I can understand your sentiments if politics were like a baseball game, except even there the enjoyment of watching a one-sided game rapidly fades, even when you're rooting for the winning side.

While Ms. McKinney may provide great theater for spectators and partisan advantage for Republicans, the voters of the Georgia 4th district still need to vote for the candidate who they believe will most effectively promote their views and their interests. Why should they be urged to suffer for the amusement of others?

Her opponent is going to vote on issues about like McKinney, so there is no difference there to America.

Sorry, even from a partisan perspective, you do want articulate opposition. If muscles don't have to overcome resistance, they become flabby. If all Democrats had the (lack of) stature of Ms. McKinney, the ruling Republicans would be even more flabby then they are now (think pork) - and this is not in the interest of our country, regardless of party affiliation. We need a lean team to set an example in protecting our interests against the jihadists and other threats to our nation.

No let the Democrats put up their best team and force the Republicans to earn their place on the podium. We'll all be better off for it.

Posted by civil truth at August 1, 2006 03:14 PM

civil truth is right on this one. I want for the McKinney's of the world to have a forum as long as there are enough of them that we have to keep an ear out for what they're saying. But elections are a different matter.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at August 1, 2006 03:57 PM

The most dangerous politicians are the moderates. Far leftest like McKinney are not taken serious. I tend to agree that she is more of an asset to our side than hers. The trouble is that moderates cannot function with out someone to compromise with.

Asume that political ideas are on a scale from 0 to 10 with 0 on the far left. McKinny might propose a number 0 idea and some one else might propose a number 4 idea. The moderates who always clame to have number 5 ideas believe compromise is king. They would say that the 0 idea is too far but would propose a compromise 3 idea. Even a freek who is shot down on every issue pushes the debate to the left.

Also consider the people of her home district. It is a gerrymandered district set up to have a majority of voters who think like McKenney, but even they deserve a real representative. If there is any voice of opposition in that district let it be heard.

Posted by Cliff Brown at August 1, 2006 04:16 PM

CT & Asst, actually McKinney does represent the views of the people in her district. You should watch the wild campaign stops and election night parties to know that they get excited over her for the same reasons that they liked Mike Tyson, O.J. Simpson, etc.--she sticks it to "whitey."

Now, she has pulled out the race card again, but on her black opponent--saying that it's the white Republicans backing him. That district deserves her and she represents them perfectly.

A Republican has no hope in that district, so the Republicans don't get flabby by not campaigning there. They save their time and money for other races.

Did you see Cindy Sheehan at McKinney's election night party?

Posted by Woody at August 1, 2006 04:24 PM

Amen! She's exactly what her constituents deserve, and is an asset to the Republican party as well. Every time she opens her mouth she makes Republicans look intelligent and thoughtful. GO CYNTHIA!!

Posted by Vulgorilla at August 1, 2006 07:00 PM

Woody, have you fallen down the Rabbit Hole...first the winner, then the election? Obviously, Ms. McKinney has some level of support in her district. After all, she is the incumbent and did end up with the plurality of the first primary vote.

However, I always thought that we hold elections in the U.S. to determine who best represents the views of their constituents -- rather than some omniscient observer pontificating as to who is the best representative of the district and then expecting the electorate to ratify that pronouncement. The latter is what I expect to see in Russia or Venezuela.

Are you basing your opinion on who can put on the most exciting demonstrations? If so, you definitely should be agitating for Lopez Obrador to be Mexico's next president...

My "flabby Republicans" comment was referring to Congress. Those Democrats who do get elected should be competent advocates for their electorate. It does no good to our Republic and the ongoing battle for our nation's soul if ideas get discredited by the antics of their advocates rather than by the merits of the ideas themselves.

Posted by civil truth at August 1, 2006 07:02 PM

CT, in a rational moment, I really don't support Cynthia McKinney. However, her opponent will vote exactly like she does, so representation is not in the balance--simply the theater. While I wouldn't mind her being gone and them ripping down the sign naming a portion of I-285 after her, it won't end the world if she stays.

In all honesty, if there are completely stupid people out there who will vote for her, then she is the best representative for them. Actually, as opposed to your point, it might do our republic good to show that there are people like McKinney out there who use her as their voice--and, this can serve as a warning to the real decline of our republic.

Democrats are not "competent advocates for their electorate." Democrats tell them what they want to hear rather than what is right.

For instance, I live in a gerrymandered district that grabbed my little section of the county to connect two large counties on each side of us. My representative, a Democrat, got his MBA from Wharton and worked for the same national CPA firm as I did. He isn't stupid. However, he votes for every stupid piece of legislation because his base (not my county) is stupid. Since he isn't stupid and he wants to re-elected, he gives them what they want--and messes up the country in the process.

Maybe I can sum up the Democrats as having no principles.

Posted by Woody at August 1, 2006 08:14 PM

Now you're making some sense, Woody.

What I think I hear you saying is that the the political thinking of the majority Democratic electorate of District 4 is so ill-considered and "out there" that they deserve to have someone like McKinney as their representative as an appropriate consequence of their thinking -- a form of poetic justice ("serves them right"). Got it.

Actually, I recall reading about the gerrymandering in Georgia, although I thought the courts had thrown it out. Or were you just unlucky when they went back and redrew the boundaries?

However, while our Washington Democrats have exhibit quite a range of shameless beharior recently, I'm afraid they don't have a monopolyof lack of principles. Besides the pork issue (which afflicts both parties, but the Republicans have greater responsibility since they are in power), in the past couple of months, a number of Republicans seem to be throwing out principles in a craven effort to stake out positions that they think will get them reelected.

Perhaps, it's courage that is an increasingly scarce commodity in Washington. It remains to be seen whether our pants-wetting representative will save their skins or just succeed in sinking the ship of State.

Posted by civil truth at August 1, 2006 08:59 PM

CT, agreed that both parties lack principles and/or courage. It's just that the Democrats have more practice at that.

The gerrymandering comes as a result of the former Democrats in control using computers to help them hold their districts, and the Republicans enforcing the Voting Rights Act, which was just extended 25 years for the reasons stated in the sentence above. Any redistricting which would dilute black voter representation gets tossed out by the courts, so they draw crazy lines.

Thanks to the Republicans recently gaining control, the lines for the 2006 elections are more rational than those for the 2004 one and come closer to grouping people with common needs and beliefs rather than merely political parties (Exp. Agricultural counties grouped, suburban grouped, and urban grouped)--but, they still have to honor the Voting Rights Act and use precinct "bridges" to do that. At least that's better than going down the middle of the river or under an overpass to connect areas hundreds of miles apart.

Posted by Woody at August 2, 2006 06:07 AM

Woody,

It is apparent that you are a listener of Neal Boortz. He has been advocating the same thing as far as Rep. McKinney is concerned, and for the very same reasons.

Posted by LASunsett at August 3, 2006 02:47 PM

Sure I catch Boortz as well as Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, etc. (Air America was kicked off the air here, or you know that I would listen to that.) Boortz and I often say the same things because we saw the same story or read the same source. On the other hand, I've passed several ideas to Boortz which he used, and he milked my personal story regarding "service learning" in college for years. He's great entertainment, but we still disagree about one-third of the time because of his Libertarian bent.

Posted by Woody at August 4, 2006 08:32 AM

I understand both Woody and civil-truth. While civil-truth has a point in demanding that a representative not be merely an exhibitionist which only provides fodder for laughter from the opposition who then think they don't have to work hard to earn support, Woody is saying that there is a danger in having a representative who makes insane decisions sound reasonable.

I can't help but think of the Democrat's new language lately which they call "re-framing the argument". It's just another way of saying they recognize a need to use fancier words to sell what others may deem an inferior product.

Posted by Oyster at August 6, 2006 10:11 AM

Oyster, I wasn't really raising a danger alarm. McKinney is so "out there" that no one, except her own stupid constituency, takes her seriously. She has almost no impact at all on legislation and never introduces bills.

I like the way that the left keeps re-labeling themselves, such as calling themselves "progressive." They say that they are for peace because they want to end war--although winning the wars ends wars, rather than quitting. They claim that criminals really are just "undocumented" and deserve the right to vote. The list goes on, but the dictionary has seen many changes over the years thanks to liberals who rename a failed position with something catchy to try to re-sell it. They are like the city council that renamed a main street in a very bad area thinking that would make the area improve. It's still a bad area.

Posted by Woody at August 6, 2006 05:56 PM

McKinney's no danger at all. I was implying that a more savvy or glib democrat is more of a danger because being more adept at manipulation of language can influence people who go to the polls to vote on constitutional issues. A crazy idea still seems crazy when presented by McKinney, but someone who is slicker (sound familiar?) will have more influence with the electorate. Your second paragraph proves the point just as well.

Posted by Oyster at August 7, 2006 09:00 AM

She is an embarrasement to everything she is supposed to represent in her elected office. Clearly another person who feels the world owes them & they can do whatever they want to get theirs by playing on race or gender. Selfless service and commitment to others is not her strong point.

Posted by JA at August 8, 2006 06:03 PM