Progressive Place

[James48843]

So the New York Congressional Race- the seat held for decades by a republican, appears to be a potential Dem win.

The Republican candidate has endorsed the Democrat party candidate.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29013.html

What are your thoughts on that turn of events?

[James48843]

Interesting poll. I don't think it will reflect the election results, however. the fact that the poll was conducted yesterday and today, and was published today, by someone with a stake in the outcome of the race, lead me to believe that it may be more intended to sway voters that to accurately reflect opinion in the district.

We'll know by Wednesday.

[phil]

One more House seat, while not important strategically, will help to ensure a larger majority. I'm paying close attention to the Senate races. I'm sure that the conservatives are also watching those, and dumping tons of money on the races in the west....like Wyoming They can usually buy those with their immense warchest.

[alevin]

Wyoming historically has had a Democratic governor to balance out the straight Repub Congressional ticket. There hasn't been a Dem senator there since I was in college. A college friend of mine interned for Gale McGee his last term before he lost re-election and became OAS Ambassador.

[phil]

I think it becomes a question now of bang for buck, with the opposition playing the guerilla war. It's fairly clear that the (self created) fissures in the Republican party has made it literally impossible for them to regain the House in the next few years, that they'll instead move into areas where they can heavily fund opposition politics. That, or try to split the democratic party.

Right now, the Republicans are regrettably not allowing their powerful center to hold, but moving further and further to the right, leaving all sorts of political ground for the dems to carry. Which they will do.

Sigh. I would look forward to someone like Lugar coming to the forefront of the party, but he just can't excite the Republican base enough. I actually try very hard to find some elements that I can support. Unfortunately, it appears they've lost all moral authority.

From a lot of the posts that I read on the board, I can see why. The far right has become shrill, really angry at something most of them can't identify.

For another shift forward: Take a look at the demographics of Fox News. It's usually much older men. Mick Jagger: Time is on our side. Yes it is.

[grandma]

Originally Posted by phil

Sigh. I would look forward to someone like Lugar coming to the forefront of the party, but he just can't excite the Republican base enough. I actually try very hard to find some elements that I can support. Unfortunately, it appears they've lost all moral authority.
From a lot of the posts that I read on the board, I can see why. The far right has become shrill, really angry at something most of them can't identify.

This is a question - no issue-taking here : Is this saying the far right has lost all moral authority? I am not sure what constitutes a `far right' designation, any more than I am sure if the far left can go so far they are then into the right . So then, I have to ask what is the definition of moral authority...? Is it based on the moral attitude of the definer of the moment, his habits/practices of life?
I may be wrongly associating one paragraph to another, but it does give me a puzzlement: what is meant by `far right' and of which culture is the word `moral' - because the end result: certain posts are shrill & angry seems speculative.
Mr. Lugar is unfamiliar to me, the mail I get from the different parties is, naturally, weighted more to the party I'm registered with (for the purposes of being allowed to vote in the primaries) than the opposing. As an aside:
Every faith, religion, belief system, political & otherwise, have their share of unethical, immoral & amoral members; it's just that it is difficult for me to NOT associate those traits to the Czars - it just seems like those appointees are the shrill ones; granted, tho, they are definately aware of & have identified what/who they are angry with !!! - so - back to the question -
Thank you - grandma

[James48843]

Originally Posted by grandma

Mr. Lugar is unfamiliar to me, the mail I get from the different parties is, naturally, weighted more to the party I'm registered with (for the purposes of being allowed to vote in the primaries) than the opposing. -
Thank you - grandma

Grandma: Phil is referring to Senator Richard Lugar, of Indiana. Known as a moderate republican who can work with both sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lugar

[phil]

Yes. Shrill. As I've said.

After invading a country that had nothing to do with attacking America, after manufacturing reasons for doing it, I see that the former administration had no moral authority. I've seen this happen before.

Yes. Moral authority is based upon the moral authority of the definer. Textbook definition:The quality or characteristic of being respected for having goodcharacter or knowledge, especially as a source of guidance or an exemplar of properconduct.

In the political race in question, the far right candidate has marginalized the more centrist Republican, who in turn chose to advocate for the Democratic centrist politician. It's not unusual, but shows how the far right element of the Republican party is basically destroying itself. They're doing a great job of giving votes to the Dems. Keep up the good work.

[QUOTE=grandma;238061]

Originally Posted by phil

Sigh. I would look forward to someone like Lugar coming to the forefront of the party, but he just can't excite the Republican base enough. I actually try very hard to find some elements that I can support. Unfortunately, it appears they've lost all moral authority.
From a lot of the posts that I read on the board, I can see why. The far right has become shrill, really angry at something most of them can't identify.
QUOTE]
This is a question - no issue-taking here : Is this saying the far right has lost all moral authority? I am not sure what constitutes a `far right' designation, any more than I am sure if the far left can go so far they are then into the right . So then, I have to ask what is the definition of moral authority...? Is it based on the moral attitude of the definer of the moment, his habits/practices of life?
I may be wrongly associating one paragraph to another, but it does give me a puzzlement: what is meant by `far right' and of which culture is the word `moral' - because the end result: certain posts are shrill & angry seems speculative.
Mr. Lugar is unfamiliar to me, the mail I get from the different parties is, naturally, weighted more to the party I'm registered with (for the purposes of being allowed to vote in the primaries) than the opposing. As an aside:
Every faith, religion, belief system, political & otherwise, have their share of unethical, immoral & amoral members; it's just that it is difficult for me to NOT associate those traits to the Czars - it just seems like those appointees are the shrill ones; granted, tho, they are definately aware of & have identified what/who they are angry with !!! - so - back to the question -
Thank you - grandma

[phil]

Here's why the conservatives days are numbered.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091102/...s_election_rdp

No one is happier than I am to have Sarah Palin still around. I just hope that she keeps going.

[Steadygain]

Originally Posted by James48843

What are your thoughts on that turn of events?

My main thoughts are way more in regards to the title of this Thread and the people so far who have contribitued.

James, Phil, Alevie, Grandma....

My gosh with this group we should be seeing really incredibly scholarly stuff; the kind of stuff that forces everyone else to think thoughts like 'Whoa... these guys (gals) really know there stuff'.

This thread should exemplify - the best of the best - and all others should be swooned and awed by what we share.

So with all that said -- allow me to start. The conservative party, as represented by the Republicians, have not only exhausted their fantasy role of 'improving the world' but they have literally destroyed almost any hope of being taken seriously due to the collective damage that has transpired over the years.

As 'Liberals and Moderates' - not in the 'traditional sense' of being on the opposite pole of a magnet that is grossly distorted and malfunctioned and totally lost in the Political Garbage --- but in the Sense of Those looking for a better world -- those who are willing and ready to think outside the box -- to herald in changes of a decent and lasting quality -- changes that will bring people to respect one another; restore dignity and self worth; changes that will motivate the need to be a contributing and productive citizen over the vain and empty desire to get hand outs....

If these changes are going to happen it will have to be with people that have 'fresh minds and fresh thoughts' and that's what the liberal and moderates are all about.

So here I am not promoting one Party that simply in essence keeps the other going -- with the same wheels spinning indefinately -- rather I am promoting something revolutionary that leads to sweeping changes across the board. Until the idea that a 'Government run by the People and for the People' becomes a living reality. Until all can finally come to realize that we are brothers and sisters -- and every life is sacred and all have worth and all should be brought up to regard one another that way.

This perhaps more than anything else would express the Liberal and Moderate Mindset -- and a progressive place.

[phil]

Well said, SteadyGain.

[James48843]

And now, a brief time out.

Remember, there are big issues that need to be addressed. But not without at least an occasional break, to refresh one's mind, and refocus on what is important. Now, a message to our President, our Senate, and our House leaders in Washington.

Take it away, John.....