Friday, October 27, 2006

"Zing", Continued

Sometimes I'm misunderstood. I always blame myself, as I always know what I'm thinking but don't always know how to translate it. For the record, I posted Senator McCoy's comments because I thought they were 1) funny 2) a great response to the disturbing idea that everyone needs to be of the same party My education background is in East European Contemporary History, so ideas like that are big red flags for me.


Blogger Bob said...

Sen McCoy has a great idea.

I remember a couple of years ago the legislature was close to passing a bill that would have been benificial to the GLBT Community (it would have been benificial to Utahns as a whole also.)

As soon as Equality Utah endorsed the bill, cosponsors ran away faster than politicans from ethics reform.

Same thing happened with the no-smoking-in-bars law last year. All the tobacco lobby had to do was point out that Rocky supported it, and it died.


10/27/2006 11:19:00 AM  
Blogger Natalie said...

Bob - didn't that bill pass last year? It was Waddoups - Indoor Clean Air Act Amendments. Maybe it didn't do everything I remember it doing, but I thought it outlawed smoking in private clubs and then set a date to outlaw smoking in taverns.

Not supporting Rocky or anything, I just have a friend that lobbied hard for that one - I thought it got done.

10/29/2006 10:18:00 PM  
Blogger Stan said...

This smoking ban is eerily similar to the D.C. gun ban. Technically its legal to own a gun, but you cant buy one, transfer one, sell one, or otherwise aquire one unless it was yours before something like 1980.

Soon it will technically be legal to smoke, but with no place to do it.

I think if people want to kill themselves slowly, let em. It's a rights issue with me, and also I think it's reasonable to think property owners have the right to allow it or not. What's the difference in individual liberty when in one's home or one's tavern?

10/30/2006 03:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Ethanforpresident...* said...

You ARE funny, though Ethan. That's why so many people CommenT on your blog. We wouldn't keep coming if you didn't keep the masses so entertained.

10/30/2006 08:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Lars Larson said...

I agree, Scott's comment was both funny and a good comeback. Kudos to him for hanging out with I-trash like us ( me).

10/30/2006 10:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I write this one who has never voted yet for a republican but, after seeing some of the people who are running in state and local races,that may change.

Democrats need to become more conservative as party – I look at my parents true union democrats who voted for Reagan and Bush – Yet they voted for Clinton with his conservative social views.

As long as Democrats continued be lead by the likes of Howard Dean – and are identified as the party that supports Gay’s, Gay marriage, the poor, illegal immigrants and minorities – the democrat’s have little hope.

Me…an upper middle class Democrat – Do I still have a home in party if I’m pro-life and am against gay marriage and affirmative action?

10/30/2006 12:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Lars Larson said...

Bill Clinton's "conservative" social views? Do please explain.

10/30/2006 01:52:00 PM  
Blogger Mike Ridgway, Salt Lake City said...

I smell a Mark Towner in this comment board.
1) Mark Towner has a particular interest in the race between McCoy and Jarvis as he was a candidate for the very same seat until being dispatched one ill-fated day at a GOP county convention.
2) The poster chooses to remain anonymous.
3) The poster pretends to be a Democrat who is seeing the light for the first time and is about to vote Republican -- not for some certain Republican but for all Republicans.
4) The clincher: The poster spells "gays" with a capital "G" and he puts an apostrophe before the "s" of a word that he/she merely intends to pluralize.

Now Mark Towner may have many qualities (although if he does, he's done a very good job of hiding them from me), but spelling is his blogological Achilles' heel! He's just atrocious at it. (Which is why his run for State School Board to me was so comical.)
Now don't get me wrong, I've been caught making a lot of spelling mistakes myself, but some of Mark's postings make me cringe with vicarious embarrassment for a guy I really do have a very hard time having any sympathy for under any circumstances.

That being said, even if I'm wrong about this poster being Mark Towner, he or she clearly is not a Democrat. I mean, give me a break! "Gay's" with a capital "G" -- and an apostroph'e???? Please don't make me laugh! (Too late.)

10/31/2006 12:14:00 AM  
Anonymous The Spyglass said...

As Ethan can attest by looking at his web stats, I have posted nothing until now in this discussion. I was at work at the time of the anonymous post, and I do not have Internet access.

The Dark Lord, He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named, has now again taken a personal shot at me, not political free speech mind you, but another violation of his court order. Now just like his assertion that he was 90% sure I was responsible for bringing down his blog site, where are your facts to back you up? You were lying then, and like always you lie again. I guess you must have returned from Florida, now maybe the court can find you so you can be served....

The Spyglass

10/31/2006 02:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Lars Larson said...

Dear Mike, I agree that there is something very suspicious about that post. Who here believes that Bill Clinton has conservative social views? But, to accuse Mark Towner of being that person without any proof other than they are both bad spellers is simply irresponsible. Why did you do that? What good purpose was served? How does that make our community better? Instead of simply picking fights with Mark, why don’t you engage in the conversation? You have good insights, please share them. Rationally debate the issues, but please just leave Mark alone.

10/31/2006 04:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clinton did have conservative views, he believed in the death penalty, he supported conservative Southern Baptists, he aligned himself with moderate republicans, he embraced the defensive of marriage act, he refused to push domestic partner benefits legislation thru congress for federal employees and helped push thru a republican plan on welfare that republicans loved.

In short, he fooled a lot of democrats. Why the big deal about what I wrote?

11/01/2006 04:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Lars Larson said...

Dear anonymous, please forgive me if I offended you. I tend to have less confidence in those Clinton positions than you do.

Long before any of them were candidates for the Presidency or Vice Presidency of the United States, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Joe Lieberman were part of an organization dedicated to figuring out why the Democrats couldn't win the presidency, and then making the necessary changes to become more competitive. As I recall, the name of the organization was the Democratic Leadership Council.

I don't have a lot of time to explain, but what they essentially discovered is that the Democrats needed to make the party seem more conservative in order to appeal to the average American. Thus, I have tended to see the Clinton’s allegedly conservative positions as being merely the calculated actions of professional politicians rather than the heart-felt causes of true believers.

Now, I may be wrong. Certainly you are not alone. Longtime conservative journalist and Republican advisor, David Gergen, certainly believed as you do. But, I do not.

Thank you, though, for giving concrete examples to back up your positions. You did well. I had forgotten about those welfare cuts. That was an excellent example.

11/01/2006 05:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said... one has answered by question...

Do I still have a home in the democratic party if I’m pro-life and am against gay marriage and affirmative action?

11/01/2006 08:43:00 PM  
Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/01/2006 10:05:00 PM  
Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/01/2006 10:14:00 PM  
Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/01/2006 10:17:00 PM  
Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/01/2006 11:02:00 PM  
Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/01/2006 11:04:00 PM  
Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/01/2006 11:06:00 PM  
Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

Respectfully, the answer to your question is: NO!

But, please allow me to tease you just a bit: What planet have you been living on? Did you somehow sleep through the culture wars of the 1960’s? Did the Roe v. Wade decision sneak behind your back in the 1970’s? Does the name Ronald Reagan ring a bell from the 1980’s? Did you apply Clinton’s "Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy" so broadly that you failed to understand what was happening in the 1990’s?

The point I am trying to make, my friend, is that the Democratic Party to which you once belonged died a long time ago. It has long since been under the control of its modern base, the Anti-Christian, Anti-Traditional-Family-Values, Anti-American, Socialistic, Counter-Culture that was supposedly born out of the Beatnik Movement of the 1950’s.

Little by little, Democrats like you have been thrown to the dogs. Jimmy Carter was treated like an outsider by his own party throughout his administration--he was too Christian and too conservative! Look what the Connecticut Democratic Party has done, and is currently doing, to Joe Lieberman--he’s too defensive of Western Culture and too Orthodox in his Judaism! Look what the Rocky Anderson’s of the Utah Democratic Party are doing to Jim Matheson--he panders too much to his constituents for their taste, and besides, he’s an active Mormon!

Neither party is without sin. In history they each can claim noble principles and honorable achievements, combined with shameful hypocrisy and scandalous failures. But, in the current era they increasingly have been drifting to their opposing extremes, each being driven by its respective base. And, the bases are the same two groups that first began fighting each other in the 1960’s, only now the Counter-Culture base controls the Democratic Party while the Traditional-Values base controls the Republican Party.

Whether we like it or not, the choice is less about political parities than it is about their bases. So, to answer your question, you need to ask yourself which base better represents your values. I think we both know the answer to that question.

11/01/2006 11:13:00 PM  
Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

Somebody, quick, please read my comment above before I delete it again. I just can't stop myself!

11/01/2006 11:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Scott McCoy said...


Yes, the Democratic Party is a big tent. See Casey, Jr. in Pennsylvania who is all of those things and about to kick Rick Santorum's behind out of office.


11/06/2006 08:37:00 PM  
Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/07/2006 06:58:00 AM  
Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/07/2006 07:00:00 AM  
Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

Dear Scott, When it comes to the question of "tent size," I have always felt that we neither want the maximum nor the minimum. Rather, just like Goldy Locks, we want the optimum.

I want people to have principles and values that are heart-felt. I want folks to stand for something. A so-called "big tent" is a wishy washy, we don't stand for anything specific, tent.

My problem with Rocky Anderson and the Connecticut liberals is not that they are acting upon their beliefs. On the contrary, I salute them. My problem is that their beliefs are so opposed to my own.

I agree with you that the Democrats have a bigger tent than the Republicans when it comes to the diversity of opinion within that party. But, I believe that in recent history, the Republican Party has had the bigger tent when in comes to sheer numbers. That is so, because the Republican Party has been more in touch with the values of mainstream America.

But, we may have lost that because of our own recent failures. If the Democrats take back the House, America may be reminded of why she rejected the Democrats in the first place. Or, maybe not. We'll see, I guess.

Good luck, Scott. And, thanks for visiting here so much. You have been great.

11/07/2006 07:02:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home