Goldwater/Kucinich

I voted for Goldwater, and would vote for Kucinich, if he were on the ballot.

I voted for Goldwater, but I am not very knowledgable about Kucinich, so I really could not say.

well Edgar you realize that puts us both behind the 8-ball of american/a2k politics where lining up behind labels such as republican/ conservative vs democratic/liberal is set in concrete and the defense of each is totally irrational. There are still a few americans who have respect for integrity. (damn few)

I attended some Goldwater rallies in '64 and was impressed that he spoke his mind without regard for the conventional wisdom of the day. Even when buried in the polls, he stuck to his message.

Of coruse he lost to the same degree as Kucinich, the people don't really like honesty, they prefer feel good lies.

For sure not many politicians will tell the truth if a lie will get them votes.

You talking bout me?

I remember you were pretty peeved the other time when I expressed my incredulity that someone would support both Kucinich and Goldwater..

I dunno, man.

I mean, I know that personality is everything in US politics, and programme comes a distant second in most people's considerations. I never got the hang of that. But this seems like taking that a bit far.. I mean, Kucnich is on the isolationist, near-socialist end, and Goldwater was the original postwar free market fundy - I bet they wouldnt have agreed on a single thing! (Barring the Iraq war, perhaps).

Of course sincerity and honesty are all good. But I dunno, I can think of a bunch of politicians that are wholly sincere, and that I would nevertheless never vote for - cause, you know, I dont agree with a thing they say.

(Even in your country - Sam Brownback seems sincere, for example. He seems to really believe in what he says, and isnt averse of throwing in his own glasses when it comes to preaching his beliefs either, going on about the Christian duty to fight poverty in Africa to an audience of local businessmen and the like - TNR had a good, sympathetic profile on him. But considering his religious politics, Id never vote for him were I American.)

Perhaps I'm just an even greater idealist: I guess to me sincerity is a precondition for my support -- not its conclusion.

Hillary was a Goldwater Gal.

I have to agree with Nimh.

I can admire a political opponent who at least is willing to sacrifice to keep his ideas consistent. But ultimately, I am much more interested in what a politician is likely to do instead of his reasons for doing it. If a fellow really doesn't believe that much in something I believe in but supports it anyway because his base demands it, that's okay with me. I'd rather have somebody enact something good for political reasons, than have him reject it for moral reasons.

If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters.
Alan Simpson

I was on the staff of 2 govenors, I often disagreed with both but found them well reasoned and over the years changed my mind more often than not in their direction. Western American politics is a strange critter, Sen Gary Hart was my idol.

Hmm, I have some pretty deeply held political beliefs myself. On social justice and sheltering the poor, for example. A guy may be as honest and smart as he can be, if he sincerely thinks the free market is the answer to most everything, I'll respect him and his opinion, but I'll support and vote for another guy, thank you very much.

Or to put it this way - like I said, from what I read so far I think Sam Brownback has integrity - but his position on abortion still goddamn matters to me..

Example: You, the voter, strongly support a woman's right to choose.

Candidate A is fine fellow who strongly opposes state or Federal funding for abortions. There is no question he is absolutely genuine in his opposition. He sponsors legislation opposing this.

Candidate B has opposed this funding in the past, but in a bid to "move to the center" he now says he will support legislation to allow this funding.

If you are a strong supporter of a woman's right to choose, would you vote for the strongly principled Candidate A who is going to oppose what you feel these poor women need, or Candidate B who can help get it done for them-even though he's only on their side for political reasons?