@ Shalom, I meant it as a religious person
4. gentile - a Christian; "Christians refer to themselves as gentiles"
@ Brad, yes at times I stooped to Danehy's level out of frustration, and for that I am ashamed
Shalom, I meant it as a religious person. 4. gentile - a Christian; "Christians refer to themselves as gentiles"
I am sure that Jewish people could be offended as well.
Brad, yes I did stoop to Danehey's level at times, and for that I am ashamed
@Mark Robert Heywood: Maybe the column will offend gentile readers, but what about readers of the Jewish persuasion?
Mark, I seem to remember some rather "juvenile" comments from you at other times as well. Were we to not take those seriously, either? In addition, while I will not presume to know who you will vote for come November, it would seem, using your above critique as a guide, Mr. Trump is a big "no."
Tom, your juvenile name calling makes it hard to take anything you say seriously, and offends the more gentile readers. I can see why they have cut your columns (if you can call them that) down to every other week.
Right on, Tom.
Boy, is she in a mood. Very civil Tammy, very civil.
What can you say? When he's right, he's right!
" These 2 Irishmen walk into a bar ......"" Well, it could happen!!
" These 2 Irishmen walk into a bar..." Well, it could happen.
In a book I read years ago, the attitude of the British - particularly the English - was summarized by the following intro to a joke told by an English comedian:
"It seems there was an Irish brain surgeon [pause for laughter]..."
I can highly recommend a new biography on Meagher called, "The Immortal Irishman-The Irish Revolutionary who became an American Hero" by National Book Club Award winner Timothy Egan. Egan spoke about his book at the recent Festival of Books and I couldn't not buy it.
Only Brian Johnson has addressed my position on this issue, so I'll add my voice to his. If the Democratic and Republican parties want to keep registered independents out of the primary process (or the "presidential preference" process), then the parties should pay for the whole friggin thing! You can't tell me I'm not a member of the club so I don't get to vote, but I still have to pay for it. That is YOU trying to have it both ways. You want to be exclusive, but you don't want to pay for the cost of the closed primary. Choose. If I am forced to pay for all these primaries as a taxpayer, then I should get to participate. Or you can limit my participation but then only members of the private club (the two major parties) should foot the bill.
fwiw, I did change my registration to Dem so I could vote this last time, and I was lucky that I wasn't disenfranchised by some of the computer "glitches" that changed people's party affiliation without their permission or knowledge (watch the recorded testimony to the Election Committee at the legislature, especially the poll worker's experience. Absolutely chilling) And I will change back to independent as soon as the primary season is over. Neither of the two major parties reflect my politics, and they have both gone out of their way to make me feel unwelcome.
When I registered Inde I knew very well that that meant I couldn't vote in primaries. That was ok with me. That was the point. Let the parties, those idiots, choose and then I'll choose from that list of losers. Whats the big deal. Indes know what they are getting into.
I'm going to blame TV commercials for the problem. They have trained Americans to make decisions based on little thought and momentary reactions when making all decisions. That, combined with the total loss of meaningful widespread instruction in the processes of American government and history , results in ignorant voters choosing elected representatives on the basis of momentary attraction to brief images , as in TV commercials. Hardly anyone reads newspapers for actual reported content anymore and the Internet is full of ridiculous statements accepted as fact. Makes me want to quit trying!
In this state we can change our registration almost as often as our socks. A liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican can become an independent, go to the polls and select a ballot of the opposition party and skew the results toward nominating the weakest of the candidates on that ballot. Then she (the liberal Democrat) goes back online and reclaims her partisan status, while he (the conservative Republican) does the same. Enough people doing this would give the general election voter of whatever affiliation a choice between the weakest candidates rather than the strongest. not an ideal solution.
Tom, you appear to have an attention span which is nearing Donald Trump as you age. When you visited this topic of independents voting in primaries a few years ago, I pointed out to you that since these primary elections are funded using my tax dollars I should be able to go to the polling place and vote for the candidate of a party that I would like to see in the general election (since the Democrats pretty much control my district, I have voted in the Republican primaries to try to weed out nutball candidates like Jim Sweeney was. At that time, you agreed that I had a point and that you wouldn't mind paying a nominal fee as a Democrat to allow only Democrats to vote in their primary. Nowhere in your latest piece did I see even a hint of such a thing. The Democratic and Republican parties have all ready rigged the system in their favor. Independents just want to even the playing field a little and try to find the best solution--not the solution that appeals to the far left and the far right.
I would bet many of you would be fine with open primaries, until independents nominated a fruitcake in your party, knocking out the viable candidate, and then you lost in the general election...
You would be the next to cry for closed primaries. Now that I think about it, isn't that how Bill Clinton got elected when Ross Perot split the vote?
Perot captured 19% of the vote. Some from each party leaving Clinton with the win but not even 50% of the vote.
Absolutely on the mark, Tom. We should demand that the party leaders (the 'establishment') begin to do whatever is necessary to attract independents to select one or the other - or, failing that, to get together on a couple of major ideas and form a third party that will displace one of the existing parties. Reagan's comment that he only wants people who agree with him 80 percent of the time was blatantly wrong. We in either party should want people who agree with us 51 percent of the time! 'Other democracies' have chosen the parliamentary system which was rejected by our Founding Fathers. We could change to that system with a constitutional amendment that abolishes fixed terms for the Presidency, elects Congress during the same election as that of the President, and allows for whoever gets the most votes in the electoral college to serve, as long as he forms a majority coalition of the various minority parties that are elected at the same time.
The two party system cannot possibly include every political viewpoint. You have to let independents vote in primaries because to do otherwise would exclude the opinions of a vast group of concerned voters. Limiting the democratic primary to only registered democrats is tantamount to saying that only white male land owners' votes count. Always strive for inclusiveness.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation