Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/us/politics/19elect.html

Lots of reading, but here is the jist:

Republican turned Democrat Senator Specter loses primary to Joe Sestak.

Further, Kentucky chooses Tea Party leader Rand Paul for the Republican ticket.

Causes worry as Republicans are slipping too far to the right, Democrats worry about keeping seats, and people are frustrated with politics as usual.

What do you think about this?

I fully expected Specter to lose. Rand Paul was no shock either. I am not really that concerned as the White House will balance out any GOP Congress that might come about this fall. I think that a GOP Congress and Dem White House are good combos...

Rand Paul is exactly as incompetent as his father.

dogma wrote:Rand Paul is exactly as incompetent as his father.

So long as the Tea Party movement sputters, there is a good chance that percieved incompetency will not affect anything then.

Do you think there is anything to worry about from other primaries that will occur?

This year all primaries are open to doubt.

Bah. Leftists are going to lose primaries this year.

Too many of their own kind switching sides or jumping ship .

Specter is actually the democrat turned republican turned democrat.

Democratic party loses House in 2010 by a comfortable margin.

Democratic party may lose Senate at this point.

State elections-more incumbents fall than usual, but not nearly as many as some surmise. Jerrymandering-its not just for breakfast.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:

dogma wrote:Rand Paul is exactly as incompetent as his father.

So long as the Tea Party movement sputters, there is a good chance that percieved incompetency will not affect anything then.

Do you think there is anything to worry about from other primaries that will occur?

Yes, Rand is incompetent because he...won?

Frazzled wrote:Democratic party loses House in 2010 by a comfortable margin.

Democratic party may lose Senate at this point.

State elections-more incumbents fall than usual, but not nearly as many as some surmise. Jerrymandering-its not just for breakfast.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:

dogma wrote:Rand Paul is exactly as incompetent as his father.

So long as the Tea Party movement sputters, there is a good chance that percieved incompetency will not affect anything then.

Do you think there is anything to worry about from other primaries that will occur?

Yes, Rand is incompetent because he...won?

If Barbara Boxer is in trouble, it could be an absolute massacre come November.

I see McCain getting the boot too, he and Charlie Crist are exactly what's wrong with politicians. They only go where the power is, they don't vote on principle.

Ron Paul isn't incompetant, just crazy (at least on foreign policy).

It'll be interesting to see how the teaparty debasement of the core conservative movement plays out. Their rhetoric gets the vote out, but whether they can pierce the fringe enough to beat a democratic opposition after unseating republicans in primaries is a big question. How well the moderates of the conservative party respond to the empty rhetoric of the tea party candidates will be a big issue, healthcare ended too soon for the dreadful impact that was having on the dems to carry republicans into winning positions alone and the economies signs of improvement will be a big boost for blue seats.

Frazzled wrote:
Yes, Rand is incompetent because he...won?

He's incompetent because he's...incompetent? When did winning an election serve as a measure of competence in any matter not directly related to getting elected?

"...true reform would require an infusion of ethics, something that can't be taught or purchased..."

Since it can't be taught or purchased, it cannot be infused; rendering the problem insoluble. Well played Rand, well played.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:They only go where the power is, they don't vote on principle.

Voting on the basis of principle can also be a bad thing. Indeed, going where the power is can be a good thing. There are no easy answers in a representative political system.

Stormrider wrote:
Ron Paul isn't incompetant, just crazy (at least on foreign policy).

He's fully capable of making decisions on the basis of a set of assumption, indicating that he is sane. What he lacks is any grounding in economics, or foreign policy; rendering him incompetent.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Yes, Rand is incompetent because he...won?

He's incompetent because he's...incompetent? When did winning an election serve as a measure of competence in any matter not directly related to getting elected?

"...true reform would require an infusion of ethics, something that can't be taught or purchased..."

Since it can't be taught or purchased, it cannot be infused; rendering the problem insoluble. Well played Rand, well played.

Not that I care about rand paul, but maybe he meant that ethics are something that people "just have". I.E. an inherent moral compass.

GG

That's what I assume, but if ethics cannot be taught or bought, how are we going to infuse them into the system?

Frazzled wrote:Democratic party loses House in 2010 by a comfortable margin.

Democratic party may lose Senate at this point.

State elections-more incumbents fall than usual, but not nearly as many as some surmise. Jerrymandering-its not just for breakfast.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:

dogma wrote:Rand Paul is exactly as incompetent as his father.

So long as the Tea Party movement sputters, there is a good chance that percieved incompetency will not affect anything then.

Do you think there is anything to worry about from other primaries that will occur?

Yes, Rand is incompetent because he...won?

Yes Frazz, you forget you can be incompetent and still get elected. Look back to Slick Willy and now PresBO. Incompetence doesn't mean an auto-fail election.

dogma wrote:That's what I assume, but if ethics cannot be taught or bought, how are we going to infuse them into the system?

By voting for people who inherently have it. Which means voting for Rand. And I guess anyone else who says they have an inherent moral compass.

Fateweaver wrote:

Yes Frazz, you forget you can be incompetent and still get elected. Look back to Slick Willy and now PresBO. Incompetence doesn't mean an auto-fail election.

Hey, Barack was a genius compared to McCain.

IYO. He's not done a very good job at handling things so I call him incompetent.

At least McCain can prove he is a US citizen.

No-one complained when Taft was elected, He wasn't even born on Earth!

sebster wrote:
By voting for people who inherently have it. Which means voting for Rand. And I guess anyone else who says they have an inherent moral compass.

That, of course, he acquired at birth. Unfortunately, he wasn't talking about elected officials, he was talking about ophthalmologists.

Rand Paul wrote:Good decision-making about cataract surgery requires an ethical ophthalmologist. About once every month or two we see a patient, already scheduled for cataract surgery elsewhere, who has no cataract, 20/20 vision, or no visual complaints with minimal if any cataract.

Eliminating the Medicare provision that allows fee splitting for post-operative care would lessen abuse but true reform also would require an infusion of ethics, something that can't be taught or purchased.

Source.

Published here.

Note, that I don't believe that ethics are unimportant with respect to decision making. I simply feel that its ludicrous to comment on ethics as a central component of reform, while simultaneously stating they are something which cannot be taught. If ethics cannot be taught, then the absence of ethics amongst physicians is something to be accounted for, not discussed as insoluble.

dogma wrote:That, of course, he acquired at birth.

Well of course, every Randian superman is instilled with an inherent sense of moral truth.

Unfortunately, he wasn't talking about elected officials, he was talking about ophthalmologists.

Rand Paul wrote:Good decision-making about cataract surgery requires an ethical ophthalmologist. About once every month or two we see a patient, already scheduled for cataract surgery elsewhere, who has no cataract, 20/20 vision, or no visual complaints with minimal if any cataract.

Eliminating the Medicare provision that allows fee splitting for post-operative care would lessen abuse but true reform also would require an infusion of ethics, something that can't be taught or purchased.

Source.

Published here.

Note, that I don't believe that ethics are unimportant with respect to decision making. I simply feel that its ludicrous to comment on ethics as a central component of reform, while simultaneously stating they are something which cannot be taught. If ethics cannot be taught, then the absence of ethics amongst physicians is something to be accounted for, not discussed as insoluble.

Yeah, I also agree that organisation and professional culture is vital, and when that culture fails government regulation can only go so far to make up the difference.

And it is really, really silly to talk about ethics as not being taught. Even if one rejects formal teaching of ethics, it’d be madness to pretend people don’t accept the morals of their society. But then a big part of the libertarian silliness rests in pretending that men aren’t a function of their societies, so I guess it’s an expected error along those lines.

sebster wrote:

dogma wrote:That's what I assume, but if ethics cannot be taught or bought, how are we going to infuse them into the system?

By voting for people who inherently have it. Which means voting for Rand. And I guess anyone else who says they have an inherent moral compass.

Exactly. You improve the alloy of the metal with a superior mix of base ingredients.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:

Yes Frazz, you forget you can be incompetent and still get elected. Look back to Slick Willy and now PresBO. Incompetence doesn't mean an auto-fail election.

Hey, Barack was a genius compared to McCain.

yea he's been dreamy so far.
if you told me two years ago I'd live to see a US President side with a foreign power against a US state I'd have punched you in the face.

Frazzled wrote:
if you told me two years ago I'd live to see a US President side with a foreign power against a US state I'd have punched you in the face.

Wait... what? when and how did that happen?

I was really disappointed. It isn't my state, but Arlen Specter is one of the few people I've ever found, political professional or not, who supports most of what I would like to see happen. I think he is one of the few people up there who is actually sane and votes how he believes, regardless of what the party he's in says.

I'd actually like to see him run for president.

Soladrin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
if you told me two years ago I'd live to see a US President side with a foreign power against a US state I'd have punched you in the face.

Wait... what? when and how did that happen?

The State dinner with the President of Mexico criticizing our immigration policy and all the liberals at the dinner clapping and giving him a standing ovation, even Obama.

Yeah, looks like taking sides with a ruler of a foreign country against one of the US states.

This hear is a reflection of how I feel and this guy would get my vote were he to ever run for President someday.

I see the understanding of diplomacy, and its impact on domestic politics, extends only to the Cold War, and not even necessarily that far.

If the diplomacy is anti-American it shouldn't exist.

Clapping and approving the words spoken by a foreign leader in mockery of any part of the United States is borderline anti-American.

There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism but to show agreement by clapping for the guy is not something a President of the US should do. Obama should have said something along the lines of "Well, Mr. President. As much as I want to agree with you I have to politely point out that your immigration law is not perfect. I feel we need to work together to curb the problem, not point fingers and lay blame one who's fault it is that the drug cartels on your side of the line are out of control and that the millions of illegals over on this side of the line are out of control.

There is diplomacy and there is defending your country. There would have been tactful ways for Obama to redirect blame away from AZ but he chose not to because he himself is against AZ doing what HIS administration should be doing. He wants to bring change to the US. He can start by enforcing a Federal law last enacted seriously in the 20's.

There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism but to show agreement by clapping for the guy is not something a President of the US should do. Obama should have said something along the lines of "Well, Mr. President. As much as I want to agree with you I have to politely point out that your immigration law is not perfect. I feel we need to work together to curb the problem, not point fingers and lay blame one who's fault it is that the drug cartels on your side of the line are out of control and that the millions of illegals over on this side of the line are out of control.

And the rapacious drug demand in the u.s. doesn't help much either.

There is diplomacy and there is defending your country. There would have been tactful ways for Obama to redirect blame away from AZ but he chose not to because he himself is against AZ doing what HIS administration should be doing. He wants to bring change to the US. He can start by enforcing a Federal law last enacted seriously in the 20's.

I think he's more looking at meaningful immigration reform as a top issue for his second term (whether he gets it or not). You can't stop the flood of illegals when our immigration method is absolutely and critically broken and he's on record as stating that fixing that is a higher priority than state enforcement initiatives like those in arizona. The U.S. is a nation of states and a foreign official can and has the right to criticize a states policy, especially when that policy has an effect on foreign nationals. Complain about clapping all you want, but clapping is clapping. Who cares. The words are more important.

Grignard wrote:I was really disappointed. It isn't my state, but Arlen Specter is one of the few people I've ever found, political professional or not, who supports most of what I would like to see happen. I think he is one of the few people up there who is actually sane and votes how he believes, regardless of what the party he's in says.

I'd actually like to see him run for president.

Getting this back on topic and away from get another tiresome and inane OBAMA BAD campaign led by the usual suspects, I'm kinda mixed on Specter. On one hand, he's a moderate. I am too. On the other hand, he's kind of a primary example of a career Congressman. I think his party switch was less about a principled stand than what was (thought to be) best for his career longevity.

He's done a lot for PA, but we're talking about a guy who came up with the magic bullet theory after Kennedy's assassination. I think it's unfortunate that we're seeing some purging of moderates on the Dem side just like what's happened with the GOP over the last 10-15 years. But he's been there a ridiculously long time, and it's past time for some new blood.

gorgon wrote:

Grignard wrote:I was really disappointed. It isn't my state, but Arlen Specter is one of the few people I've ever found, political professional or not, who supports most of what I would like to see happen. I think he is one of the few people up there who is actually sane and votes how he believes, regardless of what the party he's in says.

I'd actually like to see him run for president.

Getting this back on topic and away from get another tiresome and inane OBAMA BAD campaign led by the usual suspects, I'm kinda mixed on Specter. On one hand, he's a moderate. I am too. On the other hand, he's kind of a primary example of a career Congressman. I think his party switch was less about a principled stand than what was (thought to be) best for his career longevity.

He's done a lot for PA, but we're talking about a guy who came up with the magic bullet theory after Kennedy's assassination. I think it's unfortunate that we're seeing some purging of moderates on the Dem side just like what's happened with the GOP over the last 10-15 years. But he's been there a ridiculously long time, and it's past time for some new blood.

What magic bullet theory? That bullet behaved exactly how a jacketed military bullet should. There wasn't anything magic about it at all. Most people who criticize that don't really know anything about how bullets behave.

Fateweaver wrote:If the diplomacy is anti-American it shouldn't exist.

There is a long tradition of using diplomacy to leverage action against one's domestic political opponents. Reagan-Thatcher revolution anyone?

Fateweaver wrote:
There is diplomacy and there is defending your country.

Defending one's nation is a part of diplomacy, but not the only part.

Fateweaver wrote:
There would have been tactful ways for Obama to redirect blame away from AZ

A tactful reaction would have been no reaction, or a pledge to work towards greater cooperation between the US and Mexico with respect to border security.

Fateweaver wrote:
...but he chose not to because he himself is against AZ doing what HIS administration should be doing.

Enforcing Arizona law? Putting federal officers on Arizona streets in order to patrol for illegal aliens?

Fateweaver wrote:
He wants to bring change to the US. He can start by enforcing a Federal law last enacted seriously in the 20's.

It is being enforce, it just isn't being enforced very well, for a variety of reasons; mostly related to the cost of investigation and deportation.