Left In Alabama Follow leftinbama on Twitter

Tell me why on earth I should vote for Ron Sparks.

by: Almoderate

Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 23:07:11 PM CDT


... I'm sure there are some reasons.  Let's hear them.
"He's the Democrat" isn't going to be a good enough reason for me.  Why?  Because I don't vote party labels.  I'm not a Democrat.
 
This actually started as a comment to a previous posting on the Davis comments, but I felt as if a diary would be more appropriate after putting this all together, so here goes... 
 
The problem with Ron Sparks is that almost all of his support came from Democrats who believed that Artur Davis just wasn't progressive enough.  Davis was supported primarily by independents and more moderate Republicans.

And there's the rub.
Almoderate :: Tell me why on earth I should vote for Ron Sparks.
We heard after the primary about how Dems rejected Davis because he didn't play to the base.  Well that's all fine and good if you can win an election with just your base.  Unfortunately, you can't, and I think that's where the state Dems are falling short.  Until the folks on the left figure out that they're going to have to make some concessions to appeal to independents and even some (gasp!) moderate Republicans so that they can get a little bit of progressive in there, they'll get nothing accomplished.  The far left liberal Dems are an endangered species in Alabama.  You won't win an election on your own.

Meanwhile, those independents and moderate Republicans like me who voted for Davis will simply move on to the next best candidate (or the less evil one, depending on how you look at it).  That's currently not Ron Sparks.  If we did in fact vote for a party label, he'd have less to worry about-- and so would Democrats for that matter.

Bentley scares the hell out of me.  I won't lie.  But Ron Sparks scares me more.  He was so willing to sell his soul to certain groups and individuals.  He openly embraced convicted criminals.  And if the way his campaign has been run is any indication of what we can expect with him as governor, I'd rather have a third grader.  The emails alone are atrocious.

If Sparks really wants to win this, he's going to have to do a lot better than just reaching out to remaining Democrats.  He's going to have to make some concessions and appeal to the middle and even a tad to the right.  And he's going to have to be convincing.  That last part will be a particularly uphill battle considering his conflicting statements on his views during the primary, and if he so much as hints that he's against this HCR legislation after the way he used that during the primary, there will be no turning back.  There's just no trusting this guy as it stands, and the last Democrat who left that impression on me was Parker Griffith.  We saw how well that one turned out.

And to address another comment...  I'm sure the Dem website could use some polishing, but that's really the least of your worries.  Let's please be realistic, here.  What needs to be done is what the national party has done and Obama is taking hits from the left for-- appeal to moderates and expand the tent.  I can't even begin to tell you how much I as a moderate feel like an outsider among Democrats in this state.  Posts from folks like certain Sparks supporters on this site are practically screaming at me that they could care less whether or not they want my vote and support.
 
I'm not a Democrat.  So then please tell me why on earth I should vote for your candidate.
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Share |

Tell me why on earth I should vote for Ron Sparks. | 163 comments
Good post, Almoderate. (3.50 / 2)

You've hit on many of my concerns with Sparks.  I consider myself a liberal progressive and I supported Artur Davis.  Davis got my vote because I think he is a very smart pragmatic thinking man.  I'll give Sparks points for the job he has done as Ag Commissioner.  I like that he opened up some trade with Cuba.  I like that he has pushed for bio-fuels.  And I figure he must have had some good people working with him in the Ag office to do the job he has done and I hope he would do the same as governor.

Bentley scares me.  His positions on Health Care Reform,and abortion are indicative (to me) where he is on many of the issues that are important to me.  I believe he is very right wing, and as someone who thinks being republican is a character flaw,  I can't vote for him. 

 


There is nothing anyone can say that can make you support Ron Sparks (1.60 / 5)

because Ron Sparks is a democrat and you are not a democrat, which is also why you supported Artur Davis because he pandered to the NONE democrats at the expense of the proud democrats.   Which wasn't a very smart or pragmatic strategy for Davis to do in the long run.   

If Ron Sparks panders to the right in an attempt to woo voters like yourself who MIGHT vote for him at the expense of loyal democratic voters like myself who WILL vote for him, he will make the same pragmatic misclaucation smart Artur Davis did.  

The only way you will vote for Sparks is if he throws democrats under the bus. 

And who wins in the end?

Not progressive democrats that's fer sure.

Moderates are generally uniformed  that's why it's hard for them to take a position one way or another on issues.   They get their information from Faux News and others MSM outlets whose job it is to keep them uninformed by telling them what they want them to know , insted of what they need to know.  IMHO President Obama has pandered to this group at his peril as his plunging approval ratings indicate.   I didn't vote for President Obama because he promised to walk the yellow line down the middle of the road.  I voted for HOPE for CHANGE I can believe IN.  Despite being obstructed by the gop/conservative/moderates/neo liberals/ Tea Party gang, CHANGE is slowly but surely coming to America.   It would come a lot faster if they would lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.   It would also come a lot faster if those who call themselves democrats would start acting like democrats and not DINO Congress Critter Cowards.  Yes I'm talking to YOU Bobby "not so" Bright republican, and YOU Terri "I'm  not going to be a rubber stamp for Obama" Sewell.  Why the hell not?  The people who actually try to live, work and vote in your district want you to be a rubber stamp for President Obama.  But I digress.

What I would like to know is WHY on eatry wouldn't you support Ron Sparks or President Obama if they "played to their base."  What on earth is wrong with their base?

  



The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)


Wrong. (3.00 / 3)

Your problem is that he didn't pander to every single thing you wanted him to pander to.  Had he been elected, you wouldn't have gotten everything you wanted, but you would have gotten a governor who had promised to make HCR work in Alabama.  You would have gotten a governor who promised to help in more than a few areas.

But some wasn't good enough.  You wanted everything.  And it'll get you nothing.

And you're seriously mistaken if you think the only reason I'd vote for a Democrat is because he's a DINO.  You're very wrong.  You're also very wrong if you think the only way I'd vote for Sparks is if he threw the Dems under the bus.  In my view, he already did that, and that's exactly why I'm currently not supporting him.  It's the same reason why I have been very vocally critical of Parker Griffith.


[ Parent ]
For the record (2.00 / 5)

I never said Almoderate was uniformed, I said;

Moderates are generally uniformed  that's why it's hard for them to take a position one way or another on issues.

I also never said Almodorate was a Faux News viewer, I said;

They get their information from Faux News and other MSM outlets whose job it is to keep them uninformed by telling them what they want them to know , insted of what they need to know.

I was expression my opinion about Moderates, not to be confused with Almoderate, in broad, general terms.

Almoderate, you are 100% correct, I am upset Artur Davis didn't "pander" to the issues that were important to me, and to the majority of democrats, like access to quality, affordable health care for ALL Americans.  Hate Crimes Legislation to keep our gay sisters and brothers safe from bigotry and prejudice. Voting for the Stupak Amendment which keeps poor women from choosing to have a safe, legal abortion. Pushing Charter Schools at the expense of public schools.  Bashing and smearing long time Civil Rights leaders and organizations.   I'm not going to  get into the Azaela Trail Maids, the Confederate Flag flap and the Jerimiah Wright  issues.  IMHO Davis is the one that threw traditional  democrats under the bus. If Davis had gotten elected I would have gotten a Governor who would have governed from the right at the expense of the left.  

I'm not screaming and yelling for anyone to get out of the party.  I'm screaming and yelling for those who call themselves democrats/liberals/progressives to GET WITH THE PARTY.  A Party divided will not stand.   You either support a Woman's right to choose or you don't.  You either support equal right, civil rights, human rights or you don't.  You either support Hate Crimes legislation or you don't.  You either believe all men are created equal and have equal rights or you don't.  There is NO moderation or middle.  

If having you in the party means having to sacrifice democratic values, principles and platform I would RATHER not have you in the party because all you're doing is pi$$ing in the pool messing it up for everyone else.

So, what could Ron Sparks need to do to make you vote for him?   Be against a womans right to choose?  Be against President Obama's agenda?  Be against Hate Crimes legislation?  Be against tradition black civil rights leaders and organizations?  What?

Apologies for the long post, but since my point of view is being rationed by the administrators I have to make each post count.  This is what I mean by media outlets telling people what they want them to know instead of what they need to know.  The administrators have decided access to my point of view needs to be restricted and limited.

Isn't it ironic, the one person who is a proud, unashamed, card carrying, liberal, progressive, loyal, democrat  point of view is limited, but moderates, conservatives, right wing, republicans, Tea Party folks have unlimited access?  

 



The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)


[ Parent ]
Interesting... (3.25 / 4)

Your support is for candidates that doesn't like "our gay sisters and brothers safe from bigotry and prejudice".  LOL, you're kidding, right?

Does Birmingham mayor William Bell, ring a bell in your skull?  Ask any LGBT of any race in Birmingham if Bell is a supporter and you'll get that an unanimous answer to that question...

FYI, Bell is now in cahoots with the same group like former mayor Larry Langford, whom thinks being gay is still a "sin" and should not be recognize at all in the public forum.  He has gone on the record to not give a flip about us, one way or another either... ***snark***

Mighty hypocritical, mighty hypocritical, indeed...

 



"Hypocrites are those whom pick and choose prejudices while giving accolades for their own..."

"It is what it is."  

http://blkindependent.blogspot...

[ Parent ]
Oh I see... You just implied it. (3.33 / 6)
Interesting, though...  You know Sparks never really indicated that he would have voted affirmatively for the HCR bill.  In fact, he outright stated that he was against it-- a month earlier.  Here's the tally:

1. Ron Sparks openly stated that he was against the HCR bill.
2. Ron Sparks openly stated that he was against climate change legislation-- on the Glenn Beck show.
3. Ron Sparks openly stated that he was against the Ledbetter bill.
4. Ron Sparks openly stated that he was against the repeal of DADT.
5. Ron Sparks openly stated that he was against gay marriage.
6. Ron Sparks openly stated that he was against hate crimes legislation.
7. Ron Sparks openly implied that voters should not choose Artur Davis in the primary because he was black.

Of course, this all depends on what group he was speaking to at the time.  What part of that, exactly, do you presume to be better for Democrats than what Davis was offering?

"So, what could Ron Sparks need to do to make you vote for him?   Be against a womans right to choose?  Be against President Obama's agenda?  Be against Hate Crimes legislation?  Be against tradition black civil rights leaders and organizations?  What?"

How about he just gives a straight answer and convinces me he's not another Parker Griffith?  That would be a nice start.  But apparently, the above things you think Ron Sparks has to do to get me to vote for hiim are precisely what you required for you to support him.  Meanwhile, the above is precisely why I have thus far decided not to support him.

[ Parent ]
Oh please (4.00 / 4)

Stand behind your words, why don't you?  It may be cute in junior high to mince words and try to avoid responsibility for what you said, but no one really believes you're blameless even then and it certainly doesn't wash when you're an adult.

You painted all moderates with an extremely broad and unflattering brush then pretend you didn't mean to apply that brush to someone who calls herself almoderate?  No one here is that gullible.

You have the pissing analogy backwards.  This is how it goes, according to LBJ who said it of J. Edgar Hoover: "I would rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in."  It's akin to "keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

I agree that a party divided will not stand.  So why do you persist in pounding wedges that serve to split off various segments of the party?  It can't just be a party of people who exactly agree with Redeye, because there are not enough people like that to form a majority for anything.  Well, I guess it could be a party that small, but members would only be able to moan and complain about never having power and getting pissed on all the time because most people would be outside the tent.

A party like that is nothing to aspire to.



Work harder and work smarter!
[ Parent ]
By the way... (3.40 / 5)

I would like to thank you for making it clear to me that you don't care about my views or want my vote.

I hope for your sake that your candidate doesn't agree with you.


[ Parent ]
I SO need an edit button... (3.50 / 6)

"Moderates are generally uniformed  that's why it's hard for them to take a position one way or another on issues.   They get their information from Faux News and others MSM outlets whose job it is to keep them uninformed by telling them what they want them to know , insted of what they need to know."

I can't believe you just called me right wing!  I have so got to inform some folks on Flashpoint of this! Brian, are you reading this?

Seriously?  You think I'm a Fox News viewer?  Okay, I do watch a few things on there, but it's usually to keep up with what the crazies are saying.  Apparently you don't follow me or my criticisms of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh-- all of which have been highly publicized on this very site.  One of my complaints regarding Sparks was that he was yucking it up with Glenn Beck! 

"What on earth is wrong with their base?"

There's nothing wrong with their base, per se.  But their base is outnumbered, and that's why you're holding your party back.  You're about to get absolutely nothing.  I do hope we can quote you on saying that Ron Sparks shouldn't care what anyone other than liberal Democrats want.  Me, I hope he just wants that because he sure as hell hasn't been clear on it.

Regardless, I've never asked a single right wing thing of Ron Sparks.  Not one.  You could run Nancy Pelosi for all I care, and I'd vote for that woman.  But that's just me.

But there's a huge difference between Ron Sparks and Nancy Pelosi.  I know where Nancy Pelosi stands on just about every single issue.  Sparks has yet to give a clear answer.  The issue I had with Sparks has never been that he was too far left. The issue I have with Sparks, and I want you to get this through your ever so thick skull, is that I can't freaking trust him.

But you might want to start worrying about that whole "pandering to moderates" thing unless you seriously believe that left wingers are the majority in this state. 


[ Parent ]
I am reading this (3.25 / 4)
Redeye thinks everyone this side of Hugo Chavez is right wing.
[ Parent ]
I just wanted to make sure you know... (3.25 / 4)

You and yours were wrong when you referred to me as a liberal.  Redeye says so.

Being an ultra right-wing lefty liberal is tougher to pull off than it looks. 


[ Parent ]
Show me where I called you a liberal (1.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Oh gawd don't make me dig! (1.00 / 1)

It's been said many times, and not just by you, though not always directly so.  Of course, the folks over at the Gun Toting Liberal seem to dispense that sentiment more than anyone.

I just want it on the record that the left thinks I'm a right-wing Fox watcher.  lol! 


[ Parent ]
Redeye is like Ron Sparks (3.00 / 3)
She never says what she says. I am not surprised she would support someone who can take entirely opposite positions on the same issue at the same time.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

[ Parent ]
Also, as a point of reference (0.00 / 0)
I don't even watch Fox News.
[ Parent ]
You should. (2.00 / 1)

It's rather entertaining, and Bill O'Reilly can be a really good journalist when he wants to be.

Though I have to admit I'm addicted to Rachel Maddow over on MSNBC.  The woman is rather spunky, and she's the only pundit I watch on a near daily basis. 


[ Parent ]
Almoderate is not uninformed (4.00 / 4)

Regular readers of this blog and her own are undoubtedly aware that she is in fact very well informed on issues.

Now let's move on the the general election.  The results below are from a survey (done by the polling arm of AEA) titled 2010 Legislative Election Issues.

Party I. D.
Democrat    37%
Republican    33%
Independent    27%
Other    3%

Party Allegiance
Always Democrat 35%
Always Republican 23%
Always Independent 27%
Other 3%

Those party ID numbers are pretty consistent with past surveys we've seen and, given that less than 40% of Alabamians consider themselves Democrats (or Republicans) I do not understand any math that says Democrats can tell independents and moderates to go take a flying leap and expect to win elections.  Any candidate who wants to win has to motivate his or her base and a majority of independents.  The necessity for broad appeal is even more obvious when you look at this question from the same survey:

30. In voting for governor in 2010, what will most influence your vote for a candidate?
Confidence candidate can do something    29.1% Position on issues    22.7%
Character and morals    19.6%
Competency    9.6%
Experience in government    6.6%
Political party    3.5%
Race    1.0%
Personally know the candidate    0.9%
Other    2.3%
Don't Know / No Reply    4.7%

Political party is far from the most important discriminator for most Alabama voters, unless these people were just lying to Gerald Johnson.  That makes it all the more important for Sparks and his supporters to lay out clear reasons voters -- or whatever party -- should support him over Robert Bentley. 

As for the "playing to the base" thing, I am part of the base.  I'm a Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama supporting cog in the Democratic base.  I also see very little in common between those Democrats and many of the elected Democrats in Alabama -- including Ron Sparks.  



Work harder and work smarter!
[ Parent ]
I AM a Democrat. (4.00 / 3)

I'm a progressive Democrat and at least 95% of Alabamians would agree that I'm a liberal Democrat.  But I also need to hear these reasons why I should vote for Ron Sparks.  Obviously, I didn't support him in the primary.  Y'all know my issues: ethics reform, constitution reform and good government.  Sparks didn't make any attempt to appeal to me on those issues during the primary and I'm still not hearing it.

Almoderate has said something here that really needed saying:

I can't even begin to tell you how much I as a moderate feel like an outsider among Democrats in this state.  Posts from folks like certain Sparks supporters on this site are practically screaming at me that they could care less whether or not they want my vote and support.

I'm not a moderate, but after supporting both Davis and Terri Sewell I assure you I am also feeling distanced from some vocal supporters of their opponents.  And I also feel those people are practically screaming at me that they could care less who I vote for, as though my future support is somehow irrelevant because I backed a losing candidate.  

Hey, I'm an Alabama Democrat and I've backed a ton of losing candidates.  But I'm going to keep voting every time the polls open -- count on it -- so the nominee should darned well care whether I mark the D or leave it blank.

I also have to say that the rhetoric used by some on this blog, in emails and now and then in social settings certainly sounds like these folks are screaming at people like me to get out of the Democratic party; we don't really belong there.  They don't need us cluttering up their party.  We're somehow not real Democrats.  Presumably that's because we don't agree with them on everything.  I thought Democrats were the Big Tent party who welcome new ideas and tolerate differences of opinion?   These folks seem to feel threatened by them.

I have no plans to leave, but after the Parker Griffith debacle I also have no intention of supporting any and all Democrats, no matter how bad.   My issues and I will be staying right here in the Democratic party and we'll find plenty of honest, competent, reform-minded Democrats to support ... but don't take for granted we'll be marking that straight ticket for every Dem in the future.  Our vote isn't automatic; you need to win it.



Work harder and work smarter!
See, and the Griffith thing, too... (3.33 / 3)

For me personally, I have no real issue backing even a very liberal Democrat as long as I feel I can trust that I know where they stand on an issue.  The moderation thing is something that I see as a concern regarding Sparks and his electability in this state, but it's not something I particularly require.

The big issue I have is that Sparks never gave a clear answer on many issues, and in the circumstances where he did answer, he gave conflicting answers depending on who he was speaking to at the time.  And for crying out loud, he was yucking it up with Glenn Freaking Beck!  That smacks of Parker Griffith, and I'm not about to elect Parker Griffith as our next governor. 


[ Parent ]
Sparks did offer a clear and consistent answer ... (4.00 / 3)

Unfortunately, it was on constitution reform and it was that a convention is code for raising your taxes.  That's a Republican talking point, but he was totally consistent on it. 

I never thought Sparks was the most liberal candidate, although he was able to take up the health care issue and use it as a banner to liberals.  It covered a lot of other fairly conservative stances, starting with his resistance to making cock-fighting a felony.  Dear God, how can you possibly spin that as liberal?  Or his resistance to good government reforms?



Work harder and work smarter!
[ Parent ]
Bingo! (1.00 / 1)

[Pun intended]

You hit the nail on the head.

I would say that "resistance to good government reforms" is not inherently liberal (or conservative), but it does seem to be the modus operandi of the Democratic Party in this state. 


[ Parent ]
Democrats should own the ethics issue (4.00 / 2)

If you are elected by the People you should darned well give the People honest and faithful service.  Unfortunately, a few bad apples have broken faith with the electorate and the rest of the Alabama Democrats have failed (and they have Republican help with this failure) to enact meaningful reforms to safeguard the public interest.  I don't by any means think all or even many Democrats have acted improperly or betrayed the public trust, but they have allowed themselves to end up in a position where they can be painted as opposed to good government issues. 

I believe the vast majority of Democrats are honest, ethical and committed to good government.  I just wish the leadership had made some recent demonstration of those ideals a high priority.



Work harder and work smarter!
[ Parent ]
See, and that's what gets me. (3.00 / 3)

He's given an awful lot of Republican talking points.  He spoke out about clean energy legislation.  He even spoke out against the HCR bill.

Honestly, now that I think of it, Davis was the more liberal of the two.  In hindsight, I think the thing that might have made him more appealing and even seem like more of a moderate was that he seemed more genuine about it.  Sparks comes off as that used car salesman who's trying to scam me.


[ Parent ]
There lays the problem (4.00 / 1)

Sparks isn't authentic about anything which says to me that he isn't a liberal or progressive rather and opportunist.  However, the ADP has allowed Hubbert and Reed make their bed, and they will lay in it.  It's just another symptom to their consistent problem.  Davis spoke on it in that very issue, but nobody wants to listen because they think he is a sore loser. 

Oh yeah, don't think for 5 minute that Sparks isn't in bed with ALFA, whom blocks all forms for constitutional reform.  Otherwise, his talking points wouldn't have been no constitutional reform.  He is, but they will abstain from this race this go around and work on the state legislators as usual...



"Hypocrites are those whom pick and choose prejudices while giving accolades for their own..."

"It is what it is."  

http://blkindependent.blogspot...

[ Parent ]
I believe this is a very true statement and I totally agree. (4.00 / 3)

Honestly, now that I think of it, Davis was the more liberal of the two.

Davis did not go on the Glenn Beck Show. Davis did not think global warming was a joke. Davis was clearly pro-choice. When supporting Davis I never had to worry about any upcoming scandal or good-ole-boy guffawing. He was not perfect but I felt proud to be associated with him.


[ Parent ]
How can you say Davis was clearly pro choice? (2.50 / 2)

Davis tried and failed to walk the yellow line down the middle of the road when it came to a woman's right to choose.

We don't really know what Davis's position is on choice.

bluebearcat said it best;

I knew about the interstate transport thing, but I was surprised about the partial birth abortion position.  Especially when his statement implied that he believed that a fetus is not a life until after the birth.  Kudos to proving me wrong, or at least proving that none of us knows exactly where Davis stands on abortion.

Davis voted FOR the Stupak Amendment and AGAINST the Health Care Reform Bill.

The Stupid - er Stupak amendment – which severely limits a woman’s right to choose - was supposed to be a compromise that would make the health care bill more palatable to conservative Democrats. Why then did so many conservatives who voted FOR the amendment vote AGAINST the bill anyway?

Politics, pure and simple. Only two of these 21 congressmen who voted for Stupak and against health care reform represent districts that President Obama won in 2008. The rest, according to the New York Times, represent districts won by Republican Sen. John McCain.

Clearly, these gentlemen care more about their chances in 2010 than they do about the millions of people without access to health care.

 

Daivs did appear to be immune from scandal(s), and Harvard educted Lawyers don't do good old boygood old boy guffawing. I would have been proud to have him as the first African American Governor of Alabama had he  not pandered to the right at the expense of the traditional democratic base like we were chopped liver or worse.

Note to countrycat:  Since I didn't use my 10 limit comment yesterday can they roll over?



The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)


[ Parent ]
Partial birth abortion is not medically necessary. (1.67 / 3)

If you can't figure out that you're pregnant before you're the the point of "needing" a partial birth abortion simply because you don't want the baby, then I'd say you have bigger issues than being pregnant.

In fact, partial birth abortion places a greater stress on the woman because of the way it is performed (through induction) than to simply perform a c-section and take the baby early.  That is typically what happens for mothers experiencing medical issues late into her pregnancy-- they simply take the baby as soon as possible.

When a baby is to the point where he or she can possibly survive outside the womb, I'd say that there is a pretty good argument that it could be considered to be "life."

The Stupak amendment is harder to defend, but it's very clear as to why partial birth abortion would still be so controversial-- even for Democrats.


[ Parent ]
Are you a Doctor Almoderate? (2.00 / 3)

Women don't just wake up in the 8th month of pregnancy and decide they want to terminate the pregnancy.  The term "partial birth abortion" is a gop scare tactic.  It is a medicial proceedure that is between the woman and her DOCTOR, not the woman and the GOP.

If you are against abortion don't have one.

 



The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)


[ Parent ]
I'm a woman who has had a baby. (1.00 / 2)

And I'm not stupid enough to believe that there is a medical reason to have an abortion at eight months.  I'm also well aware of the risks involved in pregnancy and childbirth and induction.

Is there a medical reason to have a baby taken early?  Absolutely!  It happens quite often.

Is there a medical reason to kill the child after he is taken early as opposed to putting him in an incubator?  Absolutely not.

Give me an example of one reason why you would need to have dilation and extraction (another term for partial birth abortion) performed as opposed to merely having a child taken before due date and placed in an incubator.  Nobody is arguing that the woman be forced to keep the child.

Dilation and extraction involves the use of induction to cause the mother to go into premature labor.  Now let's say you have a woman experiencing hypertension-- a legitimate reason why a woman cannot carry a child to term.  The very last thing that most obstetricians are going to recommend is giving a woman with already high blood pressure a large dose of pitosin because it's going to make the problem worse.  Rather, if you're having an induction performed, the obstetrician will likely proceed with a cesarean section should the woman's blood pressure get too high.

I suppose if a woman decides that she doesn't want to carry a baby that late in the pregnancy, then you can argue that it's her body.  But once that child leaves her body, there is no rational reason as to why that child needs to forced die when he can live outside her womb-- particularly if she's not going to be forced to keep the child.


[ Parent ]
I don't know WTF you are talking about. (2.00 / 2)
What evidence do you have women are having, and Doctors are performing late term terminations just because? 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)


[ Parent ]
That wasn't what I asked for. (1.00 / 1)
I asked for a reason other than "just because" to have a partial birth abortion.
[ Parent ]
I have to disagree on that. (4.00 / 3)

When President Clinton vetoed the ban on late-term abortions (the term "partial birth" is a GOP construct, not a medical term), he had women standing by him who had undergone the procedures because they were medically necessary.  One woman appeared on 60 Minutes and told her story. 

I don't remember her name or the circumstances except that she was Catholic and had opposed abortion - until the doctor told her that her very, very wanted child was a danger to her health and maybe her life.

Women who have late term abortions aren't just driving past a clinic and think: "damn, my clothes are getting tight.  Think I'll wheel into the parking lot and get an abortion."

First of all, they're very expensive and very few doctors perform them.  Second, they much more dangerous for the woman than a first trimester abortion.  They're only done when the danger of continuing the pregnancy outweighs the risk of the procedure.

And you hav to think that any woman who goes through 7-8 months of pregnancy does WANT the baby.  It's not a snap decision.

Check out this link where one woman shares her story of finding out she was carrying an anencephalic baby:

Thirteen years ago I was married, living in a midsize southern town and caring for my then-3-year-old daughter. We attended church each Sunday, and I taught Sunday school and sang in the choir. I was thrilled when I learned that I was expecting a second child, and we announced the news to family and friends.

[...]

“You know, I thought about this yesterday after the first scan,” I told him. “I realize that there is probably something wrong with our baby, but whatever it is, I plan to deal with it.”

He looked down at his desk blotter and then said in a very soft voice, “There will be no baby, Lynda. This baby is going to die.”

[...]

By the time we had gone through it all, I finally understood. The child I carried remained alive only because of his connection to me. For all practical purposes, I was serving as a life support system and, as soon as that system was removed, he would die.

Several days passed while my family debated the decision on whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. In the interim the doctor from the university hospital took my case before a state medical board for permission. Because the term of my pregnancy was well outside the state’s legal limits for abortion, a special ruling had to be made. The doctor explained that receiving such approval would not require me to go through with terminating if I decided not to do so, but would save time if I decided that was the route I wished to take.

Isn't that special?  Having to appeal to the state for permission to make a medical decision with your doctor.  And, the story continues, having the state turn you down - telling you to continue a pregnancy carrying a child who would die at birth.

And here's her final question:

“If your loved one was placed on life support and attending physicians said there was no chance of life continuing without the machines, who do you want to make the decision as to when and if life support is removed?”

Now, Bill Frist may be able to diagnose patients by looking at a video, but is that what we want?  Medical decisions made by state legislatures?  Holy Cow, I wouldn't trust many members of the Alabama Legislature to get a fast food order right!

 



There are no "safe" Republican districts. You can run but you can't hide.  - Rahm Emmanuel


[ Parent ]
Here, I found another link (4.00 / 3)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/abortion_veto_4-10.html

My name is Mary Dorothy Line.  My husband, 
Bill, and I are honored to be here today to speak for the many women 
and families who have also come forward to tell their stories in 
opposition to this terrible legislation.  

	     Last April we were overjoyed to find out that I was 
pregnant with our first child.  Nineteen weeks into my pregnancy, an 
ultrasound indicated that there was something wrong with our baby.  
The doctor diagnosed a condition called hydrocephalus.  Every 
person's head contains fluid to protect and cushion the brain.  But 
if there is too much fluid, the brain cannot develop.  

	     As practicing Catholics, when we have problems and 
worries, we turn to prayer.  As we waited to find our more from the 
doctors, our whole family prayed together.  My husband and I were 
very scared, but we are strong people and believe that God would not 
give us a problem if we couldn't handle it.  This was our baby.  
Everything would be fine.  We never thought about abortion.


	     But the diagnosis was as bad as it could be.  Our little 
boy had a very advanced textbook case of hydrocephaly.  All the 
doctors told us there was no hope.  We asked about in utero surgery, 
about shunts to remove the fluid, but there was absolutely nothing we 
could do.  I cannot express the pain we still feel.  This was our 

precious little baby, and he was being taken from us before we even 
had him.

	     This was not our choice, for not only was our son going 
to die, but the complications of the pregnancy put my health in 
danger, as well.  If I carried to term, he might die in utero, and 
the resulting toxins could cause a hemorrhage and possibly a 
hysterectomy.  The hydrocephaly also meant that a natural labor 
risked rupturing my cervix and my uterus.  
	     
	     Several specialists recommended that we terminate the 
pregnancy.  I thank God every day that I had this safe medical option 
available to me, especially now that I am pregnant again and 
expecting a baby in September.

There are other stories but this quote was very poignant:  

MRS. WATTS:  Hi, my name is Tammy Watts.  I live in 
Tempe, Arizona.  I simply told our dear President that my story is 
not so different from everyone else's.  I have the heartache, I have 
the same tragic story.  I have the loss in my heart, as does my 
husband and the rest of my family and friends.

	     The fact is this:  I would have given my life and traded 
placed with my daughter, Mackenzie.  And in fact, with my pastor, 
that is exactly what I prayed for for the three days we tried 
desperately to find something that could cure her.  You simply look 
for a magic wand and it's not there.  
	     
	     I am so thankful to our doctors, who were able to 
perform this very safe medical procedure, save our health, save our 
families.  And I am particularly thankful to our President, without 
whom we would not be here.  And he is a true blessing in all of our 
lives.

 



There are no "safe" Republican districts. You can run but you can't hide.  - Rahm Emmanuel


[ Parent ]
Here is another link (2.50 / 2)

relating to late term abortions and the deadly consequences of gop spin an misinformation;

WICHITA, Kan. — George Tiller, one of only a few doctors in the nation who performed abortions late in pregnancy, was shot to death here Sunday in the foyer of his longtime church as he handed out the church bulletin.

More links.

 



The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)


[ Parent ]
Again... (2.50 / 2)

WTF does that have to do with answering my question? Thankfully countrycat did your job for you.

However, that being said, while it was shown there might be a good reasons that parents might wish to terminate a pregnancy due to birth defects, there is still no medical reason why a woman would need to have an abortion for a child that could survive outside the womb as opposed to simply delivering early.  You've yet to show me how that in particular is "misinformation" or even "GOP spin."  All you did was tell me that a doctor got shot and killed-- something I'm well aware of and do not under any circumstances endorse.


[ Parent ]
THANK YOU (3.25 / 4)

That actually answered my question as to a valid reason why such a procedure might be necessary.

I admit that I hadn't considered a birth defect as a reason why a woman might want to have that done.  And yes, a procedure like dilation and extraction (which is the medical term for "partial birth abortion") would keep an intact baby that parents might wish to mourn in such a situation.

I stand corrected.

However, I still stand by my previous statement that there is no reason for the woman's health that she would need to have an abortion as opposed to simply delivering her child early-- as is typically done for women with health problems so late in a pregnancy.


[ Parent ]
I'm not a doctor (4.00 / 3)

nor do I play one on TV  :-)

So I can't address the issue that there is NEVER a medical reason for a woman's health for a late term abortion.  But the stories of the women who did go through them are enough to convince me that banning them entirely is a mistake.

I have a daughter and the thought of the proceducre creeps me out a more than a little bit too.  But I'm never going to say it's NEVER justified because I don't have the medical training to say that and never know what the future holds - either for me or my daughter or for other women faced with a terrible, terrible set of options.



There are no "safe" Republican districts. You can run but you can't hide.  - Rahm Emmanuel


[ Parent ]
And that's where I agreed with you. (3.25 / 4)

Medically necessary, no.

But you did make a compelling argument as to why it shouldn't be banned outright.  Rare, yes, and perhaps there's some way that we could address that by say passing restrictions on how and when it could be used-- and for that matter it might be useful for those situations to consider how it might be covered by health insurers and also to consider that given the circumstances it should be performed in a proper hospital setting.

And of course, that being said, one of the things that I've always found was a good argument for abortion to not be banned is the conditions of certain clinics.  It's the main reason why I'm personally pro-life but politically pro-choice.


[ Parent ]
when people can find common ground (4.00 / 2)
on one issue - or even agree to disagree on Issue A but work together on Issue B - I think that's a great thing and one of the reasons we work so hard to make LIA a forum for discussion.

There are no "safe" Republican districts. You can run but you can't hide.  - Rahm Emmanuel


[ Parent ]
Hence... (3.00 / 3)

The reason I started this discussion in the first place.

I'll admit that I use snark, dry humor, and sarcasm to get my point across, but I was genuinely hoping for a good answer to my query.  Perhaps at some point, that will be fulfilled. 


[ Parent ]
Davis was certainly the more liberal candidate (4.00 / 3)

Sparks managed to redefine liberal as pro-health care reform and pro-legalized gambling -- nothing else.

Davis was and is the most liberal member of the Alabama delegation.  He was also honest and his opponents managed to turn that around and paint him as a dishonest representative.

It was a masterful example of effectively undermining the strengths of a candidate.  The Davis team apparently did not see either of those things coming -- or maybe were just unable to effectively counter them.



Work harder and work smarter!
[ Parent ]
Davis was the one that said (1.00 / 2)
Sparks was the choice of liberal activists. Kind of ironic based on your assessment
[ Parent ]
He wasn't pro-HCR, and best I can tell, he's not pro-gambling. (3.00 / 3)
He's pro-electronic bing.  He's pro-education lottery.  But I can't seem to pin down the pro-gambling (as a whole) thing.  And he's definitely given some conflicting statements on HCR.
[ Parent ]
Davis' camp problem was (4.00 / 1)
They were mostly non-Alabamians running the show.  I knew the majority of the people in the Davis camp and they weren't exactly on the 411 of Alabama politics at all.  I remember Darrel Perkins, whom was an advisor of the campaign, saying something along the lines of how underserved he was to the campaign when he knew more than the majority in the tight circle about the state's politics.  If Davis has Perkins as his campaign manager instead there would have been a more competitive final stretch of the race...

"Hypocrites are those whom pick and choose prejudices while giving accolades for their own..."

"It is what it is."  

http://blkindependent.blogspot...

[ Parent ]
Bentley well might win IF (4.00 / 4)

the Sparks campaign makes it all about why Bentely is bad and doesn't offer a positive alternative.  I know Sparks has pledged a positive campaign, but he made the same pledge in the primary and that turned out to be a lie.

I thought all along that Byrne would be the easier candidate for Sparks to beat because there's a stronger contrast between the two - physically, educationally, on issues, and geographically.

Bentley is much farther to the right than most people think and he hid it well in the primary.  He ran as the nice, grandfatherly guy and not the abortion-banning wingnut.  The challenge in the general is to illuminate those issues and offer an alternative.  That will mean Sparks has to talk about something other than gambling.

And for heaven's sakes, I sure sure hope that someone in his campaign learns to use spell check before sending out press releases.  Because those from the primary were embarrassingly bad - not only with the content but with the spelling and grammar errors.



There are no "safe" Republican districts. You can run but you can't hide.  - Rahm Emmanuel


I would settle for a clear and concise message. (3.25 / 4)

As long as he can get his message straight and convince me that I can trust him and that he's capable of running a competent campaign and that he's not another Parker Griffith, I think I could hold my nose and vote for Sparks.


[ Parent ]
You really think... (0.00 / 0)
...that highlighting Bentley's position on abortion is going to help Sparks?  You do remember that this is Alabama, right?!  I dare the Sparks camp to run ads claiming Bentley is too pro-life.
[ Parent ]
Very valid point (4.00 / 3)

This is Alabama, and they better think twice if anybody whom is undecided at this point will buy that type of ad.  It would be in their best interest to talk about ethics reform and a broader economic development platform beyond gambling. 

I would say constitutional reform, but we see that Sparks is against that (since he is in bed with ALFA) that would be pointless...

 



"Hypocrites are those whom pick and choose prejudices while giving accolades for their own..."

"It is what it is."  

http://blkindependent.blogspot...

[ Parent ]
Constitutional reform... (4.00 / 4)
That's quite possibly the most progressive thing that we could hope for in this state.  It's a shame that Ron Sparks seems to be so against it.
[ Parent ]
It's simple (2.33 / 3)
You shouldn't vote for Sparks.  Period.  He is trying to be Don Siegelman 2.0 - and we all see how that worked out.  Usually the new versions are better than the old ones, but that isn't the case here.  Despite his faults, Siegelman is at least smart and (supposedly) has a charming personality.
Have to agree with you on Siegelman. (4.00 / 1)

"Despite his faults, Siegelman is at least smart and (supposedly) has a charming personality."

He never gave the impression that he was sloppy or stupid or even waffle-y that I can remember.  That being said, the whole not being aware that bribery is bribery thing isn't exactly a plus for him in my book.

But my problem has never been with legalizing gambling.  I think it should be legalized.  There's no real reason we should be wasting government resources on bingo raids.  The other thing that bothers me about both Siegelman and Sparks, though, is that neither one ever really necessarily stated that they wanted to legalize gambling as a whole.  Rather, they support legalizing an education lottery or legalizing bingo.  That's something that to me raised a little bit of a red flag.  Why not just legalize all of it and create a gambling commission while at the same time bringing in more competition?

It smells of merely legalizing it for the purposes of certain interests-- ones that aren't necessarily beneficial to the state.  I don't want just another loophole.


[ Parent ]
That's because they are in bed with the same Mississippi interests as Riley (4.00 / 1)

That has been a red flag to me as well.  If you are going to talk about gambling then be about gambling.  Not this half-witted electronic bingo, watered down crap that has been going on here for a decade and half.  I mean full-line, class III table games with blackjack, craps, and slot machines the rewards you money. 

This would allow the creation of actual full entertainment resorts like those seen in Tunica, Philadelphia, and Gulfport-Biloxi.   Instead of those class II pseudo-resorts they have in Wetumpka and Atmore.



"Hypocrites are those whom pick and choose prejudices while giving accolades for their own..."

"It is what it is."  

http://blkindependent.blogspot...

[ Parent ]
If they were to legalize card tables... (3.50 / 2)
I could guarantee you I'd spend some money on it.  I won't drive across state lines for blackjack, but I do love some Texas holdem and electronic poker, and if I could do it nearby, that would be something to spend a few bucks on occasionally.
[ Parent ]
I disagree (0.00 / 0)
There are the Mississippi gambling interests -- and Riley is clearly in bed with them.  Then there are the Alabama gambling interests -- Milton McGregor and the Poarch Band of the Creek Tribe -- and they are the entities attempting to exercise influence on Alabama political interests other than Riley.

Work harder and work smarter!
[ Parent ]
What's wrong with him just being a Democrat? (4.00 / 3)

 Just being a Democrat covers a lot of ground. Climate, energy, healthcare, how much oversight on the Military-Industrial Complex are just a few issues that Democrats and Republicans differ greatly on.

 As for Bentley and his "I will not take a salary unless I deliver" is an old tactic that has never produced good results. Parker Griffith never took a salary as an elected official. (and we all know how that turned out) Former Huntsville Mayor Loretta Spencer never took a salary. (She did however home take the plaque given to the city of Huntsville by New York as a thanks for sending our brave firefighters to help with the 9-11 cleanup)

 I will admit that Sparks plan for gambling will not help very much. Nobody is going to come from Mississippi, Florida, Georgia or Tennessee to gamble in Alabama because they can do that at home. I hope he has more to offer.



The 2011 surface temperatures (World Temperature) was 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average. This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. - N.O.A.A.
It's not that there's anything wrong with those positions... (2.50 / 4)

It's more that he hasn't been clear on those positions.

Take for example that interview with Glenn Beck.  Where on earth would you think he stands on energy legislation after that one?  And he seemed to support HCR when Davis voted against it, but just a month or so earlier he was talking about how he hated the bill-- and he's yet to state whether or not he'd have voted for the bill that Davis voted against.

My personal political stance is conservative from a mostly Libertarian (big L) viewpoint.  That means that folks like Brian would see me as more liberal because I support things like gay marriage, legalizing drugs and prostitution, and legalizing gambling because I don't think that these moral decisions are any of the government's business.  Normally I wouldn't have supported additional government services like HCR, but I came to support it because I believe that 1. if done correctly it can save the taxpayers money and 2. I believe that one of those limited government powers should be to protect consumers from harm.

That being said...  My views are not typical of the average Alabama voter. 


[ Parent ]
I'm down with a lot of your positions. (4.00 / 1)

And I suspect we've given them a lot of thought, not just pulled them out of the air, made up facts, or used gossip as sources as many "uninformed" voters might do.....   grin!!

not meant as a slap to you Dragontide - inside joke  :-)



There are no "safe" Republican districts. You can run but you can't hide.  - Rahm Emmanuel


[ Parent ]
Sparks would do better by adopting climate politics (4.00 / 3)

 Sparks was against cap & trade. He obviously does not understand how climate change works. Switching to alt energy will not be cheap. But not doing it will cost hundreds of times more. Republicans candidates just don't want to hear it because they take more oil & coal money that Democrats.It is an issue where we are right and they are wrong. But it does us no good to not get the word out.

 As a voter, I ask every politician I meet to watch the film "Earth 2100" so they will understand what's going on.

 
 I have never met Sparks. If anyone does meet him, please relay my message. Climate change affects everything. (food, water, weather, immigration, economy, health, insects and can even cause war. (China & India might have a knockdown, dragout water war someday)
 
 I think drugs will soon be legal. The Mexican drug lords don't take money anymore. Just guns. We can't have that. The only way I can think of to stop it is legal drugs in the U.S.


The 2011 surface temperatures (World Temperature) was 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average. This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. - N.O.A.A.
[ Parent ]
I'm not much of a proponent of cap and trade, myself. (3.00 / 3)

Even when it was a Republican idea, I thought it was horrible.  It just doesn't seem to do much in the way of accomplishing anything.

That being said, I don't know enough about our current technologies to come up with a better idea on my own.  Perhaps a government push toward better technology and then making that technology standard (and required) as it becomes affordable for companies.  For starters, I know that our fuel economy standards are obsolete compared to other countries.  And solar panels are becoming much cheaper and less bulky.  Seems like encouraging these new technologies would be a good way to stimulate the job market and economy-- particularly since it would be profitable in the long run and not merely a government job.


[ Parent ]
We are only one country (4.00 / 2)

 Of course cap & trade can't stop global warming. We have to have China and India on board. But they are not going to do anything tangible if we don't.

 The new solar panels used to cost $400.00. Now they are now down to 50 bucks. A solar plane can stay aloft for 24 hours. (daylight or dark) The electric car was invented over 100 years ago. Windmills are older than that. Everything we need has already been invented.

 And how the greenhouse gasses warm the earth just happened in the past few months. (we got a heat spike in the late 90s and another one in the spring of 2010) They are in perfect sync with the strength of the El-Ninos that preceded them. (yes, the heat for global warming comes natural from El-Nino. The unnatural part is how the gasses trap that heat)



The 2011 surface temperatures (World Temperature) was 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average. This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. - N.O.A.A.
[ Parent ]
Not referring so much to global warming... (2.50 / 2)
I'm also referring to reduction of use of fossil fuels and instead using cleaner fuels.  We don't have to have other countries on board to do our part.  If we can make it more profitable (or cheaper) to be more efficient or to use something else, it should be easy to get others on board.
[ Parent ]
If your talking "Cheaper" then you have to factor in global warming. (4.00 / 2)

 If your not factoring in all the multi-billion dollar band-aids we will need to clean up after stronger hurricanes & tornadoes, more severe droughts and rise in disease that thrives on warmer temperatures and the food crops that will be destroyed by unnatural insect migrations....then your just plain kidding yourself.

 We don't have to be the first. We just need all the big industry countries to come to a consensus of what to do and how to go about doing it.

 We just had our first heat spike in 13 years. The world temperature will not go below one full degree above the average for a minimum of 30 years and most likely for the rest of all our lives. (Elvis has left the building) The damage that will cause will probably be enough to convince the world to come to an iron clad agreement. 



The 2011 surface temperatures (World Temperature) was 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average. This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. - N.O.A.A.
[ Parent ]
Problem with factoring those in... (2.50 / 2)

Typically, those costs are covered by the government and taxpayers.

I'm referring more to appealing to the sense of greed of corporations to get things done.  If it's not in their monetary interest, they won't be on board; however, if you can make it worth their while, you're going to be more likely to see results.


[ Parent ]
That is going to be a problem (0.00 / 0)

 With oil came big money. That will not be the case with green energy. Some money. But no stories about a man named Jed this time. Although some of the industry giants could turn a pretty penny with big enough investments. If someone could just make a solar kit for the home, it would sell like hotcakes around the world. (one electric bill every 20 years at the cost of what 1-5 years worth of electricy costs now)

 But it is a problem that our elected officials are most likely going to have to fix. From your local mayor, all the way up to the president. Each town and state is eventually going to be ordered to reduce their carbon footprint. Maybe wind turbines can work in city X while hydro or solar can work in city Y.

 We need candidates that will strive to get investors to build green products in their city/state. To convince them that will make an honest dollar, while at the same time, giving them their best chance of keeping what they have. Giving all of us our best chance. The experts say we have to make radical changes, worldwide, this decade, to avoid crossing the point of no return. 

 There is a problem with taxpayers footing the bill for runaway global warming damage. We couldn't possibly afford it. Even if taxes were raised to 99%. Mass human migrations (brought about by drought turning into desert) alone would break the bank. Imagine half of the Southwest U.S. and Mexico moving to this side of the Mississippi River. (the other half would go to Canada) How much is that gonna cost? It happens when the mountain glaciers that feed the rivers are gone. 90% of the world's mountain glaciers are are melting at alarming rates. And the ones that feed the rivers out west will be gone before the ones in the east. Glacier National Park will soon be glacier free. 



The 2011 surface temperatures (World Temperature) was 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average. This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. - N.O.A.A.
[ Parent ]
I appreciate your devotion to the issue Dragontide (4.00 / 3)
but isn't that more of a Federal issue than a state one. Exactly what position (or proposals) on climate change would you have a candidate for Governor of Alabama take?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

[ Parent ]
Alabama uses coal to provide 70% of our electricity (4.00 / 3)

 Let's start cutting that number now instead of putting it off till the last minute.

 There are a lot of great minds out at Research Park in Huntsville and all over Alabama. Let's put together a few green think tanks which could be followed by green maufacturing. (jobs with a future that would help the rest of the planet have a future)

 When those high speed railways get underway, lets do all we can to get one rolling through where the skies are blue.

 Global warming is an issue where Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong. (most Republicans are skeptics just because Al Gore was a Democrat) We're under attack by the GOP & the tea party. Why leave one of our best weapons in the vault?

 



The 2011 surface temperatures (World Temperature) was 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average. This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. - N.O.A.A.
[ Parent ]
Very vague (4.00 / 1)

I was seeking more specific proposals you want a state governor to espouse that can be achieved regardless of what the Feds do?

BTW didn't the repubs propose cap and trade first?



All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

[ Parent ]
It's getting obvious what the feds are going to do (4.00 / 1)

 Best to start doing it now and get it out of the way.

 The repubs are in "Drill Baby STILL" mode right now. Every president from Johnson to Obama has sided somewhat with green energy. 



The 2011 surface temperatures (World Temperature) was 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average. This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. - N.O.A.A.
[ Parent ]
It should cover a lot of ground. (4.00 / 2)

But don't expect a lot of help from Sparks on climate change.  He was making fun of the whole issue last summer on Glenn Beck's show.  It was painful to watch.

Danny at the Political Parlor posted the video:

http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2009/06/13/ron-sparks-on-glenn-beck/

That and the flip-flop on extending unemployment benefits (against it here and in favor here), health care, and taking a stand against stiffer penalties for cockfighting in Alabama worried me then and worry me now. I suspect he'll be a good advocate for alternative fuels and I wish he'd discuss that more.

Now, it's quite possible that Sparks is the best we can hope for as Alabama Democrats - but I'm not willing to set the bar that low this early and let him off the hook.

Of course, who knows what nutty ideas Bentley will come up with between now and November?

 



There are no "safe" Republican districts. You can run but you can't hide.  - Rahm Emmanuel


[ Parent ]
hah! (4.00 / 2)

"Of course, who knows what nutty ideas Bentley will come up with between now and November?"

Now there's a true statement if I ever heard one! 


[ Parent ]
The Sparks Plan for Gambling wont work? (4.00 / 2)

Can you elaborate as to why you think that?  The states that have the lottery and gambling are afforded a lot of opportunities states without don't have.  Legalizing gaming in Alabama isn't totally about attracting out of state visitors to come, as much as its about keeping Alabama money in Alabama.  You'd be amazed at how many folks going to Biloxi and other regional gaming centers are from Alabama.

I see gaming as a Stupidity Tax, if you are stupid enough to gamble your money away, I'll support the opportunity for you to have that right and I'll be happy to tax the hell out of earnings from the casino and you if you're lucky.  Will I go to an Alabama casino?  Probably not, not unless they have poker rooms.  Will I buy a lotto ticket?  Yeah, when the jackpot is over $50 Million.  Taxing gaming and allowing a lottery has the potential to bring in MILLIONS of dollars to our education and health care coffers. 



9.13, 4.82, Just left of Gandhi.
[ Parent ]
We wont attract any out of state business with gambling (4.00 / 3)

 They have gambling in Florida, Georiga, Mississippi and Tennessee. Why bother to come here if all you want to do is gamble? It does make a little money for the state by keeping Alabama gamblers here and I'm all for that because every little bit helps these days. But I hope Sparks does not make the claim that it is a fix-all plan. He should pick one project for gambling money to go to. (More books & equipment for students. Reducing teacher pink slips. Or something along those lines) Then say how he will deal with other issues.

  Bentley does not have any solid plans. Just a consolation prize of minus one governors salary added to the kitty if when he fails. (which would last the state what?... Five minutes?) Bentley can be beat because if Bentley becomes governor, he will be in way over his head. I think even Bentley knows that. Sparks could win by simply visiting us right here at LiA and reading the words of all the great minds here.



The 2011 surface temperatures (World Temperature) was 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average. This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. - N.O.A.A.
[ Parent ]
Even in the states that have these... (2.50 / 2)
It's taken years for them to build up enough trust (the money kind) to see any significant benefit from it.  If the people of Alabama vote to legalize gambling in 2011, you will not see kids with scholarships in 2012.
[ Parent ]
If the scholarships are to go to every child who earns a HS diploma ... (4.00 / 2)
They will necessarily be small.  So small that it could be reasonably termed "bait and switch."  I understand that Sparks doesn't want to leave anyone out, but by failing to set priorities on who deserves a scholarship, he risks watering them down to the point they are meaningless as far as encouraging young Alabamians to seek a higher education.

Work harder and work smarter!
[ Parent ]
Thank you! (4.00 / 4)

You articulated what I've been thinkinging for the last week. I don't agree with Bentley on many (if any) issues, but he at least seems intelligent and articulate, which I truly can't say of Ron Sparks. I'm definitely a liberal, but not a Democrat, certainly not an Alabama Democrat. I have yet to see a candidate of either party who agrees with me on social issues; Terri Sewell is pro-choice, thankfully, but I don't live in her district!

 

I'm going to find it very hard to vote for Sparks, as I think most of his campaign ideas are things the voters rejected when Siegelman was governor. I'd hoped Byrne would get the Republican nomination, as he was more moderate. I can't remember an election I haven't voted in over the past twelve years since I moved back to Alabama, but I have no idea who I'll vote for in the governor's race right now -- and it's infuriating that Sparks supporters' reply to you is that we moderates are "uniformed" voters.


I like Teri Sewell, too. (4.00 / 1)
So far...  Just wanted to get that out there.
[ Parent ]
Why Should You Continue To Post On LiA? (2.40 / 5)

That's probably what you should have titled your diary.  If you need someone else to convince you why you should vote for the Democratic nominee, then you're probably not going vote for them anyways.  

As far as posts from Sparks supporters here on LiA, they are not indicative of the Democratic Party as a whole, hell, the ADP leadership is not indicative of the party membership.  If you are going to allow individuals who have no connection or a tenuous one at best with the Sparks campaign, then well, there is no reaching you. 

I come from a state where once the caucuses and primaries are over, most people fall in line to vote for the eventual nominee.  "Independents" don't even get the opportunity to participate in the process, only in the general election.  All this haranguing and hand wringing about the lesser of two evils is just plain stupid.  I said it to another poster, why don't you go ahead and cut your foot off to spite your leg?  That's the logic that you are using in your decision process.  You acknowledge that Bentley scares the hell out of you.  SO DONT VOTE FOR HIM.  But god, please god, don't fail to vote.  The blame for the poor state of affairs in this state rests a good deal with the Republican Party.  Yeah we have some useless and criminal Democrats, but they pose much less of a threat to Middle/Working Class joes like you and me.

So, if you want to throw your vote towards a party that believes in nothing, has no ideas other than to obstruct true progress, then go ahead vote against your best interests and go Republican.  However, if there is a bone in your body that believes that its the Working/Middle Class that drives this state and this country, that believes that education is a right and not a privilege, that  stands for true progress, vote for Ron Sparks and other Democrats in November.



9.13, 4.82, Just left of Gandhi.
Archangelsk, you said it all. Amen. (2.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
almoderate should continue to post (4.00 / 6)

here at LIA because it's part of a healthy and constructive debate if we hear from people from all sides of an issue.

That doesn't mean that anyone is free anytime to come and do nothing but start pie fights of engage in pointless back and forth silliness.

But it's true that for Alabama Democratic candidates to win they have to appeal outside the hard base of the party that votes a straight ticket (I have been one of those straight-ticket voters for years).  That doesn't mean candidates should toss aside their core values just to get elected and it doesn't mean they should pander.   But framing issues is important and something that the Democratic Party as whole has not been great at overall.

So listening to people who aren't as liberal or progressive as we like but who come here to respectfully share their ideas, opinions, and who offer advice on how to win their votes is good for the community as a whole, I think.

I know that debating with people who disagree with me helps me sharpen my arguements because the best discussions teach me something and help me find holes in my thinking.

One of my favorite lines from any play is from "Inherit the Wind."  The Clarence Darrow-like character is talking to the William Jennings Bryan-like character and WJB says in frustration:

"I don't think about things that I don't think about!"

and CD replies:

"Do you ever think about the things that you do think about?"

Talking on the blog with almoderate, Brian, Old Prosecutor, and others helps me do that: to think about the things I think about.

And maybe it helps them do the same.

 



There are no "safe" Republican districts. You can run but you can't hide.  - Rahm Emmanuel


[ Parent ]
I understand... (2.71 / 7)

where you are coming from.  That said, its MHO, that exercises like these, are pointless in the long run.  I can't tell you how many times I've stood on the doorstep of some obstinate, smart-assed "independent" or attempted to talk to a "conservative"/"Republican" and had the same question posed to me.  It's futile, almoderate is not a whole lot better than DaleJackson.  (and im sure someone will quip "archangelsk, you're no better than redeye).  And I don't agree that listening to dissenting voices, respectful or not, is necessary, especially if those dissenting voices are conservative.  It is conservative philosophy and politics that has gotten us where we are today, and I don't think that's a good thing.

I am of this position.  If you are a Democrat, you vote Democrat.  This whole ticket splitting business might have been good 30-40 years ago when Republicans and Conservatives were actually logical human beings, but now, with the stakes so high and the sheer bat-shit craziness of conservatives in general, you don't cross the damn line.  Moreover, you don't progress forward very easily by moving backwards, and thats what you get when you vote Republican, backwardsness, stagnation.  I don't care if my brother was running for President, he's a Republican and I'm a Democrat, I would never vote for him.

What does this mean?  It means that we as Democrats and Progressives need to do a better job picking our candidates for elected office.  I am sure that someone can point to some point in the careers of Parker Griffith, Bradley Byrne and Richard Shelby that showed these guys were really Republicans before they were elected as Democrats.  If this means that as party members and elected officials we all need to have some sort of loyalty oath, then so be it.    

We've said it time and time again, this is a progressive and liberal blog, myself and the rest of the LiA'ers who choose to support Democratic candidates shouldn't have to be denigrated or abused because we choose unwavering loyalty to the party that is more progressive than the other choice we have.



9.13, 4.82, Just left of Gandhi.
[ Parent ]
Bless you arcangelsk. (2.25 / 4)

Gold Hammer award to you too.

And I don't agree that listening to dissenting voices, respectful or not, is necessary, especially if those dissenting voices are conservative.  It is conservative philosophy and politics that has gotten us where we are today, and I don't think that's a good thing.  BAM!

Moreover, you don't progress forward very easily by moving backwards, and thats what you get when you vote Republican, backwardsness, stagnation.  I don't care if my brother was running for President, he's a Republican and I'm a Democrat, I would never vote for him.  BAM!

If this means that as party members and elected officials we all need to have some sort of loyalty oath, then so be it.    BAM!

We've said it time and time again, this is a progressive and liberal blog, myself and the rest of the LiA'ers who choose to support Democratic candidates shouldn't have to be denigrated or abused because we choose unwavering loyalty to the party that is more progressive than the other choice we have.  BAM!

You are no better than Redeye and that's a good thing. :) :)  



The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)


[ Parent ]
Yes, Bentley scares me. (2.60 / 5)

But as I stated...  Ron Sparks currently scares me more.  Would you vote for Parker Griffith again if he came back to the Democrats-- even if his practices remained the same-- just because he was the Dem candidate?  What if his opponent was someone that you knew would vote for fair pay, to repeal DADT, for gay marriage-- even if that opponent was a Republican?  How would the failure to vote for the Republican in comparison not be moving backwards?

How is voting for a bad candidate-- even if that candidate is a Democrat-- not moving backwards?  How is hurting your party by putting out a candidate less likely to appeal to a wider base (and therefore less likely to get elected) not moving backwards?   How is the failure to get even a little bit of progress because you want all progress right now not moving backwards?

The way I see it, I'm not your problem.  I'm trying to help you so that you can get some things done and eventually get more things done, and you just flat out told me that you don't want that.  As a matter of fact, you just defined my my viewpoint as someone who is not far left but still very willing and very likely and eager to vote for a Democrat as being "denigrated or abused."

I want to vote for a Democrat.  You're telling me that you don't want me to.  How is that moving you forward in any way?  How has that strategy been working out for you in Alabama so far?  Tell me again about this huge recent progressive move forward in this state.


[ Parent ]
Headline: Left in Alabama poster Almoderate saves Alabama Dems (1.75 / 4)

Is that what you want to see? 

The thing is almoderate, we need to do better in the primaries vetting who are going to be the good Democrats and who aren't.  If we do our jobs as informed voters, then people like Parker Griffith are irrelevant because they arent going to make it past the primary.

You know what scares me?  Republicans in power. That's because recent experience has shown me that the Republican party does not have my, or any one else who is in the middle class for that, best interests as a part of their agenda.  They are for the capitalist and business class, they are for racists, they are for regressive individuals who want freedoms and rights to be able to have guns and freedoms and rights for foetuses, but don't want freedoms and rights for middle/working class individuals.

Evidently you didn't read my post in its entirety, otherwise you wouldnt have asked me your "what if?".  Any Democrat in my book is going to be better than the most "moderate" of Republican. 

Moderates or independents are fence sitters, opportunists, you don't have any real values or philosophies except those that are immediately convenient for you. Moderates and independents think only in the immediate short term all the while failing to see that bigger and long term picture.  What I don't like are moderates and independents coming on LiA playing "devils advocate" while trying to have things both ways.  It doesn't work that way.  If you want to dictate the platform, man (or woman) up and become a party member and participate in the party and help us make the party better.

The party as a whole needs to do a better job or recruiting and supporting good candidates.  Unfortunately the society we live in has done a good job of scaring away plenty of qualified and "good" people from running for public office.  In my party we would have closed primaries, in my party we would have caucuses and conventions leading up to the primaries in order to ensure that the best candidates are making the ballot.  In my party, you almoderate, would be irrelevant until October.

The Alabama Democratic Party doesn't need you a fencesitter, telling it how to run itself.  Left in Alabama doesn't need you second guessing the very people who are knocking on doors, doing the leg work to get the good candidates elected.

If you "want" to vote Democrat, vote Democrat.  Someone once said "if you don't stand for anything, you'll fall for everything."  Being "moderate" doesnt stand for anyone or anything.  

Oh, btw, thank you for showing your true colors and pettiness by marking my posts down, simply for the fact that I don't agree with you or appreciate you and your opinions like others on this site do.  You've proven yourself no better than the common GOP troll. 

 



9.13, 4.82, Just left of Gandhi.
[ Parent ]
Ummm... (3.40 / 5)

I take offense to the part of opportunist in reference to independents.  The fact you want to had the gall to describe independents as opportunists when some of us have done just as much as you when it comes to knocking on doors, calling homes, and being involved candidates' campaigns as yourself is very myopic if not downright insulting. 

Some of individuals, such as myself, actually work extensively for and affiliated is the Democratic National Convention, but not for the Alabama Democratic Party because of the overt divisiveness, lack of integrity, void of practicality, and bizarre actions of the state organization.  All independents aren't the same, but I know I stand with socially progressive candidates (which have all been Democrats), period.

Last time I remember the DNC is suppose to be a 'giant tent', not some selective group that will shut out those whom challenge the issues.  However, it seems the ADP isn't that at all, hence why I don't entertain them.  It's also one of the reasons why ironically the DSCC or DCCC seems to always leave most Alabama candidates hanging because the seem to caught that drift about the lack of inclusiveness when it comes to the ADP.  

IMO, some candidates in like Ron Sparks aren't deserving of anything besides being left to his own devices because his inconsistencies displays the lack of integrity, professionalism, authenticity, and solidarity towards being anything remotely progressive.  In other words, color me unimpressed with him...

The fact that you described pretty much told others in more ways than one "STFU, your opinion isn't wanted" will just further contribute to why the ADP has a problem attracting young, vibrant,  educated talent like myself. Some of us have seen and experienced the acrimony and trite actions of the ADP, but still want to be very actively involved in their community and fight for progress in their own way.  The fact that you are attempt to pit those of us in a corner "barking and yelling choose a group" is asking for trouble via vastly increasing the level of ambivalence in Alabama if turning progressive allies into enemies because of the lack of tactical engagement . You can better attract us with honey rather than vinegar...

 

If you have a problem with my lack of regard for affiliating with the ADP then you have to build a bridge and get over it because you aren't going to stop me from posting on LiA or fighting for the progressive issues or candidates regardless of what the "Alabama Democratic Party leadership or insiders" says... 

 



"Hypocrites are those whom pick and choose prejudices while giving accolades for their own..."

"It is what it is."  

http://blkindependent.blogspot...

[ Parent ]
Let's get something straight... (1.00 / 1)

I am not an insider, I know no one personally who is in the leadership of the ADP.  I have had my own issues with the state and my county party, does that stop me from being a Democrat? It does not.

My belief that moderates and independents need to STFU comes from the fact that I am a partisan Democrat through and through.  One of the things that upsets me most is how in trying to create all these bridges and trying to be a big tent party, we have diluted our message to the point where the Democratic Party is a big joke.  I admire the fact that the Republican Party is able to keep their elected officials and members for the most part in check and in step with the party, we have no such ability with the Democrats.  In my perfect party, Lieberman would have been tossed out on his ass.

I really don't care whether or nor you post on LiA, nor do I really care about your offense to my characterization of "independents" and "moderates" .  But dont you dare come in here preaching to me or others about what needs to be done unless you are prepared to become a member of the party and actually do some work.  You know the old adage, if youre not part of the solution, youre part of the problem and by maintaining your "independence" you are part of the problem. 

If you do so much work and have the desire to continue to do such work and the majority of the work you are doing is for Democratic or Progressive candidates, then become a member for gods sake, don't play monday morning quarterback.   If you have such a problem with the party, pay the $50 bucks to get on to the ballot to become a member of the Executive Committee of your County party, work within the organization, not outside of it.

Finally, I will make sure to check LiA here after November to make sure that you and the other "independents" who either won't vote at all, won't vote for Sparks don't come on here and piss and moan about a Republican governor if it comes to pass.  If you don't vote, you lose your right to complain or even constructively criticize us or the party.  



9.13, 4.82, Just left of Gandhi.
[ Parent ]
Do you, boo... (4.00 / 1)

However, you have no right to tell others whom offer constructive criticism to STFU because you feel that their opinions aren't worthy or they do what you say.   All you are doing is adding to the problem (divisiveness and unproductive derision) not to the solution.  Which is sad because that is the root of further destruction of the coalition of diverse ideas and individuals that are apart of the progressive movement in this nation...

BTW, I won't piss and moan about anything the Republican governor would do since you've yet to see me on here piss in moan about Riley.  You might be speaking about others, but I know you aren't speaking about me...  



"Hypocrites are those whom pick and choose prejudices while giving accolades for their own..."

"It is what it is."  

http://blkindependent.blogspot...

[ Parent ]
It's like what my s.o. says (4.00 / 1)

I call it the "smokers theory", it's like telling the smoker that you are killing yourself and you're will to help them stop, but they refuse your help and dismiss your regards towards their health.  However, they want to keep killing themselves until they are laid up in the hospital on a breathing machine then begging for your help and sympathy later.  That's how the ADP operates.  You can't have it both ways.  

Also one more thing, the argumentative point of "you don't have any real values or philosophies except those that are immediately convenient for you".  Most individuals have some issues that are convenient them, otherwise, they wouldn't give a flyin' f*ck about anything except their everyday affairs. Think about it, the point of the civil rights, the gay rights, and the womens' rights movements.

Just because they don't swear allegiance and full devotion to one collective doesn't mean they lack values or philosophies.  All individuals will have their own self-affecting issues, but as long as they work towards a better more productive future for all then you should be more than enthusiastic to accept their help.  As my grandmother used to say: "What's for you is for you, and what's for them is for them, but as along as we reach the same destination then be happy for their path and journey.  Otherwise, you are blocking your own blessings..."

As long as we are fighting for the same thing at the end of the day you should be satisfied we are fighting for the same thing.  Otherwise, the negativity and dismissive behavior is a reflection of your values and philosophies clamoring for conformity of everybody when that is far from reality our world... 




"Hypocrites are those whom pick and choose prejudices while giving accolades for their own..."

"It is what it is."  

http://blkindependent.blogspot...

[ Parent ]
Brick wall, meet archangelsk's head... (3.00 / 3)

Independence or moderation isn't a political philosophy.  It is a function of political and personal convenience, its akin to going to the horse or dog track and putting money on all the entrants.  It's stupid and doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Lets bring things back into focus...My issue is folks who are openly independent and have the gall to call out the party for all its failings, or folks who will agree with parts A-Y of the party or candidate platform, but for some nonsensical reason, insist on placing so much value on part Z.  We agree on 99.99% of what is going on, what is so convenient about being "independent"?  I believe that the Democratic Party, for all is flaws and issues, will do better in the long run to represent mine and the rest of the Middle/Working Class folks interests than the Republican's will.   

If you are as talented and passionate about left/progressive politics and candidates as you let on, why do you have so much trouble identifying yourself with and supporting the Democratic Party? What is stopping you from making that leap to try to involve yourself to help affect change from the inside?



9.13, 4.82, Just left of Gandhi.
[ Parent ]
Sheep (3.60 / 5)

Is not blindly following a political parties position on every issue, without a voter examining those issues INDEPENDENTLY, simply a manifestation of a herd instinct?

I admit it would be easier to blindly follow a party, it relieves one of the need to think.



All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

[ Parent ]
Strength in numbers (2.50 / 2)

That's how unions work.  We are stronger when we have numbers.

I most certainly would not consider myself to be a sheep.  In the caucus, convention, primary and general election I know I am one of the most informed voters out there.  I think about how I can help my candidate improve their message, I think about how to improve my party, at the local county and state level.  Then I act...Im working right now on my county party, the state is next. 



9.13, 4.82, Just left of Gandhi.
[ Parent ]
What difference does it make (3.00 / 4)

if you are informed if you are simply going to vote D every time and only have the positions and opinions that the party platform tells you. One could train the Donkey which is the symbol of the ADP to fulfill your role in the party.

In the same movie that CC referred there is another statement -  Clarence Darrow argues to the jury that God gave man a brain so he could think and question, not just adopt and follow blindly the thoughts of someone else.

BTW I have never quite seen the union recruiting approach you use - don't question or criticize what we do, never have an independent thought, just STF up and do what the bosses tell you. I think that approach is more Mafia than union. 



All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

[ Parent ]
If you were a card carrying, proud, liberal democrat you would understand (1.40 / 5)

democratic values and principles.  Talking to you about the democratic party is like farting against the wind and swimming in a pool someone pi$$ed in.

Ok, I know I'm going to get a Troll rating but it's worth it. :)



The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)


[ Parent ]
If I were like you redeye (2.80 / 5)

I would lack any values or principles of my own. I would simply regurgitate what someone else decided my values & principles were.

It must be sad to lack the ability to form a value and/or principle of one's own, not to mention lacking the courage to stand by it. 



All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

[ Parent ]
G*d D**n it!!!! (1.50 / 4)

STOP RATING ME DOWN BECAUSE YOU DONT AGREE WITH ME!!!!

You are a Libertarian, that's why you don't agree with me, you will never, ever, ever, ever agree with us here at LiA 100%.  Libertarians want their cake and the ability to eat it to, it is the single most ridiculous political position anyone can take.   Don't rate me down because your political "philosophy" doesn't jive with mine.  If you don't agree, leave it alone.  Don't be so d**n petty! 



9.13, 4.82, Just left of Gandhi.
[ Parent ]
I'm downrating you because you are trolling. (3.00 / 3)
Insulting people isn't the same thing as making a point-- directly or indirectly so.
[ Parent ]
Use the "1" for that (4.00 / 2)

The "0" is specifically for comments so vulgar, so libelous, so otherwise awful that they deserve to be hidden. 

A number of people on this thread are using "0"s inappropriately, imho.



Work harder and work smarter!
[ Parent ]
Good point. (4.00 / 1)
I'll have to keep that in mind in the future.  I still downrate posts I see as "trolling" however.
[ Parent ]
Is there an FAQ ... (4.00 / 1)
... where the rating system is explained? I hadn't realized the distinction, and may have made the same mistake.
[ Parent ]
I do find it funny, though... (1.00 / 1)
Seems like our friend is now retaliating by randomly giving my posts a 1.  lol!
[ Parent ]
Sucks doesn't it? (1.00 / 1)

Kinda like you OP and Brian giving me zeros simply because you didn't agree.

Until your thread and my replies, I never received a zero on any post I had made, and I've been on here for about 2 or 3 years now.  If you don't agree thats fine, but don't be petty, move on.  Even though the cats didn't agree with me and actually admonished me, I still garnered a 3 or 4 from them.  Even when Redeye and I were disagreeing with one another, she never rated any of my posts a zero or a one.  It was always my understanding that you never rated anyone down to a zero or one unless there was a pretty compelling reason why, but you and your cohorts seem to have rewritten the book on rating.  You started this, just remember, you threw the first zero, you made this personal. 



9.13, 4.82, Just left of Gandhi.
[ Parent ]
Again... (0.00 / 0)

I didn't downrate you for disagreeing with me.  I downrated you for namecalling, insulting and berating-- otherwise known as trolling.  Merely disagreeing with you has it's own number rating (2), but I've even been known to give a 3 when I disagree if I think the person has made a good argument.  Heck, I've even given a 4 to some that I disagreed with because I thought the argument given was absolutely spectacular.

In fact, I pointed out exactly how you were being insulting and trollish by pointing out how you called me "illogical" in one post, and then for some reason you didn't seem willing to back that up.  I have yet to see you make a legitimate point on the subject without putting in some little dagger of insult.  That's not a response that I'm going to reward.

And I hate to tell you this, but Brian and OP and I were not the only ones to downrate you.  You've gotten precious few 3s or even 4s over the past few days-- so few that they are easier to count than the 1s and 2s, yet you seem to be my only 1.  I'd say that should tell you something. 

On the other hand, you appear to just be doing it to be petty, which does make the situation interesting.  On the contrary, it doesn't bother me.  I just find it interesting that you would resort to doing the very thing you seem to have such an issue with others doing for what I'd call legitimate reasons.  I'm wondering what you'd consider that to say about you or if you find that to help you in any way.


[ Parent ]
Enough.. (1.00 / 1)

All my 1,2's have come from you Brian and OP, and one from MC, which I could understand, so dont try and turn this into a "everyone is against you arch" thing. I had my fair share of supporters seeing my side of the argument too, the only difference was that my supporters weren't front pagers.  I'm just responding your your pettiness, is that the right way to do things, probably not, but I am the kind of person that if backed into a corner doesnt respond well. 

I didn't once make any sort of ad hominem attack towards you or anyone elses character, in fact I didn't do anything that conservative bloggers wouldn't do or haven't done to progressive or liberal bloggers if they came to their sites and baited the waters in the same manner you did.   The only difference is that here at LiA we have proprietors who believe in consensus building and reaching out, that's the difference between conservatives and progressives/liberals.

Until this whole little blowup, if I didn't agree with someone, I left their post alone.  See from what I understand about the rating system if you troll rate or give enough 1's or 2's that users comments get hidden.  Until you came through and started down rating me I really didn't care if conservative ideas were on here, if they were stupid or nonsensical, then they were left for everyone to see. 

Consider this post my last interaction with you.  From here on out I am going to leave you alone, I'm resorting to benign neglect.  Unless you can be constructive and stop attacking me personally we're finished here. 



9.13, 4.82, Just left of Gandhi.
[ Parent ]
I don't know how many times I have to say it... (1.00 / 1)

"I'm just responding your your pettiness"

I don't downgrade to be petty.  I downgrade because of crap like this-- name calling, finger pointing, degrading, and just downright mean comments instead of answering a simple question or posing a rational and plausible argument.  I've yet to see a response from you that had any positive language in it.  It's all been negative.

I haven't "attacked" you personally, contrary to what you seem to believe.  In fact, it's been quite the opposite.  You have attacked me.  Repeatedly.  You've called me all sorts of nasty little things in your comments-- both directly and indirectly.  All I ever asked for was an explanation and for you to look back at your own comments to see why I might be just a little unnerved by them.  You've refused-- particularly when I called you out on your own quotes.  

I'm pointing out exactly what is in each little posting and why I'm rating it the way I am because you called me out for it.  Go back and read what you just said to me.  I think you'll understand why I gave it a 1.  Then I'd like you to explain your reasoning behind why you'd downrate to a 1 my heralding of the HCR bill and my stories about buying a new car and my approval of a candidate, and then I'd like you to tell me again about how I am being petty.


[ Parent ]
I don't think it's that. (2.50 / 2)

Sorry for the 2, by the way, but the indirect and direct insults have to stop, and yes I'm guilty of it, too.  Calling him unprincipled isn't going to help anything.

That being said, I think it has less to do with principles and more to do with passionate support of one candidate.  If in fact this were about principles of the Democratic party (which it should be), then there might be some actual discussion regarding my question as to where Sparks stands on these very principles.  As I've mentioned many times, Sparks hasn't exactly toed the Dem line.


[ Parent ]
So then... (2.50 / 2)

I take it that it's a Democratic Party principle to talk down HCR, talk down gay rights, talk down equal pay, and giggle with Glenn Beck over climate change legislation?

My impression of the Democratic Party line is that they were in support of those things.  Was I wrong?  I suppose it would be good to know if I was, because I need to start switching support right this minute if I was. 

Because again...  as I have stated many times now...  That is my big issue with Sparks. 


[ Parent ]
Let ME get one thing straight. (2.00 / 3)

Perhaps you need to re-read the title of the diary.

At no point do I ask for a reason to vote for Democrats. I asked for a reason to vote for Ron Sparks.  There's a big difference.

Though, thanks to you and Redeye, I might have to reconsider my position on Democrats in general.

Your complaining about independents calling out party issues sounds suspiciously about folks from Birmingham complaining about "outsiders" trying to warn them about the election of Larry Langford and supporting all his endeavors.

Gee...  I wonder who was right about that assessment-- the folks in Birmingham or the "outsiders." 


[ Parent ]
Let ME telll YOU something Almoderate (1.20 / 5)

You not voting for Sparks or any other democrat is not going to hurt me one iota.  It's not about ME.  It's about OUR cities, counties, states and COUNTRY.

How did Larry Langford get into this conversation? 

Wind meet fart.

Troll rating#2



The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)


[ Parent ]
Not about you? (0.00 / 0)

BS



All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

[ Parent ]
I beg to differ. (1.00 / 1)

"You not voting for Sparks or any other democrat is not going to hurt me one iota."

Shouldn't you be telling me the opposite-- about how electing Sparks would help and electing Bentley would hurt this state?

Instead you tell me (a voter who has serious reservations about whether or not Sparks could hurt this state) that a vote against Sparks "wouldn't hurt."

That's a pretty big endorsement for Bentley if I ever heard one. 


[ Parent ]
Not typical (4.00 / 2)

Redeye and Archangelsk (as seen on this thread) are not typical of the Democrats I know, most of whom are tolerant, well informed individuals willing to discuss policy with anyone without resorting to "STFU" or "we don't need your help."

Any thinking Democrat knows that our candidates need all the help they can get to win elections here, and no potential vote should be dismissed without at least attempting to persuade the voter that our candidates will best serve the people of Alabama.  What are y'all thinking?

I am still waiting for someone to show me the "why should I vote for Ron Sparks" argument and disappointed beyond belief that after a hundred comments no one has made that argument in a calm, respectful way, although many have seen fit to attack the person who asked the question.   This is no way to win hearts and minds of voters, people!



Work harder and work smarter!
[ Parent ]
Mooncat, Almoderate is a waste of time and energy. (2.00 / 5)

She has her mind made up and her rigidity will not allow her to listen to any point. She will abstain from the governor's race. She is just trying to make trouble. We have run the gamut from abortion to a lottery. It is the manner in which Almoderate makes a point which tends to distress a reader. I couldn't find the troll button so I had to rate most of Almoderate's comments a 1 instead of a 0.

I do not even care about her positions. She is just here to stir up the crowd and she succeeded. She is just not worth the time. There is no convincing her.  


[ Parent ]
Sundog (3.80 / 5)

Your assessment does not fit with my recollection of Almoderate's past contributions here.  I think she does tend to Democratic (certainly progressive) positions, but needs to be convinced about Sparks.  I can relate, because I'm still waiting for the cogent argument of why a progressive voter should pull the lever for Sparks.  Surely someone can make it, but just as surely no one has on this thread.

Are Sparks' supporters incoherent, absent or do they truly not care about boosting their candidate to people outside the inner circle?  



Work harder and work smarter!
[ Parent ]
I agree that Almoderate has made many previous contributions. (2.67 / 3)

On this thread I saw much baiting, however; she seemed to want to provoke and did so successfully. 

Almoderate brought up good points herself to vote for Sparks such as the lottery and Spark's pro-choice position. She was just inflammatory, even bringing up not voting for Democrats in general because of LIA. I agree it was less than civil.

As support for my position, Almoderate gave me a 0 for my support of angelsk. There was no reason to do that just because I agreed with another. There was much provocation.

Supporting Sparks seemed useless since Almoderate truly knows his current positions and agrees with many of them. 


[ Parent ]
I think the Lottery is enough for any of us (3.00 / 2)
to support Sparks.

I'm not a major proponent of gambling expansion. I think that any reasonable observer of Alabama politics realizes that the fight against gambling is not really coming from any moral perspective.

If we are all honest then we know it's already here and we might as well tax it and use that money for education.

Now open casino gambling. I'm not so sold on that.  

[ Parent ]
It's not enough for me. (2.50 / 2)

I started to give you a 2 because I disagree, but the argument was made so coherently and respectful that I had to give you a 3. 

But that's kind of the problem.  If I was a one issue voter-- which I'm not-- then  the gambling thing might be enough.

But even if I was a one issue voter, Sparks doesn't go far enough to the left for me on that issue.  I fully support legalizing all gambling, and to just legalize one or two things as Sparks seems to be saying he wants to do is just opening another loophole to exploit.  It really won't solve anything in my eyes.  It will still leave legal questions in new areas that lead to further future gambling raids like what we're seeing now.  The police really do have better things to do.

Fully legalizing gambling, however, would create competition and bring in a bigger attraction.  It's really not worth it for me to drive some place to play slots or bet on dogs unless I've got some sort of a problem.  But a casino is another story.  I can actually play what I'd consider to be a real game there, and there's all kinds of other entertainment.  Not only that, but the police can put their attention elsewhere.

Either way, I don't think we'll see any real benefits from gambling for at least 5-10 years.  And five years is being optimistic. 


[ Parent ]
You're right in that I did want to provoke... (2.67 / 3)
...thought.
[ Parent ]
Thanks for your honesty about being provocative. (1.00 / 2)

That is what turned me off so much. This is a place for an exchange of ideas and information. Had you not been so provocative, you would have gotten everything I have to give.

Also, I never rate anyone unless that person has come to the site to provoke and cause strife. Your liberal use of rating down caused me to respond in like manner. 


[ Parent ]
Irony... (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Again... (1.00 / 1)
I downrate for posts that I see as particularly insulting.  Though it was pointed out that I should have use a 1 instead of a 0 for that.
[ Parent ]
...incoherent, absent or do not care... (0.00 / 0)
How about Sparks supporters are 'smugly gloating' before reentering the depressing Bash-Sparks forum LiA has been for the last year.
[ Parent ]
oh, I forgot.... (4.00 / 2)

We will be watching to see if YOU have the character and honor we seek and expect in our candidates!

oh no... are we disappointing the "smugly gloating" watchers?



There are no "safe" Republican districts. You can run but you can't hide.  - Rahm Emmanuel


[ Parent ]
Hey, that reminds me! (3.33 / 3)

If you voted in the Democratic Primary, why on earth should you vote for Ron Sparks?

"By casting this ballot, I do pledge myself to abide by the result of this Primary Election and to aid and support all the Nominees thereof in the ensuing General Election."

Now go ahead and tell me again why your word, your oath, your pledge means nothing.

Tell me again why being a Democrat means nothing!

Hundreds - thousands - of voters may come by here and view this thread, and I want each and every one of them to know you are not alone!

There are lots of Democrats and like-minded people here in this Red State just like you. Ron Sparks and every other Nominee deserves our support  because they are our candidates, and when we get to the General Election, there are no alternatives!


[ Parent ]
The lawyer in mean has to say (3.50 / 6)
you notice it says support and aid - it does not say you pledge to vote for them. That is what we lawyers call a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

[ Parent ]
I am pretty sure... (3.00 / 2)

lawyers mulled it over and determined you couldn't specify "vote" for the Democrat in the pledge, as if being allowed to vote in the Primary obligated you in an illegal manner to vote for a specific candidate in the General Election, thus negating a free and unfettered election.

However, implicit is the language of 'aid and support in the General Election' which can only come by actually voting for that candidate. What other aid and support could you give in a voting booth?

I don't buy a loophole. Eyes wide open!  


[ Parent ]
Where do you see (3.50 / 4)
"in the voting booth" in that statement. BTW there is a similar loophole about supporting the national democratic party platform. If it would be illegal to expressly require it, it would be equally illegal to impicitly require it. In any event, I doubt one voter in a hundred read that part of the ballot and I wouldn't bet my election on that. The other problem with your loyalty argument is that a lot more people voted in the Republican primary this year than in the Democratic primary.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

[ Parent ]
I was just thinking... (1.00 / 1)
You know, the Republicans have a similar pledge.  I wonder how many of the crossover AEA voters from the runoff will be insisting upon supporting (or how many Dems will insist that they now support) Robert Bentley in the general election via the exact same standard.
[ Parent ]
Whoa! (4.00 / 4)

Weak, counterproductive argument alert!

Most people don't read that pledge on the ballot -- I sure didn't, until you started bringing it up -- so they aren't going to consider themselves bound by it.  Although not a lawyer, I don't think it binds me to actually vote for or give money to or knock on doors for any candidate in the fall.  Yes, if one of these guys comes to my door, I might possibly support him to the extent of offering a glass of ice water. That ought to fulfill the vague "aid and support" pledge just fine.

Finally, if you want to keep people from voting in the Democratic primary (and we've been doing a better and better job of that) stressing that such a vote includes a loyalty pledge is a great way to do it.  

I firmly believe Democrats will always win the argument when it's about the merits of our ideas.  When we argue that we must vote for people merely because they are Democrats or because there is some pledge nobody read, that undercuts the argument that we are better on the merits.  It's a lazy argument, it won't convince anyone who isn't already voting Democrat and it will turn off a significant number of people who believe in weighing the candidates and thinking for themselves.



Work harder and work smarter!
[ Parent ]
That's a great way to encourage horrible candidates. (0.00 / 0)

So you're saying that unless I vow to vote a straight Dem ticket, I shouldn't vote at all in your primary...  Interesting strategy.

I addressed your little pledge in a previous post, too. 

I do by all means abide by the result.  And I so support Ron Sparks and any other Democrat in his right to run in the General Election.  I do not, however, see anything that specifically states I must vote for that person "just because."

But it's a great way to make yourselves sound more like Republicans. 


[ Parent ]
Thank you for the insulting generalization. (2.50 / 2)

It is not, however, true.

Believe it or not, the request was genuine.  It still is.  I'm not particularly inclined to vote for Bentley for the reasons I stated.

If Sparks and his supporters can convince me that he's not going to run us backwards (as opposed to Bentley's stagnation), I could see myself voting for Sparks.  As of today, I haven't seen the things I've asked for:

1. A platform outside of "gambling."

2. Some sort of assurance that Sparks can be trusted on his positions.


[ Parent ]
I would suggest a more conservative approach, then. (1.00 / 1)
Let them keep smoking, and pray that the rest of us won't get killed by the second hand smoke in the process.
[ Parent ]
Let them dig their own graves. (1.00 / 1)

I'm tired of trying to dig them out.  Perhaps all of us independents should take a hint from the "wise words" of the fringe left.  Perhaps the GOP will enjoy turning their comments into a campaign slogan for their nominees.

They can't say we didn't warn them. 


[ Parent ]
For an independent you sure do have the conservative talking points (0.00 / 0)
and terms down pact.

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)


[ Parent ]
Perhaps your powers of observation are lacking. (1.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
And for that matter... (2.50 / 2)
Would you have seriously wanted Parker Griffith to remain a Democrat?!  Seriously?!
[ Parent ]
The compliment is noted and appreciated, Countrycat (3.60 / 5)
(great movie by the way). I think a couple of other points need to be thrown into this discussion. First, many people vote in the (D)or (R) primary, not because they intend to vote straight ticket in the general, but rather because that is the primary in which the local races are decided. Therefore a candidate can not count on all of the votes he/she got in their primary. Second, IMHO, party identification is not a big issue for most voters in the general. They vote for whichever candidate they like best or whose positions they like. (compare straight party voting in the general sometime). Third, both parties in this state had shown they can and do nominate some absolutely horrible candidates. Finally, most voters (IMHO) in a STATE election care a lot more about STATE issues than Federal issues.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

[ Parent ]
Thank you for proving my point. (3.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
Archangelsk (4.00 / 3)
There are many people in Alabama who need to be convinced to vote for the Democratic nominee.  If you consider yourself a Democrat you should strongly consider how to convince those people to vote for him.  And to most people who aren't strong partisans, "Because he's a Democrat" is not an effective argument.

Work harder and work smarter!
[ Parent ]
mc (1.67 / 3)

Something I learned about when I was in Australia doing Strategic Studies was Rational Actor Theory.  In the realm of politics, diplomacy and foreign policy it has some interesting applications, but scheisse falls apart when you are dealing with non-rational actors.  That's why negotiations with states like North Korea are really Sisyphean, masochistic endeavors.  The same applies when having any sort of conversation with a Libertarian.

And you know who I have to blame in this whole thing?  Myself, because I know better.  I missed the whole post with Almoderate outing him/herself as a Libertarian.  Had I seen it I wouldn't have gotten myself into this fight.  You can't argue with Libertarians because they are coming from such a irrational place to begin with you can't hope to have any sort or rational conversation.  I have an Uncle that myself and other family members avoided for a long time because of his strident Libertarian views.  He seems to have mellowed over the last few years, so things are back to normal, we can actually talk politics now.  

I'm slightly disappointed that I am being sort of thrown under the bus by my progressive comrades.  I could possibly be seen being done this way with a truly moderate poster, or even a center-right the likes of DaleJackson or Brian, but getting done for a Libertarian?  It kinda hurts my feelings... 



9.13, 4.82, Just left of Gandhi.
[ Parent ]
Be careful of painting with a broad brush (4.00 / 4)

Almoderate has a long history here and at her own blog and she has never seemed irrational.  She's pro-choice, pro-gambling, pro-good government and pro- a lot of other stuff you will never hear from Dale Jackson.  Libertarians come in a lot of flavors, too.  I think Brian even considers himself a little bit of a libertarian ... and there ought to be significant common ground between Democrats and Libertarians in the South where a lot of thinking Republicans have taken to calling themselves Libertarians ... to avoid the GOP stigma, perhaps? 

My point is that Dems need to be reaching out and trying to persuade folks who aren't already on our side.  The persuadable voters are where we will win elections, but we have to make the effort to persuade them, not just assume they can't be reached.



Work harder and work smarter!
[ Parent ]
she got kicked around on her on blog (4.00 / 3)

in a big way for supporting the health care bill.  Which I don't think many pure Libertarians did.

That broad brush isn't a friend to any of us trying to build coalitions.



There are no "safe" Republican districts. You can run but you can't hide.  - Rahm Emmanuel


[ Parent ]
You might be surprised how many conservatives/Libertarians support HCR. (2.67 / 3)

Consumer protections has started to receive more support among Libertarians these days, and as good HCR starts to show more evidence of being cheaper from a taxpayer standpoint, it makes better sense to some of us.

Now, that's not to say that we don't have our hardliners out there who want no regulations on anything, but fundamentally you have to realize that one purpose of government is to maintain order and prevent harm.  While we do believe that government's purpose is not to keep us from harming ourselves, it can be argued that the government should see purpose in protecting us from unethical business practices, and selling a product that doesn't exist (like some insurance policies) or business decisions that result in the death of your customers would most definitely be considered to be harmful and unethical business practices.

The reason folks like Rand Paul get so much flack are for two reasons:

1. They're just not rehearsed enough in the public spotlight.

2. They're trying to take a purist approach without bending at all. 

For me Libertarianism was just a good mix of social "liberalism" and fiscal conservatism, but I'm by no means a purist.  But if a "Libertarian" starts telling you that they think marriage should be between a man and a woman, it's a Republican.


[ Parent ]
Indeed. (2.75 / 4)

I agree with Loretta Nall on occasion, and yes I voted for her in the last election, but I by no means agree with her on everything.  She and I disagree on many things-- police officers and the Fed being among them-- and we've openly done so.

The reason I consider myself Libertarian (and why I really take an issue to Republicans who call themselves that) is because I do believe a certain simplicity of government and spending, but I also believe in many of the Libertarian Party's official stances-- particularly on gay rights and abortion and human rights-- that might be considered to fall under the traditionally Dem banner and labeled "socially liberal" even though it makes me cringe that the word is used so incorrectly these days.


[ Parent ]
O dear... (1.00 / 1)

I've just figured out the perfect campaign slogan for Ron Sparks that would appeal to the former McCain/Palin crowd.

"Ron Sparks doesn't have issues with integrity.  He's a consistency maverick." 

The sad thing is that it would probably work.  And you could refer to his appearance on Glenn Beck where he mocked clean energy legislation as him "going rogue." 


Almoderate, who cares for whom you vote! (2.00 / 3)
You have not added much to the conversation. I have a cousin who is a Libertarian. I no longer speak to him since he is too strident to deal with. Ditto for you.
[ Parent ]
Excuse me (3.50 / 6)

but it is time to simplify this discussion. I don't know if Almoderate is or is not a Libertarian but it is very clear that she is indeed a voter who, in November, will cast a vote either for or against your man Sparks.

Both straight ticket Repubs and Demos each make up about 30% of the voters in this state. That means the winners (and the losers) are determined by the 40% of remaining voters of whom Almoderate is one. That 40% is not going to be convinced by the simplistic argument of "He is a Democrat".

Almoderate, began this diary with a simple request, tell her why she should vote for the D instead of the R. I would have thought that would have been a simple request to fulfill for the supporters of Sparks. After all these posts, it seems apparent that no one can articulate a reason to vote for Sparks.

Instead what has Almoderate gotten from the self annointed arbiters of what is and is not liberal and progressives on here, those who dare label themselvescompassionate and tolerant and for the little guy on here? "You are not a real democrat, you should be censored (not allowed to speak on this blog), we don't want your vote, we don't care who you vote for, you are unworthy of being spoken to."

BTW it always amazes me that folks who claim they are for individual rights are always the first to want to prevent someone from speaking,

Well, let me tell you something, you damn well better care who the 40% like Almoderate vote for, because like it or not, they and not you will determine who the next governor will be.

  • You can refuse to engage the 40%, you can insult them and attack them but if that is your chosen course of action be prepared for Democratic candidates to continue to slink away after every general election with their tails between their legs, beaten and broken.

To continue to insist on this bullshit purity and uniformity and to in essence drive any voter who doesn't accept on pure faith that Democrats are better than Republicans into the arms of the Repubs is what got the Democratic Party in Alabama in the fix it is in now.

End of rant



All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

[ Parent ]
"Why On Earth" should I vote for Sparks? (2.33 / 3)

This diary did not begin with a simple request.

It was a provocation from the start.


[ Parent ]
Maybe you vote elsewhere (1.00 / 1)

but I vote on earth, so I see that as simply an expression, not as "fighting words'. Even assuming "on earth" was a provocation, if Sparks supporters can't overcome that by setting forth the reasons for voting for Sparks, either on earth or elsewhere, he has a huge problem.

So cut to the chase, Yellowdog, tell the rest of us why we should vote for Sparks.



All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

[ Parent ]
Oddly enough... (0.00 / 0)
I never thought I'd ever agree with you on anything OP.  Any other time you'd likely be on the other side of the argument from me.  How on earth did you start defending me?  lol!
[ Parent ]
Several reasons Almoderate (4.00 / 4)

First, if you and I were to sit down and have a discussion, I think we would find we agree on many issues. We would, of course, disagree on some (even vehemently). However I am a firm believer that it is better to have someone who  agrees with you on, say 7 out of 10 issues with you, than driving them to the side of someone who agrees with you on nothing. It absolutely amazes me that some on here seem incapable of reaching common ground but rather insist that you agree with them on everything or else you belong with their enemies.

Second, I am a long time southerner. If I had a nickel for everytime I have heard someone begin a question or statement with "Why on earth" I would be enjoying the cool Jamaica breezes right now. For people on here to try to justify their boorish comments toward you based on that phrase is absurd.

Third, I strongly believe in freedom of speech. One test of that belief is whether I am willingly to defend that right on behalf of someone I usually don't agree with.

Last, you threw the Sparks folks about as soft a ball as possible. Tell me something good about your guy. I suspect their anger is because they can't come up with one good reason.

So, until we disagree again.



All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

[ Parent ]
Yes, yes, Yellowdog! This has been an exercise in futility. (2.00 / 3)

Just to check myself, I reread the diary. My goodness- Almoderate is more scared of Sparks than of Bentley. And the line about Sparks associating with known felons. I guess she is trying to push my buttons on Siegelman. Sparks should be associating with Siegelman. He has the natural gifts of charm, intelligence, and great fundraising skills. If he can help Sparks, then good for Sparks.

As grady mentioned, the lottery alone should be enough for Almoderate. Nothing will be good enough for her. She is just pushing button after button. It is time to cap her well on this issue. 

 


[ Parent ]
Yes, I was referring to Siegelman. (2.50 / 2)

And yes, I'll agree that he is charming.  I think I might have even mentioned it above.  But there's one thing...  I knew pretty much where Siegelman stood.  That's why I voted for him.  I don't know that with Sparks.

And no, I'm not at all apologetic about Siegelman's plight, and no, I don't think it helps Sparks in the least with the majority of voters.  Charm doesn't make you less of a crook-- just ask Ted Bundy.  And Siegelman would bother me less if he'd just recognize that what he did was wrong instead of saying that his bribery wasn't "bribery bribery" and so therefore there was nothing morally questionable about what he did.


[ Parent ]
Oh, pooh! (4.00 / 4)

It may have been a little snarky, but any competent partisan would have been on the question in the title like white on rice, laying out a pro-Sparks argument.  The question from an acknowledged independent/moderate voter is a golden opportunity to persuade like-minded voters, as well as the Democrats who supported Davis on June 1.  Once again, instead of a positive argument for a candidate, we get a lot more negative sniping.  

I'm not blaming anybody for the way this has ended up, but I am frustrated by the tone of the discussion and the arguments that just go round and round.  People reading this thread aren't exactly going to leave enlightened.



Work harder and work smarter!
[ Parent ]
I've been reading this diary (4.00 / 6)

for a couple of days without commenting, because some of you think I’m a Republican, a Libertarian, or a fool who doesn’t have a dog in this fight. Fools walk in where angels fear to tread, so I have some observations for your consideration.

I think there’s no feud as bitter or as destructive as a family feud, and it seems that’s what this diary has become for some of those participating in it. It’s good for people to discuss their differences respectfully and try to find common ground but I don’t really see that taking place in many of the comments here although a few people seem to be trying to work to that end. Unless Democrats, including Progressive Democrats, (or adherents to any political ideology) can come together and become as one I think they may wander in the political wilderness until they do.

That’s the way I see it, and everyone can take that anyway they wish to.



"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...."      Hosea 4:6
Tell me why on earth I should vote for Ron Sparks. | 163 comments
PREMIUM AD

blog advertising is good for you

SEARCH




Advanced Search


A community blog for progressive politics, ideas and current events in Alabama. Register now to join the conversation.


Friend and Follow Left In Alabama:

Join LIA's Facebook Page Go To LIA's Twitter Page Go To LIA's Flickr Photo Album Go To LIA's YouTube channel
MENU
- Mobile

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


LiA Contributors
- Admin
- Admin
- Economics & Aeronautics
- National Political Issues
- Political Strategy & Messaging
- Health Care
- Education in the Black Belt
- ADP Watch
- Climate & Alternative Energy
- Labor
- Alabama Legal Issues
- From the Center
- Equal Rights & GLBT Issues
- Roving Reporter

Please take our Blog Reader Project survey.

Support Left in Alabama with a Donation!

Your Amazon purchases can help fund this blog:
Support Left in Alabama
Buy Phones & More at Amazon Wireless


STANDARD ADS

T.H.E. Social Work Agency
Adoption home studies & care management services in the North Alabama area.
Licensed, certified, caring social workers.

Democracy Interactive
blog advertising is good for you


Arise Daily News
ALABAMA BLOGS
Bessemer Opinions
Birmingham Blues
Birmingham Science Examiner
Blue Jean Journalists
BobNBama
Doc's Political Parlor
freeThinkBham
Greg Varner's Blog
The Haze Filter
Hard Boiled Dreams of the World
King Cockfight
Legal Schnauzer
Loretta Nall
OsborneInk
Peace Takes Courage
Pippa Abston's Blog
Rancho Spenardo
Red State Diaries
Thomason Tracts
TJ Beitel
Thoughts & Rants of an Independent
Time is Spherical, Not Linear
WriteChic Press
ALABAMA RESOURCES
ACLU of Alabama
Alabama Arise
Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform
Alabama Conservationist
Alabama Democratic Conference
Alabama Democratic Party
Alabama Legislature
Alabama Poverty Project
Alabama Secretary of State's Office
Encyclopedia of Alabama
Equality Alabama
Greater Birmingham Ministries
League of Women Voters of Alabama
Madison County Democrats
Marshall County Democrats
Over the Mountain Democrats
SOUTHERN BLOGS
Blog for Democracy
Blue Oklahoma
Burnt Orange Report
Daily Kingfish
Facing South
From a Buick
KnoxViews
The Old Black Church
Progressive Electorate
plezWorld
West Virginia Blue
Juanita Jean - Texas

BLOGROLL
African American Political Pundit
AmericaBlog
An Examination of Free Will
Bartcop
Blog for Rural America
Balloon Juice
Blue Gal
Booman Tribune
Borowitz Report
Science Blogs
Corrente
Crooks and Liars
Daily Diatribes
Daily Kos
Docudharma
Eschaton
Firedoglake
First Draft
FiveThirtyEight
Gun Toting Liberal
Hullabaloo
Jack and Jill
Juan Cole
La Vida Locavore
The Left Coaster
MyDD
My Left Wing
NASA Watch
Notion's Capital
Oliver Willis
Open Left
Orcinus
Paul Krugman
Plush Life
Political Cortex
Scoobie Davis
Senate Guru
Spocko's Brain
Swing State Project
Suburban Guerilla
Talk To Action
Talking Points Memo
The Airport Report
The Field Negro
The Oil Drum
Think Progress
US Politics News
RESOURCES
Racetracker
Anzalone Liszt Research
Center for American Progress
FEC Electronic Report Retrieval
Follow the Money
In Their Boots
New Organizing Institute
Opensecrets
Pew Research Center
Pollster
Progressive States Network
Stateline
CONSERVATIVES
Flashpoint

Subscribe

 Subscribe in a reader

Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Subscribe in FeedLounge

Subscribe in Bloglines

Add to My AOL

Add Left In Alabama - Front Page to Newsburst from CNET News.com

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Powered by FeedBurner

Add to Technorati Favorites


Return to Left in Alabama HomePage
Powered by: SoapBlox