Voting

[bluegoose]

I like that quote. One of my personal favorites is: "The price of freedom is that we carry not a shield, only a sword." (note, this is not a reference to violence or military action.) Unfortunately I do not know who said it. If anyone does, that would be greatly appreciated.

 

peace always

[NJCubScouter]

bluegoose says:

 

One of my personal favorites is: "The price of freedom is that we carry not a shield, only a sword." (note, this is not a reference to violence or military action.)

 

The deeper metaphorical meaning of this quote seems to be escaping me. If it is not a reference to violence or military action, what is it a reference to? What meaning do you get from this quote, bluegoose?

[SR540Beaver]

Bluegoose,

 

I googled your quote and came up empty. Are you sure you are quoting it accurately?

[Grumpy]

bluegoose says:

 

One of my personal favorites is: "The price of freedom is that we carry not a shield, only a sword." (note, this is not a reference to violence or military action.)

 

I don't get it either. Am I dense, or what?

[dsteele]

Okay -- I'll admit early that this interpretation of the alleged quote is a long shot on my part.

 

I did minor in literature.

 

A shield is a reactive device. A sword is a proactive device.

 

We forge ahead into our freedom with only our wits about us (the sword.)

 

We protect ourselves from enemy blows with a shield.

 

Hmm . . . sure sounds like violence to me.

 

"The price of freedom is that we carry not a shield, only a sword."

 

Perhaps this would be better, "the price of freedom is that we need a flashlight rather than a tent."

 

Unc.

[Eamonn]

I love American politics.

Armed with a pot of coffee and the remote I settled in for the night. OJ, had Scouts so I did leave the telly for a few minutes to go and pick him up.

Her Who Must Be Obeyed, had gone out very early and voted, in fact she was the 8th person. The polling station (What is the American?) is in the house that was the birth place of Henry Clay Frick. Depending on who you talk to he was a sinner or a saint. Our backyard I have been informed is where he kept his pit-ponies. It's next door, only a field away.

I sat and clicked from station to station. When Kerry took Pennsylvania I thought things were looking good. I watched the maps on TV become redder and redder. Most of the time I had CNN on the telly and NBC on the computer. At around 2:00 AM, CNN still were saying Ohio was too close too call and NBC had given it too Bush. Still I waited. Edwards came on and gave a "Every vote counts and we will count every vote" speech. I started to think that it would be a replay of Florida, four years ago.

Then the Chief of staff for Bush came out and said that they thought they had won. I moved to the set in the bedroom and fell asleep.

I still vote by mail for the elections back home. The coverage on the TV is not the same as it is here. No Dan Rather and a team of guys who looked like they were around the night of the very first election. No Peter Jennings to keep messing the map up or Tom Brokof (sp)to smile as he gives each snip-bit of information. The CNN team is different, we need a guy with a name like Wolf Blitzer. Back home when the count is done, the candidates stand on a platform and some local guy reads the results of all the races and how many votes each person got. While the two big parties, the Labour Party and the Conservative party are as I say the big ones. Labour, the party of the unions and the left and the Conservatives, the party of the right. We might have all sorts of other people running in a particular area. The Communists, do run every now and then as might anyone who has an agenda. We of course do not vote for the Prime Minister. Each party selects its own leader. The party with the most seats in the house of commons selects the Prime Minister, he then presents his credentials to the Queen, who gives him or her (Don't forget Maggie Thatcher.)permission to form a government.

It used to be all very civilized, but that was in a time almost forgot.

Still we don't know how lucky we are. Both here and back home in England, the people vote,we count the votes and win or lose we know that we don't need to send in the army or surround 10 Downing Street or the White House with tanks. When the time comes the winner will take on the job of government until we do it all again.

There is a lot to be said for the way it works.

Eamonn

[OldGreyEagle]

Tanks? Troops? No, not yet, although in 1968 I do remember the barb wire around McCormick Place during the Democratic Convention and the real Mayor Daley (Hizzoner)famous quote, "The police are not there to create disorder, the police are there to preserve disorder" or something close to that.

 

Anyway, does anybody remember just what the Yippies were protesting anyway?

[NJCubScouter]

OGE says:

 

Anyway, does anybody remember just what the Yippies were protesting anyway?

 

It was some war or something, wasn't it?

 

Or are you trying to exemplify the saying, "If you can remember the 60's, you weren't really there?"

[OldGreyEagle]

One of the things the protesters at the 68 Democratic Convention were all "postal" about was the method of selecting the presidential candidate. Back then there really was a "smoke-filled room" replete with party bosses making deals and deciding who would be best to carry this part of the country and who to be VP to appeal to another segment of the population so as to balance out the ticket.

 

After the 68 convention a few reforms went into effect and one of them developed into the primary system whereby the winner of a states primary gets the delegates from that state. This should be a good system except that the way its worked for the past several years the nomination is usually locked up in the first six weeks of the primary season and the country never gets to know all the condidates just the ones who came in 1, 2, 3 in Iowa and new Hampshire and then momentum builds as other less successful candidates drop out and we get left who is left. It may be time to add a little mystery to the process, to keep several candidates viable, I would have liked to have seen more of Westmoreland and a few of the other early drop outs. 08 promises to be a real blow out, I doubt Cheney wants to be president, I mean he already is (almost) and his health would be an issue. So, in 06 we start with a bunch of hopefuls from both sides of the aisle and we start to winnow it down to two opponets who will most likely be shaped by the choices of new hampshire and Iowa. I wonder if we can scheule all the primaries on the same day, any thoughts?

[bluegoose]

To address all the questions regarding my quote:

I am a very symbolic person, and this quote had a deep metahporical meaning. The idea is that there are certain problems associated with free society, and we cannot "shield" ourselves from them while still preserving freedom, all we can do is fight them (sword) once they occur. One example is unemployment. One way to solve this problem is to have the government assign each citizen a job, however that compromises freedom. I hope I've explained it better, but if I'm still confusing everyone, let me know.

 

peace always

[scoutingagain]

"So, in 06 we start with a bunch of hopefuls from both sides of the aisle and we start to winnow it down to two opponets who will most likely be shaped by the choices of new hampshire and Iowa. I wonder if we can scheule all the primaries on the same day, any thoughts? "

 

I guess I agree that I would like to see more folks involved in the primary process than just those that vote early. I could see a series of regional primaries.

 

As far as '08 goes. Good question. Some of my immediate thoughts after the election were:

 

The Democratic Party leadership really are out of touch with much of the American midwest and were suprised by the turn out of the conservative vote in Ohio and Florida. (So was I) I read that there were over 9 million first time voters over the age of 40 in this election. Many, including myself, assumed those folks were already voting.

 

The Republicans run better campaigns, hands down.

 

The Massachusetts Supreme Court may have lost Kerry the election by energizing just enough of the conservatives that hadn't voted before to get out and vote for the candidate they believed would support their values.

 

I wonder who the Republicans will begin grooming for President in '08. I think they have a number of good potential candidates in John McCain, Rudi Guliani, or Mitt Romney, however none of those seem to be groomable the way President Bush was although all (even McCain) went out to their way not to do anything that would annoy the Republican Party leadership. The Democrats don't even seem to have anyone that could potentially win available. Hillary? Give me a break. Kerry again? Highly doubtful.

With the near sweep of Republican candidates in the south, the Dems don't even have much to offer in the form of a southern Democrat. I think they're in real trouble.

 

My hope is that George Bush, in a second term, will be the compasionate conservative I voted for in '00 and begin to heal the divisions within the country. The Republicans have their shot. I can't recall in my lifetime when one political party held so much power.

 

SA

[Rooster7]

I see the 08 election shaping up already to be:

 

Rudi Guliani and John Edwards

 

Besides being a national hero (at least to most of us), Gulianis potential to take the state of New York is most intriguing. Otherwise, hes simply a proven leader who has all the tools and know-how to get the job done. Also, I think hed kill Edwards in a debate something I hope to see in four years.

 

John Edwards comes a lot close than John Kerry to evoking the memory of John Kennedy. Kerrys blatant and shameless effort to imitate Kennedy was ridiculous. Yet, it was somewhat logical and predictable. Democrats, for the last four decades, have been waiting for someone to step into Kennedys shoes and pick up where he left off. As a young kid growing up in the 60s, I was taught to morn the death of a great president, cut down in his prime. And like most Americans, thats exactly what I did. Regardless, looking back, Im not convinced that we were deprived of the greatest president ever as many seem to think. No matter what I believe, I know that there are millions of democrats looking for the next great president the next John Kennedy a romanticized, fairy book president who will bring back Camelot. Edwards seems to be the Democrats man for that job. Hes young, good looking (or so Im told), and likes to make emotional speeches. But in my eyes he is all style and no substance.

 

Hillary, as you noted, would be a joke.

 

So you heard it here firstwhen it actually happens, I will point back to this post and thump my chest:

 

Guliani and Edwards in 08. Guliani will win in a landside (taking the state of New York)!

 

Anyone else want to make a prediction for 08?

 

[Eamonn]

Hillary a joke?

I just don't get it.

She is a very talented, educated and clever woman. You may disagree with her politics, say that her husband is a wife cheater. But Hillary a joke? I just don't get it.

Eamonn

[OldGreyEagle]

Eamonn, the reason I think it is said that Hillary would be a joke is because of the Blue states red states thing. If John Edwards, as southern a talker as there is can't deliver one state south of the mason dixson line, where will Hillary's support come from? From the same states that voted for John Kerry, minus some for sure. The democratic party needs to understand it needs more Mel Gibson in its ideals and less Michael Moore. Its fun to sit around the Beverly Hills Hotel and make fun of homophobic one toothed trailer park dwellers of the midwest, who go to chuch every sunday, but its a lot harder to get their vote. (and my description was done in total hyperbole, i dont believe it at all). In all the states that had either defense of marriage acts or somehting like that the final total was 11-0 with the gays losing them all. What does that say? It means the country has a conservative core and if you want to be president you have to appeal to the meat of the people. And the meat of the people are not ready to vote for a woman for president, and certainly not as liberal a woman as Hillary is. She may be a smart women, but her mass appeal is not that great right now, its always subject to change.

[gsmom]

Hillary Clinton is a smart, capable woman, and has worked hard for New York. I agree, however, that she would not appeal to the "red state" voters.

 

Don't be so sure about Rudy Giuliani, however. I lived in New York when he was mayor. He was majestic on 9/11. I strongly disagreed with his policies, though, and he was a polarizing figure in many ways, particularly with race relations. Anyone who lived there knows this.

 

Please note that the conservatives have demonized liberals in the same way that conservatives accuse liberals of demonizing them. This campaign was one of the nastiest in decades. We are all Americans. I am a liberal, and I have values too. Some of my values differ from conservatives' values. Some are the same. We also differ on what policies should be made law to promote these values.

 

I don't have much expectation that George W Bush will now become the "uniter, not a divider" that he promised in the first campaign.

 

Do you?