Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Tom Head, Jun 14, 2003.
Looks like he's going to give it a try next year:
Considering the element of society Springer hosts on his show, he should do well running as a Democrat.
You guys really are in sad shape.
Jerrrrrry! Jerrrrrrry! Jerrrrrrrry! Jerrrrrrry!
White trash of America, UNITE!
Re: Re: Sen. Jerry Springer (D-OH)
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you Russell. You know that none of those people are registered voters.
Re: Re: Re: Sen. Jerry Springer (D-OH)
And darn proud of it.
Not surprising, considering that the next governor of California could be Arnold Schwarzeneggar.
They are certainly equally qualified.
BTW, I was amazed at what I didn't know about Jerry Springer. Take away the talk show and he's a pretty good candidate. If he runs, I suspect he has a good chance of winning. Not because of the talk show, it seems, but because he goes out to the many, many little farm towns in Ohio and talks with folks. Although, for name recognition, the talk show (sadly, in my opinion,) will probably help.
And, as I said above, he is at least as qualified to be the senator from Ohio as Mr. Schwarzeneggar is to be governor of California.
As someone who is unable to sit through five minutes of Springer's show, I have to admit that I agree. Character issues aside, he's a great speaker (those RealAudio clips are incredible) with political experience (former mayor of Cincinnati) and would probably be a competent participant in the debate and propositions that make up what the Senate does. He's polling pretty darned low now among likely voters, but even he has said in a recent interview that he would expect to lose if all he had to campaign on was his "silly TV show," so it's probably unfair to pay too much attention to how the numbers look this early in the game. Whether he can undergo the sort of image transformation that it would take to win a Senate election (or even the Democratic primaries) isn't clear to me, and he has an extremely strong opponent in George Voinovich, but it's beginning to look like 2004 will at least be an interesting year.
Right now Mississippi is gearing up for November '03 elections, and it looks like the election will end up as Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (a conservative "blue dog" Democrat) vs. former RNC head Haley Barbour. Barbour is a great moderate, pro-education candidate (who was once considered a potential presidential contender) and I expected this to be Bambi vs. Godzilla, but Musgrove is performing much, much better than I would have expected--he's even out-fundraising Barbour this quarter, which I'd imagined to be impossible. Mugrove won in 1999 in a very close (as in Florida-level), squeaky-clean race against former U.S. House Rep. Mike Parker (R-MS), the most charismatic retired mortician ever to run for office. (Actually, Parker--a moderate Republican--was a darned good candidate; I considered voting for him myself, and would not have minded seeing him get the spot.) The second-biggest race will likely be Lt. Gov. Amy Tuck, who won as a Democrat in 1999 then converted to the Republican Party last year, squaring off against a Democratic candidate (hopefully state Sen. Barbara Blackmon).
Neither Senate seat is up for grabs in 2004, near as I can remember--Cochran was reelected last year, and I think Lott's due up in 2006. I like Cochran okay (and even voted for him, believe it or not), but I think it's approaching time for Lott to retire and let a less divisive candidate have a turn at bat.
The nice thing about Mississippi, for those of you not familiar with our politics, is that though we tend to vote conservative on average--the last Democratic president to get our state was Jimmy Carter--people down here tend to look more at job performance than anything else. This is why Attorney General Mike Moore, liberal Democrat though he may be, always managed to decisively squash any Republican opponent he had, even in the Kirk Fordice era. We also tend to breed our Democrats conservative--in fact, the most offensively right-wing Mississippi representative we've had in recent years, with the possible exception of Sen. Lott, was Democratic Rep. Ronnie Shows (D-MS), who ran on a Buchananesque "the Mexicans are stealing our jobs" platform and proposed a bizarre constitutional amendment that would have prohibited Vermont from performing gay marriages. The less socially conservative (!) Chip Pickering, Charles Pickering's son, cleaned Shows' clock last year (something like 76:24) when their districts were merged. Of course, we have our liberal districts too; Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), one of the most outspoken liberals in the Senate and a personal favorite of mine, has never been in serious danger of losing an election.
It strikes me that most of those on his show are Republican types; the poor, the ignorant, the Klan and other white bigots.
Please help me out here Roy . . . are you saying that you believe that Republicans can be accurately described as being "poor, ignorant racists?"
...a neat trick, since (as I meant to say) he serves in the House.
Regarding the other comments: (a) Low-income Americans are disproportionately likely to vote Democratic. (b) While Springer did technically put Klansmen and other racists on his show, they were (appropriately) treated like sideshow freaks; I can't imagine this would score him too many points with the Deliverance crowd. (c) White supremacists are unlikely to vote Democratic under any circumstances because the party officially supports affirmative action, but it does not follow from this that all, or even a meaningful minority, of Republicans are racists. Considering that our current Republican president has an African American secretary of state and the previous Republican president appointed the second African American justice to the Supreme Court, I have a feeling that white supremacists probably feel pretty isolated from mainstream politics. Poetic justice can be a beautiful thing.
I assert that poor, the ignorant, the Klan and other bigots can be accurately described as giving substantial support to the Republicans. Though I would qualify it by saying that the enlightend poor support the left.
Lets face it, the ignorant, the Klan and other bigots are unlikely to support international socialism, feminist issues or racial tolerance and the whole train of social issues.
It is why I have never understood the religious right. They attack Darwinianism yet seem to uphold the dogma when it comes to social issues.
I bet this sets the cat among the pidgions, However I think it is time I nailed my socialist colours to the mast.
I have no problem with democratic socialism, and am glad to see a fellow member of "the Left"--but you're making an elementary category error when you talk about Klansmen and Republicans. Your logic reads like:
Bigots are likely to be Republicans.
Therefore, Republicans are likely to be bigots.
This is very much like saying:
All caterpillars are insects.
Therefore, all insects are caterpillars.
The fact that white supremacists tend to support Republican candidates when they vote, due to the Republican Party's opposition to policies to which they object, does not mean that the Republicans use the same logic to reach those conclusions. If you go back to your Edmund Burke, you will find that there is a very clear political philosophy behind the Republican approach to economics and social justice that has absolutely nothing to do with race, much less racial oppression.
I vigorously disagree with much of the Republican Party's platform, but I think it's important in these cases to gain a clear understanding of why other people believe as they do. Even movie villains don't usually walk into a room and say "I'll be evil because I love evil, darn it." Their motives are more nuanced than that; there is an "I want," and it's different for every human being.
As for ignorance, I'd say that it's a problem for everybody--including me, and including you. There is no point where we've learned "enough" and get to stop; this is all a process: a ray, not two dots with a line connecting them. This doesn't mean that liberalism isn't right and conservatism isn't wrong; but it does mean that neither philosophy is likely to have comprehensively addressed the problems of the world, and that we should be contributing new ideas, not necessarily just recycling old ones.
What is a pidgion?
...and what is a socialist?
If you would like to argue that socialism results in a better end result for a nation's well being, I would expect you are prepared to back that up. Economic theory seems quite clear in determining the most efficient ways an economic system works. This is seldom socialism. I do understand that you likely value equity over effiency, but at what lengths and cost? To label yourself as a disciple of either party begs me to question your intellectual honesty. Perhaps your statement was pure hyperbole, but I believe we need to be careful in our statements that detail who we are.
And I never believed the stereotypes said about Canadians.....
Very sad that this comment is made. I appreciate both sides, but don't think either are evil.
Who said anything about economic theory. Is money all you think about?
I have very little interest in positing any argument to support my position. I don't think that right wing politics merits the mental effort to bother constructing an argument against it.
I don't expect I would belive in the stereotypes about Canadians either if, I knew what they were.
Do you think I am Canadian if so what makes me so?
I believe the Klan is evil.
I think Republicans are bigots- they must be because they are right wing, they obstinately hold these opinions and are by and large intolerant of those who do not.
My belief is; that if racist policies were socially acceptable and not liable to public derision, the Republicans would go back to the 'Good old days' of governor Wallace in an instant. thus I believe that Rupublicans are tolerant of racism.
My position is;
The Klan are Bigots.
Republicans are likely to be Bigots.
Not all bigots have joined the Klan and/or the Republicans
Poodles are dogs.
Spaniels are dogs.
Not all dogs are either poodles or spaniels
I have nothing against most bigots some of my best friends are bigots
Roy, my comrade, socialism is an economic theory. When you make a point of commenting that you're a socialist, that implies that you're talking about money. In any event, there's no way to solve the problem of poverty without bringing up economic policy--or if there is, I haven't found it yet.
Well, that's no fun.
So how else does one defeat right wing politics? By beating it with a stick?
I suspect it might have something to do with the "Location: Ontario, Canada" text in your sidebar.
I emigrated from the UK I have dual nationality.
Socialism is an economic theory though it is also a political theory. I define myself as a socialist in that I reject laissez-faire economic practice and its associated social Darwinianism as being undesireable, regardless of claims that it belongs to the natural order. Deadly Nightshade is natural but I don't eat or drink it. I hold a preference for strong state social policy. A policy that allows the general population a minimum but good standard of comfort. Being Canadian and British it allows me to see a Doctor when I am ill without worrying if I can afford it or if I can get insurance if my kidneys fail etc.
Of course such a thing brings with it responsibility. I like the nanny state and I am prepared to defend it even, with a stick.
Jerry as Senator!
America elected Clinton not once but twice.
Hillary has a best selling book
Reality ( if you want to call it that ) is Number 1
Jerry becoming Senator?
Would not surprise me in the least.
Separate names with a comma.