PDA

View Full Version : Getting elected...


rok
09-24-2004, 04:32 PM
okay, here's a thread topic for you. now try not to focus on the specifics of my example, but the broader topic... namely, how do you get elected when the dominant sentiment in your area (district, city, county, state, or nation) is incredibly opposed to your own? do you swallow your pride and say what they want to hear to get elected? and if so, do you then turn around after you're in office and turn out to be a liar and go against what you said? or do you do all you can to further your agenda before you get elected right back out?

case in point:

lousiana just held its elections, and with them, the vote on the 1st amendment to the state constitution, namely to make marriage the union of one man and one woman. (mind you, it also does away with common-law marriage, but no one seemed to want to notice that part...)

to say the amendment passed in a landslide would be a gross understatement. EVERY PARISH voted it in. statewide, i think it was 78% for, 22% against. the only districts that managed to go against were areas of the main population centers of new orleans and baton rouge (and, not shockingly, in those areas considered the arts and studio districts, as well as areas of mid-to-high income and close to universities where lots of different students come together regularly).

so let's say i'm looking at this vote, and i want to get elected to "change things." how the heck would you even start? you can't publicly stand against the amendment, or you don't have any hope of being elected. you could avoid the subject uncomfortably in debates, but a vicious attacking opponent might eat you alive. you could lie and say you're for it, or see its merits, and then undermine it when you're in office. any other options???

anyway, looking at that got me to wondering how ANYthing changes with the inertia that public opinion and government have behind them. and it made me kinda depressed...

thoughts?

Anders
09-24-2004, 04:36 PM
In this case you start at the bottom not the top.

Northgate
09-24-2004, 05:33 PM
Apparently, if you follow the Republican model, you simply lie through your teeth and never, ever, flinch...

Kerry:

"I think the prime minister is obviously contradicting his own statement of a few days ago, where he said the terrorists are pouring into the country. The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the policy, but the fact is that the CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story."

Cheney:

"I must say I was appalled at the complete lack of respect Senator Kerry showed for this man of courage, when he rushed to hold a press conference and attack the prime minister, a man America must stand beside to defeat the terrorists," Cheney told several thousand supporters.

:wow: :lol: :no:

Anders
09-24-2004, 05:55 PM
I canīt see a lie in what Cheney said. What I see is someone that tells you to shut up and not tell the truth about the situation in Iraq because for some reason you shouldnīt do that while engaged in a war.

The interesting part is of course what "some reason" is.

Is it because it isnīt polite to critizise someones political flip flop even if the flip flop is designed to cover up the guagmire the administration put US into in Iraq?

I would very much like to know what "some reason" is.

But again Cheney isnīt lying in that quote.

Northgate
09-24-2004, 06:46 PM
I take great umbrance with the term "attack". John Kerry did not "attack" Allawai. Secondly, Kerry did not show a complete lack of respect. His response to Allawai's claims are consistent with disagreement over the situation.

While it may not be a technical "lie" it is definitely a huge mischaracterization of Kerry's response.