Oh, and to Bethany's question about tabbing. This is frequently an
option in many browsers. Look in your preferences somewhere.

Rob

On 9/6/07, Rob Felty   wrote:
> I disagree with Daniel, Erik, and Bill on this one.
>
> 1. Danny -- I think we should all support who we want to, and let the
> market decide who wins. :) You do make a good point though that
> publicly supporting people makes a big difference, which is why I sent
> this to my parents, knowing that they have probably heard little about
> Mike Gravel. If you are interested in learning more about Mike Gravel
> or Ron Paul, look at reddit.com (a sort of news aggregating website).
>
> 2. Bull-headedness and beer drinking.
>
> I once heard Pat Roberts talk on Fresh Air. I was very impressed by
> how articulate he was and he generally seemed to be very educated and
> intelligent, and made well-reasoned arguments. However, I strongly
> disagree with him on some economic issues, and almost all social
> issues. I would like to hear him in a debate, or talk with him in
> person, but I would never vote for him, because his actions would be
> almost the exact opposite of what I would wish for.
>
> Rob
>
> On 9/6/07, Bill Rand	 wrote:
> >	    I agree with Erik on this one.  When people kept saying that
> > they voted for Bush because he was the kind of guy he wanted to have a
> > beer with, I thought that was the worst possible criteria you could come
> > up with for electing a president.  I want someone who has intelligent
> > views on issues and can even convince me to change my mind on issues, and
> > works really hard to find out everything they need to know about an issue.
> > I want someone who I would pay to go sit in a lecture and hear them
> > discuss the issues of the day.  They provide unique insight, that really
> > makes me think.  In the end I guess I don't like to vote based on
> > someone's view on issues but rather on their articulation and evidence to
> > support their view on the issues.  Then I can go out and see if what they
> > say makes sense based on my own research.  Of course in cases where I have
> > clear thoughts on these issues, if they disagree with me it will of course
> > take them a lot more convincing, but I still won't vote for someone just
> > because they agree with me on everything.  In fact if I saw a candidate
> > just articulate all the things I support, but do it in a poor manner, I
> > would be less likely to vote for them.  So I don't think bull-headed
> > idealogue fixes this problem, but I do like your pre-commitment idea Danny
> > since it could overcome this objection if it was something we negotiated
> > on the list as a group as opposed to relying on the calculator.  Take
> > care,
> > Bill
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Daniel Reeves wrote:
> >
> > > Would adding the criterion "not a bull-headed ideologue" fix this?
> > >
> > > And what do you think of my ITW Endorsement Pre-commitment idea?
> > >
> > > --- \/   FROM Erik Talvitie AT 07.09.06 11:39 (Today)   \/ ---
> > >
> > > >> According to yootles.com/candicalc we are overwhelmingly in favor of
> > > >> Kucinich, as are (to a lesser extent) the other 150,000 people who
> > > >> answered those same questions.  The selectsmart page (linked to at the
top
> > > >> of yootles.com/candicalc) says I like Ron Paul the best.
> > > >
> > > > Here's the thing about these calculators: they seem to assume that your
> > > > ideal candidate is...you. To me, that's kind of an odd place to start
> > > > from. I mean, obviously it is true that I take the political positions
I
> > > > take because I believe if the government were to take the same
> > > > positions, we'd be a better nation for it. That said, I fully recognize
> > > > that if I could perform a government transplant and replace our current
> > > > one with one that agreed with me on every issue, we'd have a big
problem
> > > > on our hands. Because *most* people don't agree with me on at least
some
> > > > issue that is really important to them, and everything would just grid
> > > > to a halt. So really I'd much rather have a government that most people
> > > > can get along with, but one that is walking in my direction and
bringing
> > > > the nation with it.
> > > >
> > > > So when both calculators tell me Kucinich is the best candidate for me
> > > > (yootles: 58, selectsmart: 98), I can see where they're coming from. I
> > > > *like* Kucinich. I like what we has to say and I love to hear him
speak.
> > > > I think he's the most legitimately liberal candidate in the field. And
> > > > that's why I would never vote for him. He can't even sell his platform
> > > > to moderate dems, let alone die-hard conservatives. If he managed to
> > > > magically get to the oval office, he'd be a complete waste of time.
He'd
> > > > never get anything done because no congressperson (democrat or
> > > > republican) who wanted to get re-elected could have anything to do with
> > > > him. The same goes for Gravel and Paul too, as far as I'm concerned.
> > > > They all have great ideas for the Perfect America but they give no
> > > > indication that they will be able to put that agenda aside and work
with
> > > > the contentious, confused, inertial country we've got right now. We've
> > > > just suffered through 8 years of an ideological, bull-headed president
> > > > who knows what's best for everyone, despite abysmal approval ratings. I
> > > > don't want a repeat, even if I share the ideology this time around.
> > > >
> > > > So when I'm looking at candidates, I'm not looking for the one that is
> > > > the best reflection of me, I'm looking for the one that will best
> > > > champion my overall values to everyone else. I'd like the candidate who
> > > > is most likely to be able to convince the nation as a whole that a
> > > > couple of steps to the left ("and then a jump to the ri-i-i-i-ight!")
in
> > > > our policies will do us all some good. Even though I don't agree with
> > > > them issue for issue (and even on some issues that are really important
> > > > to me) I actually think the Democratic front-runners are probably the
> > > > best we've got using that criterion (and maybe Biden too, if he could
> > > > just gain some traction).
> > > >
> > > > Just my 2 pyoonies.
> > > >
> > > > Erik
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"
> > >
> > > Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the
> > > rest of the evening. Set a man on fire and
> > > he's warm for the rest of his life.
> > >
> > >
> >
>