of Democrats ARE NOT EVANGELICAL Christians.
No it is no a lie. It is at most inaccuratly stated. Add Evangelical and you dont change a thing. YOU jumped on me for giving two examples to answere a direct question by claiming I was broadening it to all conservative value voters yet ONE POSTER makes a statement and you broaden it to most Democrats. It is either dumb or dishonest. Whether you meant all Christians or Evangelical Christians doesnt chage THAT one whit
By the way two of my best liberal friends are a Southern Baptist and an Assembly of God member so while most might not be evangelical some clearly are.
"...EVANGELICAL Christians... compose only 1/3 of the population..."RINO Hunter
Only? Are you serious,1 in 3 Americans is an Evangelical? I've never seen that stat.
More like one in four from what I have read but for Rhino that is pretty accurate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/weekinreview/07goodstein.html?pagewanted=print
Evangelical Protestants make up about 26 percent of the population. But according to surveys in the new book “The Faith Factor” by John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, that pie can be sliced even further. Only 12 percent of the population are the evangelical Protestants Mr. Green calls “traditionalists,” the political and theological conservatives who make up the bedrock of the religious right. Almost an equal share (11 percent of the population) are evangelical “centrists” and about 3 percent are “modernists,” groups that are politically less predictable.
"Dogma voters" is a more fitting label. That some religious sorts dub themselves "values voters" is pretentious to say the least. They confuse religious dogma with human values. I do not.As an atheist holding values every bit as moral as those espoused by religious folks, I will not stand for them to usurp the term "values" and conflate it with their dogma. If they want to push their dogma, that's their right. But "dogma voters" they are, and that's what I'll call them.
"Giuliani's selling fear of two things: he's selling fear of Osama and fear of Hillary. And Hillary trumps in this case."
The RW sheeple fear an American Senator more than they fear the man who attacked us on 9/11? Rove must be so proud...
Excellent point. Liberals have often been ridiculed by Fascist Radio for pointing out that people like Pat Robertson are a bigger threat to our freedoms than Osama Bin Ladin.
I'd like to see a poll among the knuckledragging GOP base as to whom they fear most...Hillary Clinton or Osama Bin Ladin. Any bets on who would win?
I’m really sorry, but some of these posts rip me up…
A. Here’s the deal:1) The Matthews Meter indicated that all respondents polled believe Giuliani will keep his word2) Katty Kay indicated that ‘values voters’ might feel the Supreme Court is conservative enough to consider voting for Rudy3) Kay believes Giuliani's selling fear of two things: fear of Osama and fear of Hillary4) Kay believe that, among ‘values voters,’ fear of Hillary trumps fear of Osama.
B. What do you think? Are you surprised that so many reporters think Rudy’s a man of his word? I amDo you agree with Kay, is the Court already conservative enough for ’values voters ?’ I doubt itDoes Rudy sell fear of Osama and Hillary? I believe soDo ‘values voters’ really fear Hillary more than Osama? You bet, their values are that screwed-up.
C. Forget the hypotheticals etc.What if a Muslin was running for President of the United States and… give me a break! Haven’t we enough real insanity to deal with without inventing harebrained crap to add to the noise. How about: the Values of the ’values voters’ are a threat to the Constitution. (Separation of Church and State, Freedom of Speech, Equal Opportunity and Justice for all, and so on. And, by the way, where the hell do they get off telling a woman what to do about the most personal experience of her life, her pregnancy!)
Finally, I caught a portion of this segment of the Chris Matthews Show during which Matthews appeared to be sober, didn’t slam Hillary, didn’t become sarcastic or defensive because of something a guest said, or go all glassy-eyed and dreamy about the good-olde days of cigar smoke-filled backrooms at the National Political Conventions (where, he says, the real deals were made.) I used to admire Mathews, but he’s lost-it since his latest book debuted. I think Kay’s got a real good handle on the ‘values voters.’ And lastly, I think electing Giuliani would be one hell of a mistake.
The Supreme Court won't be conservative enough for the "values voters" until it essentially rescends the New Deal, Roe v. Wade, and the Civil Rights Act. They'd also not complain if their "ideal" court officially declared Separation of Church and State a myth and ordered all government buildings to prominently display the Ten Commandments. And, while they're at it, they could declare Islam a "terrorist religion" and make Christianity the official religion of the U.S.
Would they stop their kvetching then? Of course not.
My fears, succiently expressed. Thank You.
Now that I think about it more, "values voters" is OK, it's just incomplete. We simply need to clarify which "values" are in effect. When referring to wingnuts, it should be "theocractic/feudalism values voters", and when it comes to the rest of us it should be "democratic values voters".
"Now that I think about it more, "values voters" is OK, it's just incomplete. We simply need to clarify which "values" are in effect. "
Geez. It's so nice of you to almost approve of a phrase that's been in common english usage. Just what would we do without your contributions to the Lexicon of Unnecessary and Distracting Philoligical Noise.
Now, how's about gertting on down to the business at hand: what do you think of the MMFA report on this "episode" of the Chris Mathews Show? The Mathews Meter? Kay's comment about the SCOTUS being conservative enough for the Values Voters? Of Rudys scare tactics: fear of Osama and fear of Hillary? And, lastly, Kay's assertion: when choosing between these fears, values voters are more afraid of 'lil olde Mrs, Clinton? Be honest now, did you even read this MMFA article? What do you think of any or all of the points it raised?
And finally, can you not save your philological dissertations for another place? For example the Oxford English Dictionary website where, perhaps, other lingo-inventing-wingnuts might just go to play? If not, well, don't fret... there's always SAP or SOLO (the Society of American Philologists, or the Society of Linguistic Opportunists.)
Common english usage ? Each individual word, perhaps, but the phrase was probably invented by Rove or Luntz or some other wingnut.
Btw, did you confuse me for a wingnut ? Didn't you read the rest of my post ? "When referring to wingnuts, it should be "theocractic/feudalism values voters", and when it comes to the rest of us it should be "democratic values voters"".
The "business at hand", IMO, is the careless use of the phrase "values voters" by the media, which I and others have addressed. I won't rehash what we all know. I was merely making a semi-humorous remark that the phrase would be acceptable if the "values" were clarified. I'm not sure why you blew up over that.
"Dogma voters," I repeat, is the more fitting label. "Values voters" is an invented label for people who like to think of themselves as championing good human values. What they're actually pushing is dogma.
"Values" are "the principles that help you to decide what is right and wrong, and how to act in various situations." Cambridge Dictionary of American English. "Dogma" is "a fixed, esp. religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts." Id. The two, we can only hope, overlap to some extent, but they are hardly the same. Some of what religionists hold up as values others find plainly wrongheaded and even immoral.
Labels count. Those pushing the "values voters" label hope it will help them pass off their dogma as values. To the extent this label has been allowed to pass unexamined into "common usage," it is time to haul it up short--or, failing that, at least paste an asterisk on it as a reminder of its real meaning.