Smart Republicans

[Piggy]

I'm an independent, I vote.

During the Bush regime, I have been utterly disgusted at the turn the Republican party has taken. They've out-Gingriched Gingrich, out-Atwatered Atwater.

Rove and Addington are thugs in suits. Bush is a liar, a butcher, and a fool. It turns my stomach (seriously) every time I hear him speak and am reminded that he is president of my country.

Yet I thought Randi's comments were out of line.

He's free to express his opinion, but that was not the place.

 

[RandFan]

You know, I'd always wondered what Randi's political leanings were.

I'm with you RandFan, I voted for Bush in 04 in a 'lesser of two weasels' scenario, mainly because the Libertarian Party just isn't viable (or sane on national security).

I think he has intentionally kept his ideology close to the vest. I don't think he is a liberal because of something that he said in 2001 (2?) where he was commemorating a prominent skeptic who passed on and he said "but he was a liberal" IIRC. It was discussed at the time.

I've corresponded with him a short while (3 emails) and I know he has a real problem with the religious right. Can't say I blame him. I think, that he believes the Republican party is giving up too much and giving in too often to the religious right.

Shermer and Penn & Teller, some of his closest friends are libertarian I suppose his sympathies lie in that direction.

Caveat, this is pure speculation on my part.

 

[Ladewig]

mainly because the Libertarian Party just isn't viable (or sane on national security).

I thought Libertarians were strong on national security. What is their position?

ETA: I went to their site ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml ) to get more information and found this:

Repeal all legislation that transfers property rights to the state, including those enacted in the name of aesthetic values, risk, moral standards, cost-benefit estimates, the promotion or restriction of economic growth, health or national security claims.

The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.

Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security.

So we need to screen entrants for national security threats, but there will be no agency to cover national security issues.

I see you point, Phrost.

 

[Marc L]

Bush is a liar, a butcher, and a fool.

Ok, I'm obviously way out of the loop, here. Just how is Bush a butcher?

Note, I'm not arguing with the other two characterizations.

Marc

 

[bjb]

Some people point to the civilian deaths in Iraq and say it proves Bush is a butcher. There have been some rather awful incidents where large amounts of civilians have been accidentally killed by US airstrikes.

Personally, I see these events as typical of warfare. I've read many, many books on wars throughout history and this is how it goes. Maybe I'm a butcher, too. But then, so is FDR, JFK, Lincoln, and every other president who was in office during wartime.

 

[Buckaroo]

Some people point to the civilian deaths in Iraq and say it proves Bush is a butcher. There have been some rather awful incidents where large amounts of civilians have been accidentally killed by US airstrikes.

Personally, I see these events as typical of warfare. I've read many, many books on wars throughout history and this is how it goes. Maybe I'm a butcher, too. But then, so is FDR, JFK, Lincoln, and every other president who was in office during wartime.

I would go even farther back, and point to his record as guv'nor of Texas, where he gleefully presided over a bloodthirsty capital punishment system (even by US standards) in which it is unquestionable that numerous innocent people were put to death.

 

[bjb]

I lived in Texas for a while, before Bush was governor. The citizens of Texas, who voted for George Bush, did not complain very much about their death penalty system. Now I live in California, and if anything, we Californians would like to see more death penalties carried out. When the people don't want the death penalty, the politicans will change the law and the death penalty will go away.

Years ago, we had Pat Brown as governor. He was anti-death penalty but he still allowed executions to take place. He had to go by the law and even though he didn't like it, he had no other choice but to carry out the legal executions. Pat Brown and George Bush ordered executions, but only George Bush is a butcher? Or are both of them butchers? Or did they both simply follow the law?

As for executing innocent people, I think you're confusing Texas with Illinois.

 

[Buckaroo]

I lived in Texas for a while, before Bush was governor. The citizens of Texas, who voted for George Bush, did not complain very much about their death penalty system. Now I live in California, and if anything, we Californians would like to see more death penalties carried out. When the people don't want the death penalty, the politicans will change the law and the death penalty will go away.

Years ago, we had Pat Brown as governor. He was anti-death penalty but he still allowed executions to take place. He had to go by the law and even though he didn't like it, he had no other choice but to carry out the legal executions. Pat Brown and George Bush ordered executions, but only George Bush is a butcher? Or are both of them butchers? Or did they both simply follow the law?

As for executing innocent people, I think you're confusing Texas with Illinois.

It's probably bad form to hijack Randfan's thread, and there's a lot to talk about here, so maybe we shouldn't start. Another thread, perhaps?

 

[Piggy]

Just how is Bush a butcher?

Let's see.... Unjustified pre-emptive war.... Incompetence in managing that war.... Refusal to correct mistakes which contribute to continued casualties.... Condoning torture.... Refusing to grant habeas corpus to people caught in blanket sweeps or turned in by bounty hunters.... Just the usual stuff, you know....

 

[Geek Goddess]

I would go even farther back, and point to his record as guv'nor of Texas, where he gleefully presided over a bloodthirsty capital punishment system (even by US standards) in which it is unquestionable that numerous innocent people were put to death.

Proof that he was 'gleeful', please?

Actually, the court system and the juries voted the death penalties in every case. Since an average death-row inmate spends years, if not decades, on the appeal process, Bush wasn't governor when the sentences were pronounced.

He declined in most cases to overturn the original court, appeal court, supreme court, and jury decisions. He did not choose or dictate the punishment. That included the death sentence for some of those involved in the shameful dragging death of a black man in Jasper years ago. Capital punishments are continuing under the present, Democratic governor.

 

[Buckaroo]

Proof that he was 'gleeful', please?

From Tucker Carlson:

Bush's brand of forthright `tough-guy` populism can be appealing, and it has played well in Texas. Yet occasionally there are flashes of meanness visible beneath it.

While driving back from the speech later that day, Bush mentions Karla Faye Tucker, a double murderer who was executed in Texas last year. In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. 'Did you meet with any of them?' I ask.

Bush whips around and stares at me. 'No, I didn't meet with any of them,' he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. 'I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' 'What was her answer?' I wonder.

'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.'

I must look shocked -- ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel, even for someone as militantly anticrime as Bush -- because he immediately stops smirking.

'It's tough stuff,' Bush says, suddenly somber, 'but my job is to enforce the law.' As it turns out, the Larry `King-Karla` Faye Tucker exchange Bush recounted never took place, at least not on television. During her interview with King, however, Tucker did imply that Bush was succumbing to `election-year` pressure from `pro-death` penalty voters. Apparently Bush never forgot it. He has a long memory for slights.

-Talk Magazine, September 1999, p. 106.

Also:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm -- an opinion piece, but danged persuasive.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/log/2000/02/04/texas/index.html

Maybe we should start another thread.

 

[RandFan]

From Tucker Carlson:

-Talk Magazine, September 1999, p. 106.

Also:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm -- an opinion piece, but danged persuasive.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/log/2000/02/04/texas/index.html

Maybe we should start another thread.

This one's doing fine. Let it go.

 

[Buckaroo]

This one's doing fine. Let it go.

Cool! Didn't want to step on your toes, RandFan.

I lived in Texas for a while, before Bush was governor. The citizens of Texas, who voted for George Bush, did not complain very much about their death penalty system. Now I live in California, and if anything, we Californians would like to see more death penalties carried out. When the people don't want the death penalty, the politicans will change the law and the death penalty will go away.

At various times in history, "the people" wanted slavery and Apartheid. Does that make it right? The tyranny of the majority is a very real concern.

I should fess up here and state that I am not against the death penalty in principle. I have a very strong sense of "eye for an eye" flavored justice, and I do believe that some acts forfeit one's right to exist. The problem is that even an ideal society, there is no way to determine with certainty who is actually deserving of this forfeiture, and in our far-less-than-ideal justice system, subject to politics, prejudice, and just plain lousy judgement, to continue to execute people who are quite possibly innocent is barbaric. It simply can't be argued that innocent persons have not been put to death.

Years ago, we had Pat Brown as governor. He was anti-death penalty but he still allowed executions to take place. He had to go by the law and even though he didn't like it, he had no other choice but to carry out the legal executions. Pat Brown and George Bush ordered executions, but only George Bush is a butcher? Or are both of them butchers? Or did they both simply follow the law?

Sounds like Brown approached execution in an appropriate manner, soberly and with regret. That was the law, and he followed it. My beef with Bush is that, as shown in the Tucker Carlson piece, he seemed to enjoy denying Carla Faye Tucker clemency and presiding over her death. Tucker Carlson is far from a knee-jerk liberal, and I tend to trust his reportage here.

As for executing innocent people, I think you're confusing Texas with Illinois.

Yep, I know about Illinois. Are you claiming here that unlike Illinois, Texas never put to death an innocent person?

I'm with Gandalf here (who I'll quote in a RARE display of geekiness ):
"Many who live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?"

 

[RandFan]

Cool! Didn't want to step on your toes, RandFan.

Thanks I really appreciate that.

At various times in history, "the people" wanted slavery and Apartheid. Does that make it right? The tyranny of the majority is a very real concern.

Agreed, which is why we are a representative Democracy and have given power to the judicial to protect the rights of the minority. I'm not debating you just agreeing.

In the spirit of Tu Quoque, Clinton also had to deal with a controversial death penalty case when he was Governor of Arkansas. He put to death a man who, at his last meal, decided to save his pie for later. That's not a joke. The man had the mental faculties of a child (IIRC).

I do realize that this does not excuse anything Bush did wrong but where would a Bush thread be without bringing up Clinton?

 

[Geek Goddess]

From Tucker Carlson:

-Talk Magazine, September 1999, p. 106.

Also:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm -- an opinion piece, but danged persuasive.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/log/2000/02/04/texas/index.html

Maybe we should start another thread.

"In mock desperation" sounds like an editorial comment to me. Karla Faye Tucker killed one person with an axe, tried to kill another, but when her arms got tired she had her boyfriend finish off the second person. She bragged about the carnage in such 'glee' and detail to her sister, that her sister turned her in. Later, she was caught on wire claiming that she had multiple orgasms while committing the murder, which was undoubtedly bragging that helped convince the jury that she was a sicko. (I heard the tape, she sounded proud of herself).

She found religion and became 'born again' in prison, and felt that in light of her conversion, her sentence should be commuted to life imprisionment, and held all sorts of press conferences stating that the death penalty was wrong. She did ask not to be killed, and sounded very sweet and sorrowful, in great contrast to the loser who took pride in murdering someone she didn't like.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Coalition politics sucks ass. I'm for two party.

Fine, just don't get on your high horse and complain about the "apathy" of non-voters who don't think that the "choice" between wanna-be fascists (i.e. the Repbulicans) and wanna-be socialists (i.e. the Democrats) is really a choice at all.

 

[Buckaroo]

I do realize that this does not excuse anything Bush did wrong but where would a Bush thread be without bringing up Clinton?

Hee, hee! Yeah, Clinton had his moments, too. But DAMN he played a mean sax. (Well, for about 3 minutes, anyway. And wait, now that I think about it -- well, he wasn't that good, was he?)

 

[Buckaroo]

"In mock desperation" sounds like an editorial comment to me. Karla Faye Tucker killed one person with an axe, tried to kill another, but when her arms got tired she had her boyfriend finish off the second person. She bragged about the carnage in such 'glee' and detail to her sister, that her sister turned her in. Later, she was caught on wire claiming that she had multiple orgasms while committing the murder, which was undoubtedly bragging that helped convince the jury that she was a sicko. (I heard the tape, she sounded proud of herself).

She found religion and became 'born again' in prison, and felt that in light of her conversion, her sentence should be commuted to life imprisionment, and held all sorts of press conferences stating that the death penalty was wrong. She did ask not to be killed, and sounded very sweet and sorrowful, in great contrast to the loser who took pride in murdering someone she didn't like.

You'll not hear me defending her. In my opinion, she deserved death. But Bush's attitude was inexcusable, and is consistent with the picture of him that has built up over the years -- a callous, thuggish, mean-spirited bully, possibly sociopathic.

 

[Jerry_ex_machina]

I'm pretty smart, if you judge by various factors such as job, degree, performance, IQ, and ability to converse with words of more than two syllables. I tend to vote Republican because the alternative is usually worse. Religion aside, I am just betting most believers of woo-woo and New Age crapola are not Republicans...

Yes, that is the albatros that hangs around our liberal neck. Liberalism and woo woo seem to go hand in hand. I can't tell you how many times I've had a wonderful, cathartic religious bashing diatribe with someone in a coffee shop only at the end have them invite me to their "Drum circle" or "fire ring."

To be fair, Republicans have their own share of woo woo - least of all that whole Christ risen from the dead thing. I like to think of it as Old School New Age. Plus the typical Republican "faith" in the capitalist market system often borders on the delusional. Take Larry Kudlow, for instance, the guy actually believes the market is an organic being.

 

[Jerry_ex_machina]

"In mock desperation" sounds like an editorial comment to me. Karla Faye Tucker killed one person with an axe, tried to kill another, but when her arms got tired she had her boyfriend finish off the second person. She bragged about the carnage in such 'glee' and detail to her sister, that her sister turned her in. Later, she was caught on wire claiming that she had multiple orgasms while committing the murder, which was undoubtedly bragging that helped convince the jury that she was a sicko. (I heard the tape, she sounded proud of herself).

She found religion and became 'born again' in prison, and felt that in light of her conversion, her sentence should be commuted to life imprisionment, and held all sorts of press conferences stating that the death penalty was wrong. She did ask not to be killed, and sounded very sweet and sorrowful, in great contrast to the loser who took pride in murdering someone she didn't like.

I think the bigger question is, actually, does a democratic society that promises life as one of its inalienable liberties have the right to deprive its citizens, against their will, of that right. This goes to the heart of our social contract - from the death penality to enforced conscription (e.g. drafting) to imminent domain. Employing the principle that life in prison without parole creates the same social situation as the death penalty (the offender is forever removed from society) then it seems more correct to me to employ the punishment that does not play up innate hypocrisies in our system.

Further, I am an atheist so I don't have a belief in eternal hell (nor do a lot of non-Christian religions.) Thus, life imprisonment actually seems like the worse punishment to me. Given the choice of fifty years to mull my crimes in a tiny cell versus diving under a bus, I would choose the latter.