Jump to content
The Education Forum

William Attwood


Recommended Posts

First, it's nice to see that Mr. Gratz is trolling through months-old posts to find things he disagrees with. Nothing like staying up-to date with the current discussions.

I still contend that, if a person is "not a big fan" of a candidate, and one wishes to remain a moral individual, one does NOT support that candidate. While I grew up in a family of Democrats, that is EXACTLY the position I took with Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, and Gore. I didn't embrace the policies of Reagan or Bush I in protest, but neither did I compromise my principles and support Democrats I didn't believe in. I voted for John Anderson; I voted for Perot TWICE. I didn't blindly support PARTY, and I didn't blandly support a candidate I couldn't believe in.

It's called integrity; when party loyalty outweighs personal integrity, personal integrity ceases to exist. And in anticipation of your question, YES, I believed these independent candidates [especially Perot] to be superior to the paragons of pandering that the two "major" parties offered up.

But the difference is, I didn't compromise my integrity by getting behind a candidate I didn't believe in. To do so would have been immoral...and that was my point. In contrast, Mr. Gratz supported someone he didn't like, simply for the sake of the party. I simply don't see the integrity, the morality, in that course of action...and I probably never will.

"To thine own self be true," is the ancient saying. Some do, and others make excuses.

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I still contend that, if a person is "not a big fan" of a candidate, and one wishes to remain a moral individual, one does NOT support that candidate.  While I grew up in a family of Democrats, that is EXACTLY the position I took with Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, and Gore.  I didn't embrace the policies of Reagan or Bush I in protest, but neither did I compromise my principles and support Democrats I didn't believe in.  I voted for John Anderson; I voted for Perot TWICE.  I didn't blindly support PARTY, and I didn't blandly support a candidate I couldn't believe in.  It's called integrity; when party loyalty outweighs personal integrity, personal integrity ceases to exist. But the difference is, I didn't compromise my integrity by getting behind a candidate I didn't believe in.  To do so would have been immoral...and that was my point.  In contrast, Mr. Gratz supported someone he didn't like, simply for the sake of the party.  I simply don't see the integrity, the morality, in that course of action...and I probably never will.  "To thine own self be true," is the ancient saying.  Some do, and others make excuses.

It's one thing for Mark to follow his conscience in marginal, ineffectual ways. But I take exception to the allegation that a person who weighs the positives and negatives of a candidate or party, always in consideration of personal values, is somehow less moral or is lacking integrity to get behind the best available viable campaign. Remaining on the fringe, with a superior attitude of somehow being above the fray of immoral practical politics, is antiseptic, ineffectual and ultimately irrelevant. Nonparticipation in matters that effect the welfare of humankind is the opposite of morality. It is, at best, naive; at worst, oblivious. Kennedy was killed for real reasons. There are real differences between candidates and parties. The peanut gallery shouting from the sidelines is made up of mere spectators in the political process.

Tim

P.S. Someone claiming it would have been immoral to support Carter against Ford must have a standard of judgment I cannot even discern from fair and balanced Fox News.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Carroll, I wasn't quite clear on the Carter issue. I DID support Carter in '76, but not in '80 [hence the Anderson vote]. I bought his "Washington outsider" sales pitch the first time; when I saw how ineffective he was as a leader, how he made "wishy-washy" Charlie Brown look like a rock, I no longer had faith in him. And no matter how much I might have wanted to see Ronald Reagan defeated, I couldn't support a candidate with the spine of Gumby.

I ONCE subscribed to the idea that there was an actual difference between the American major political parties. Once I removed those blinders, the differences between Nixon and Clinton, for example, became merely a matter of degree. Each party paints the other as a reflection of the extremes each collects, when the truth about the rank-and-file is somewhere in the middle. Yet neither is so reflective of the middle America of which I'm a part, as to NOT pander to the moneyed interests even while claiming to represent "middle America." I contend that, today in America, the primary difference between the Republican and the Democrat parties is the difference which exists between classes of prostitutes.

It is the idea that's been sold in America that a third party CAN'T be viable that has sold America down the river. There simply are not ONLY two options, and no more. Theodore Roosevelt was elected on a third-party ticket, history shows us. So please don't preach "viable" to me in the context of ONLY the two current major parties...because they weren't always the "only" viable alternatives, either.

In 1972, before George Wallace was shot in May, polls showed Wallace's candidacy--had he sustained or improved his standing--would almost certainly have placed the presidential race into the hands of the House of Representatives. Wallace would have effectively been "kingmaker," via the hands of the House.

When one allows one's vote to degrade to a choice between the lesser of two evils, AND THEN one chooses to actively campaign FOR one of these inferior choices, THAT is the kind of selling out of the soul that, in and of itself, denies one's integrity. If you feel that your country deserves better, then settling for anything less is a form of lying to oneself.

Others may choose their own course and rationalize their actions with whatever lies they choose to tell themselves...but if the candidates I've seen lately truly ARE "the best we can do," then it's already too late for America. I pray that they're NOT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Carroll, I wasn't quite clear on the Carter issue. I DID support Carter in '76, but not in '80 [hence the Anderson vote]. I bought his "Washington outsider" sales pitch the first time; when I saw how ineffective he was as a leader, how he made "wishy-washy" Charlie Brown look like a rock, I no longer had faith in him. And no matter how much I might have wanted to see Ronald Reagan defeated, I couldn't support a candidate with the spine of Gumby.

When JFK was president he had great trouble convincing hard-liners that he was sufficiently tough to manage the Cold War. It was Ted Dealey who described the concern that JFK was "wishy-washy" and something of a "Gumby," when he said at a White House luncheon that we need a "man on horseback" (Ronald Reagan type?) but that Kennedy seemed to be riding Caroline's tricycle. Dealey also called JFK a weak sister. Carter's record speaks for itself: not one Iran hostage was killed and Reagan/Bush made secret backdoor promises with Iran to discredit the Carter efforts until the election. A vote for Reagan was a vote for Khomeini's candidate.

I ONCE subscribed to the idea that there was an actual difference between the American major political parties. Once I removed those blinders, the differences between Nixon and Clinton, for example, became merely a matter of degree. Each party paints the other as a reflection of the extremes each collects, when the truth about the rank-and-file is somewhere in the middle. Yet neither is so reflective of the middle America of which I'm a part, as to NOT pander to the moneyed interests even while claiming to represent "middle America." I contend that, today in America, the primary difference between the Republican and the Democrat parties is the difference which exists between classes of prostitutes.

I do understand the argument, I just wonder if the people who make that argument understand what they are saying about the morality and integrity of people (prostitutes' Johns) who still strive to make an "actual difference." Once one actually pays attention to statistics rather than smear, the evidence is in that under Clinton, poverty decreased every year at the same time that Welfare Reform was enacted and the budget balanced. Every year since, the disparity between rich and poor has grown, the poverty rate has increased annually, and the budget has been exploded - leaving debt to future generations. Believing these things make no difference is like convincing Americans that Oswald did it.

In 1972, before George Wallace was shot in May, polls showed Wallace's candidacy--had he sustained or improved his standing--would almost certainly have placed the presidential race into the hands of the House of Representatives. Wallace would have effectively been "kingmaker," via the hands of the House.

It is political ignorance to believe that Wallace would have had any power in an election held in the House of Representatives, let alone be a "kingmaker." The majority party would have elected it's candidate, period. By having the 2000 election hijacked by the activist Republican justices on the Supreme Court there was the same result, albeit surprisingly marginal. Despite 7 of the 9 being Republican appointees, the verdict to steal the election by preventing the Florida Supreme Court's ordered recount was 5-4.

When one allows one's vote to degrade to a choice between the lesser of two evils, AND THEN one chooses to actively campaign FOR one of these inferior choices, THAT is the kind of selling out of the soul that, in and of itself, denies one's integrity. If you feel that your country deserves better, then settling for anything less is a form of lying to oneself. Others may choose their own course and rationalize their actions with whatever lies they choose to tell themselves...but if the candidates I've seen lately truly ARE "the best we can do," then it's already too late for America. I pray that they're NOT.

Choosing John Kerry was not a choice for a lesser evil. The fact that people could denegrate his Silver Star-level of service, and that the slander was given equal time to the facts does speak very badly for the media we rely upon. But given the statements to which I take exception, I will clarify them right here in a quote-laden paraphrased sentence:

The two-party system has degenerated into a "choice between the lesser of two evils," people who "actively campaign FOR one of these inferior choices" are engaged in "selling out of the soul," which, "in and of itself, denies one's integrity," settling for anything less than one's ideal candidate "is a form of lying to oneself," and if recent candidates are "the best we can do, then it's already too late for America."

I do get it. I'm just amazed that someone would actually publicly lionize himself on the sidelines while making such a personalized attack against soul-selling, immoral degenerates like myself who participate in the give and take compromising called politics. If it makes no difference, why was it so necessary to steal the 2000 election (for bin Laden's candidate), or kill Kennedy for that matter? This is a thread started about Attwood, a man involved in diplomacy that the Power Control Group could not allow to succeed. How are things different today? Instead of Castro it was Hussein; instead of Brown & Root, it's Halliburton (same company, different name).

Tim

Edited by Tim Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Carroll, I'm actually in agreement with MOST of what you wrote. But while I voted for Bush over Gore in 2000--that was definitely a "lesser-of-two-evils" vote on my part, and one which I regret, I did support Kerry in '04, precisely because of his background. In '80, I voted for Anderson, rather than Carter or Reagan. While I'll agree that under Carter the Iran hostages survived, the ineptitude of the attempted rescue mission just seemed to summarize his entire administration.

In real terms, the power of Wallace's candidacy in '72 WAS the power to place the election in the hands of the House of Representatives. In '72, the Democrats held the majority there, and Nixon would've been history 19 months sooner. With a healthy Wallace, the race was too close to call; with a paralyzed Wallace, Nixon picked up the "law-and-order" voters that couldn't bring themselves to vote McGovern. So until his shooting, Wallace, I still contend, WAS the power in the '72 election.

And I realize that, under Clinton, deficits went down and prosperity among all classes rose. While I believe that the Democrats are MORE for policies which provide for prosperity for all, and that Republicans would prefer that the rich get theirs FIRST and let the crumbs trickle down to the great unwashed masses, NEITHER party has the self-discipline to keep from financially bankrupting the country. It's merely that the Republicans seem to want to do it at a faster rate than the Democrats, but the eventual result will be the same.

You see, when the Democrats were in charge, the Republicans kept pounding the drum for a balanced-budget amendment, and that deficits would be the downfall of the country. Now that the Republicans control both houses of Congress as well as the White House, deficits don't matter as they enact ever-larger tax cuts to drain the treasury even faster. But when it comes to having the cajones to say 'NO!' to the pork, the Democrats come up equally lacking in fortitude and the will to do the right thing. Would the Democrats' response to 9/11 have been different than the Republicans? Aside from the Iraq debacle, I don't see that being any different. So, in THAT respect alone, there's not a dime's worth of difference in the parties...and hasn't been in years.

I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative; the government needs to learn to live within its means. Obviously, I think Dubya got it backwards: FIRST you get the spending down to the level of income, and THEN you start talking about tax cuts, if they're possible. That's what the average American has to deal with in making ends meet. Those who cut their own income without reigning in spending end up in bankruptcy....obvious in personal finance, but evidently it's not so obvious in government finance. So when our children and grandchildren finally decide to throw off the yoke of financial bondage that the current generation of politicians are saddling them with, BOTH parties are gonna be found guilty of causing the upcoming revolution...the one which will end when an outside power walks in and takes over what was once the most powerful nation in the world. I hope and pray it doesn't happen, but without something akin to divine intervention, I don't forsee a different outcome.

While I commend your motives in trying to make a difference, I believe that trying to effect change through the two existing political parties is akin to trying to bail the Titanic with a thimble...there just aren't enough folks with enough thimbles to have any appreciable effect. The only survivors on the Titanic had one thing in common: they abandoned a sinking ship. I'm not referring to abandoning the "ship of State" which is America, but rather the ships of Democrat and Republican parties, which have run aground without a tugboat in sight. And as with the passengers and crew of the SS Minnow, nobody knows how to fix the boat(s).

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...