It's ideology, not race or sex that matter

Andrew Altman, Aurora

Published May 19, 2008 at 8 p.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

May 20, 2008

12:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

jacka writes:

Its values that matter.

Boulder Liberal Mark Udall wants to be your senator, what are you going to do about it.
May 20, 2008

7:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

taoistblockhead writes:

You're right Andrew, it is ideology that matters - specifically the neocon ideology that has brought this country to the edge of ruin. Republicans are hypocrites. George Bush - fiscal conservative and defender of the United States Constitution. Instead of working to create a better America, the Bush-Cheney cabal has done its best to establish an imperial presidency and defend the interests of their corporate military-industrial masters. When George Bush stands in front of Congress and declares martial law in America, the ideological fascist neocons will truly have accomplished their mission.
May 20, 2008

7:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

SASQUATCH,

Does the Republican party pay you to come in here and make ridiculous statements like this;

"Race, gender and religion are Democrat issues; not Republican issues. What else would you expect from such a balkanized political party built around seperate and special interests?"

You are right in some respect, however. It's the Democrats who have seen to that "race and gender" are treated as equal Americans. It is also the Democrats who see to it that religion keeps it's place in society and not become the society thus pull us into third world status.

Who do they fight against to maintain these rights and protections (along with Republicans who are genuinely concerned about the well being of this country)? Conservatives like you and Andrew.
May 20, 2008

7:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Truth writes:

Socialists, communists, professional welfare state recipients, and other nanny state supporters: FEAR NOT! No matter who wins the general election, be it Hillary, McCain, or Buraq "He-who-must-not-be-middle-named" Osama, you are getting a leftist in the White House this time.
May 20, 2008

7:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

Andrew, the only way a conservative would vote for a black woman is if she were the only person on a Republican ticket.
May 20, 2008

8:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

JimmyB writes:

leftside

You've got to quit picking on SASQUATCH. You know he has troubles putting his thoughts into words.

The problem with the Democrats this election hasn't been the Republicans, it's been the war that's been raging between Obama and Clinton.

I'm glad they've finally decided to play nice, but it may be a little late. Like the pundits say, all the acrimony may have weakened the chances of both Obama and Clinton to the point that, if Obama wins the nomination, Clinton's people won't vote, or will vote Republican. The same is being said about Obama's supporters.

I wouldn't pretend to know how to fix it, but regardless, it's still going to be an interesting election year.
May 20, 2008

8:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

These leftist on the boards with all of the answers need to read, Sowell Basic economics and Sowell Conflicting visions. It is about time they learn something rather than just spout off touchy feely.
May 20, 2008

8:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Truth writes:

We do not live in a facist state. Thanks for playing.

No matter if the demonrats or the current crop of linguini-spined republicans in power who have abandoned true conservate principles win the election, we will end up with the following:

1. Excessive government spending (neither party wishes to control this).

2. Socialist health care (One party gets us there faster than the other, that's the only difference).

3. Global warming fear mongering to scare us out of more tax dollars to go towards programs that won't impact anything.

4. No visionary approach to ensuring a continual energy source (Wind and solar are chancy at best. Oil production cannot keep up with demand, and our refining capacity is saturated. A real visionary would propose an Apollo or Manhattan Project-style program leading to practical fusion energy).

5. No long-term strategy for destroying terrorists (The "Go fight the war, but be nice about it" strategy that we've been following isn't a strategy at all.

6. Amnesty and citizenship for at least 12 million criminals

7. Overregulation and taxation of business which will drive jobs out of the United States.

8. More restrictions of first amendment rights (McCain-Feingold)

9. More restrictions of second amendment rights (No candidate is particularly friendly to our fundamental human right to possess the ability and the tools to provide for our own self-defense).

The list could continue, but you get the point. This is what the status quo of republican or democrat will get us. No real leadership, no real differences, just government self-empowerment.
May 20, 2008

9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

Andrew it is obvious that your education level and intellect is a notch above most people. I would agree that ideology is what it should be about. Clearly you think outside of the box. Unfortunately there is a large number of conservatives who do not. For example I have been a part time bartender for 20 years plus in local neighborhood establishments and in high class private clubs. The unfortunate thing is that 90% of the time I hear a joke about a minority or the less fortunate it comes from the mouth of a so called conservative. If the conservatives can change anything about their voters, this would definately be a good place to start. I am a liberal but, I think if the conservatives of this country could change even this one thing, I do believe you would probably rule supreme for a long time. Work on it.
May 20, 2008

9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

dblgood writes:

"Andrew, the only way a conservative would vote for a black woman is if she were the only person on a Republican ticket."

Leftside. You unwittingly backed yourself into a correct statement.

If a black woman was the Republican Presidential nominee, by default she would be the only person on the Republican ballot, so yes I would vote for her - party, then person. However, if that same woman was a Democrat, I'd vote for the Republican running against her, no matter who the Republican (he/she) might be.

For you, it's all about "isms". It's old. It's tired. And as this primary has very clearly illustrated, the "isms" are alive and well in the Democrat party.
May 20, 2008

9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

rjnova writes:

Democrats have been playing the race card and class warfare card for so many years I cannot remember when honesty prevailed. Froward and leftside continue to mouth this standard leftist/Democrat line which is so out of date few comprehend the significance today. I see more and bigger govt produce more and bigger unintended consequences. There is nothing govt can do that private enterprise cannot do better for less money, except collect taxes and fight wars. Govt bureaucracy is primarily structured to grow their budget and perpetuate the bureaucracy. Yet Hillary and Obama try at out doing each other in trumpeting more of the same.

The Democrats have been plugged into this idea because it is their constituency and taxpayers pay their salaries. And they have done great ill to this country because of their efforts at social engineering, equal education, affirmative action and especially welfare. A permanent welfare class has been created and the damage done will take years and billions of dollars to fix, if fixable at all. But liberals/academics like Obama and Clinton blaming culture or society are wrong headed. Until Democrats/liberals step up and accept responsibility for the unintended damage done, a new start is not on the horizon.
May 20, 2008

10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Truth writes:

I've described far more years than the last eight. And the last eight years were not "sans the health care part". Remember the medicare prescription drug giveaway? All a bit-by-bit movement towards socialization.

Wechassa seems to take issue with my description of Bush and McCain as not being conservatives. I will explain my position:

A true conservative does not believe in runaway government spending.

A true conservative does not believe in expanding the government into every aspect of our lives, including health care.

A true conservative does not author bills nor sign them into law that restrict our first amendment rights (McCain-Feingold).

A true conservative does not make movements towards restricting rights guaranteed by the second amendment (Read Bush's Heller brief. And he would have renewed the so-called "assault weapons ban" had Congress passed it).

A true conservative would not propose or endorse amnesty and citizenship for 12 million criminals.
May 20, 2008

10:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

wow...the far right natives are a little restless today.

truthy, what specific mccain policy stances do you find to be "leftist"? do you think reagan was a "leftist"?
May 20, 2008

12:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

lol!! thanks dblgood for proving my point........I guess.

JimmyB, sorry I had to head out this morning. I hope your wrong and I think you might be. Clinton supporters and Obama supporters are still in competitive mode. Emotion are taking over common sense. When a candidate is finally named they'll, for the most part, support whoever it is. All that has to be done is remind them of the Nadar fiasco and they'll do the right thing. They won't like it but they'll do it.

How about you JimmyB, can we count on your support you old redneck. lol!!
May 20, 2008

12:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

JimmyB writes:

leftside

You know, I resemble that remark.

I read another letter here, in which the writer wants Hillary to run as an "independent".

Should that happen (which, I believe is never going to), I believe the split in the Democrat Party, while not fatal, would be catastrophic.

I believe Hillary will wait until the convention starts, then she'll throw her support to Obama.

I like some of what both say (although, not all), but still have lots of questions.

Like all elections, I'll listen to the candidates, ignore the ads from the P.A.C.s (like they're never biased, or misleading), then decide.
May 20, 2008

1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Jonjonmon writes:

finally, someone willing to look beyond the skin color of Obama and looking at how he'll deal with the issues. You're right, obama really doesn't have much to say without a teleproptor. I wonder how He'll look during the debates with McCain. Especially on foreign policy.
May 20, 2008

1:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

JimmyB writes:

Jonjomon

Not quite what I said, but I too am looking forward to some lively debates.
May 20, 2008

2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

rambam1776 writes:

I dunno if anyone cares enough get this far and check back on responses, but I am the author of the original letter, which the NEWS saw fit to edit for size. I thought I would clarify a few things. I am a former civics and history teacher, and so I treat the political process with more knowledge and a lot more salt than others do. I am also more closely aligned to the Libertarian Party then the Republicans, as I am just as opposed to right wingers telling me what to do in my private life and pocketbook as I am to left wingers ordering me about. I am NOT considering Ron Paul because (1) he cannot possibly win and (2) his foreign policy is ridiculous.

In the comments above, I am saddened but not surprised to see so little thinking and so much resorting to simplistic labels and name calling. It is clear after reading this that many people have no idea what the word ‘fascist’ means, or that substituting something inane like ‘McSame’ for McCain somehow passes for witty political discourse. As to the term ‘neo-con’, I not only have idea what the formal definition of that is, but I suspect its users do not know either. Its use as a pejorative has begun to remind me of the apocryphal remark attributed to a senator on HUAC back in the 1950’s who defined ‘communism’ as anything he didn’t like.

Let me address a couple of the so-called points made above. Please try to consider these rationally, and not through knee-jerk spectacles. George W. Bush, by the definition of anyone on the political spectrum, has been a poor excuse for a conservative. His fiscal policies have been appalling, his cronyism and failure to hold anyone accountable or to learn from errors has been dreadful, and his public relations are nothing short of a nightmare. He has even failed to come through on most promises to his far-right base. That’s “far-right”, folks, not extremist. Extremist right wingers are the Klan and Nazis. I know many of you hate Bush and the war with the unthinking hatred actual Nazis reserve for Jews, but let us not belittle the suffering of people who live(d) under ACTUAL Nazis this way. If actual extremist right (or LEFT, let’s be honest) wingers are like cancer, then George W Bush is merely a light case of the flu.

CONTINUED BELOW DUE TO SPACE

Andrew Altman
May 20, 2008

2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

rambam1776 writes:

However, just because the current conservative president is a publically agreed upon failure, it does NOT follow that CONSERVATISM is a defunct or evil ideology. It does not appear that the many failures and stupidities of Jimmy Carter have dissuaded some of you from the liberal side of the fence. Let me ask you this; If the many failings of Bush are so awesome as to destroy the validity of conservative thought forever, then why did the Democrats still have such a tight race on their hands in 2004? Why didn’t the left sweep to much greater majorities in 2006? Because many Americans prefer to promise of fiscal conservatism to the perceived craziness of left wing agendas, even if it means voting for someone like Bush.

As far as those of you above who alleged that a conservative cannot be anything but racist or sexist by definition, which is patently ridiculous. Let’s examine the statement - you are saying that ALL members of a group (that YOU don’t belong to, by the way) ALL feel and act the same way. What if create that same sentence using Jews and money, Blacks and watermelon, or women and crying? Simple minded, stereotypical and wrong? Precisely. But apparently this logical fallacy is acceptable if used to bash the half of YOUR nation that tends more right than left? Another person tried to dress up this nonsense by offering anecdotal evidence that in their experience, most conservatives act this way. What a thoroughly worthless way to gather evidence! It conjures up the old ‘many of THEM are my good friends’ joke.

Folks, I will never vote for anybody with whom I badly disagree. I hope none of you will either. But I certainly DO hope that more of you will take the time to put serious and complex thought into your political opinions, not to mention far more education. Personally, I am doing quite badly financially right now. According to all the rhetoric and labels, I should vote for the Democrats because they are the ones who appear on the surface to want to help the poor. Unfortunately, I studied both economics and history VERY deeply, and I understand that the quick fixes being offered will not only fail to work in the short term, but will also have disastrous future effects. Yes, Bush has been a failure, but I still want and need an actual conservative for my President. It’s like a bad draft pick for the Broncos – if the linebacker we picked up fails, we still need a good linebacker, not to discredit the position.

Andrew Altman
May 20, 2008

2:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

dblgood writes:

Leftside. If you think I confirmed your point, you better read it again. It's far from confirmation, at least in the way you perceive it.
May 20, 2008

3:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

rpmcmurphy writes:

Which one do you believe will actually follow through to
"preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution"?
I don't see any of the 3 media choices doing that. Do any of You?
May 20, 2008

4:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

B1 writes:

Rambam-very well put. Although, I have to disagree with nazi's being "extremist right wingers." Perhaps you can call neo-nazi's extremist right wingers, but Hitler and the nazi party have more similarities with today's democrats than today's conservatives. I would recommend Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism. He explains the position in detail.
May 20, 2008

5:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

Andrew:

Thanks for the thorough explanation. Unfortunately, you're wasting your keyboard's electrons on a certain segment of this blog. They are the ones who blindly follow "Republican" or "Democrat" right down the ballot, without regard for issues or ideology.

In recent years I have voted for Kennedy, Reagan, Bush I (once), Clinton (once) and Bush II (once). I keep hoping someone will end up telling the truth and actually trying to do what he says he is going to do. Maybe someday . . .

I hesitate voting for Obama, because I'm afraid he IS going to do what he says. Hopefully during the general election he will move toward the center a little.

McCain is still a question mark. He has not yet articulated his positions clearly enough for me -- most of his campaign has been the typical rethoric one expects at this point. I also worry about his continued good health. I feel that's a valid issue -- depending on his VP selection.

Thanks again for a good article.
May 20, 2008

5:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

" just because the current conservative president is a publically agreed upon failure, it does NOT follow that CONSERVATISM is a defunct or evil ideology."

quite right. very good point. that said, if the POLICY STANCES of the conservative candidate are the same ones that have consistently and "publically", as you say, failed...then it DOES follow that that conservative candidate will likewise, fail.

"I hesitate voting for Obama, because I'm afraid he IS going to do what he says."

p-denver, what policy stances of obama's scare you so much?
May 20, 2008

8:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

nonayerbsns writes:

WE, THE PEOPLE HAVE NO SAY IN THIS ELECTION ANYWAY!! It doesn't matter if you are a Republican or Democrat. The 'super delegates' are going to choose their candidate and we must abide. Then, come september, the Electoral College will choose and again, we must abide. To think otherwise is just foolishness or naivete.
May 20, 2008

9:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

nonayerbsns writes:

Easy to say when the Republicants don't have now, nor will they ever evolve enough to have, a black guy and a woman vying for the office of the President.
May 21, 2008

9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

jay,

It might suprise you but it's not war in Iraq that's my main concern. I'm a Vietnam-era veteran, but I was against the Iraq war from the start. I thought we should have bombed them and walked away -- no boots on the ground. It worked fine in Libya. I think we should pull out and let the factions go at each other -- which they are going to do, anyway, no matter how long we stay there. History is clear, and will repeat itself forever in that area.

It's his (and Mrs. Clinton's) ideas regarding national health care. It's his willingness to recognize and negotiate with hostile groups (not "governments" -- I don't think some of them qualify as governments). It's supporting the "global warming" treaties that would adversely impact our economy, without truly solving anything. It's his willingness to consider handing over control of some aspects of our legal system to the U.N. None of these alone is a deal-breaker. I think Mr. Obama is an intelligent guy. As with Mr. McCain, I'm waiting for some of the primary-campaign-related speeches to settle down into detailed discussions on policy. I don't like McCain. I, too, think his tendency will be to continue what I feel is a bad Republican policy set up by the current President. But I also don't want to swing too far the other way.

Is there a "centerist" candidate out there somewhere you could recommend?
May 21, 2008

12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

I don`t usually vote for Republicans because they do not "value my families".

As for preserve and defend the Constitution, who is trying to amend it with that nasty DOMA issue?

Conservative fiscal policies are often the best, where do we see any right now?

Liberal social issues give people more, not less freedom because we fight to cancel the old blue laws, and yet folks fight the ideas we present, such as driving the insurance industry out of your medical care, as if we were going after their throats.

Our foreign policy is what exactly, right now? If hostile groups are our enemies now, then that is who you talk to, you can always shoot them later.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

It's ideology, not race or sex that matter

Andrew Altman, Aurora

Published May 19, 2008 at 8 p.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Post your comment

Featured

Columns & Blogs

News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Calendar

Upcoming events

Sponsored links