Say Anything Blog

Good catch, Creas. I would like to see all the declared candidates in this forum. Broadcast live on network TV, Cable And Radio. No edits. No delay. No weasly lawyer speak.

Think they would go for it?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

What exactly is the “conflict over tribal sovereignty”? With unions, that could mean anything.

Maybe the unions are finding out that their thug tactics carry no legal weight in Indian casinos. Unions just love that the law states that the workers can unionize, but the employer can’t say no to the unionized workers. It’s a one-sided deal with the employers getting the short end of the stick. And I’m betting that the Indian casinos don’t have to play by these unfair and stacked laws. Now the unions are crying about it because they don’t have the upper hand like they do with the rest of us.

Am I off the mark there Creasy?

likwidshoe-

I am not sure, I will have to look into that.  I don’t think the local casino where I live has unions in it either.  Your analogy would seem correct.

That is a great question, I will have to find out.

2H9-

I am in favor of all candidates being there, Republican Democratic, Independent, Green Party, Constitution, Libertarian, Whig (joke)

I would like to see this happen with every Presidential candidate giving their stance on the issues surrounding Tribes. 

I know that whomever shows up there will get serious consideration for my vote in ‘08.  Republican or Democrat.

Your proposal sounds good: Broadcast live on network TV, Cable And Radio. No edits. No delay. No weasly lawyer speak.

Only the candidates with a backbone and enough guts would sign up for that.  It would be interesting to see if that would happen.  I am not sure how many would go for that.

Sounds like more polarizing identity politics to me.  Next, we’ll hear about the transgendered Ethiopian refugee bloc offering to vote for whichever party gives them some attention.

skh.pcola-

Next, we’ll hear about the transgendered Ethiopian refugee bloc offering to vote for whichever party gives them some attention.

Well, if the Ethiopian refugee bloc can put together a Presidential forum I say more power to them. 

However, your comment is flawed at best.  First of all, refugees cannot vote.  Secondly, Tribes and Native American voters are interested in the candidates’ stance on issues that mean something to them. 

It isn’t a matter of which candidates give the forum their attention, it is about hearing their stance on issues that are important to Tribes.  I am willing to hear them out and make my decision on who to vote for based in part on their interest and position on certain issues.  I think this is how all Americans decide on who to vote for.  They base it on issues that are of importance to them.

skh.pcola - Sounds like more polarizing identity politics to me.

Oh, for sure. The fact that one of the groups is an Indian group makes it polarizing identity politics. Polarizing, in no small part, because the group assures us that they are of a different nation and yet they vote in U.S. elections.

You could even argue that the unions represent identity politics to some degree. In purpose and action, unions represent an interest; but the union members themselves would tell you that they are “the downtrodden workers” or some other such BS, thus in practice falling into identity politics.

For those who aren’t sure what we’re discussing: “identity politics” are group politics where the group is defined by something innate (i.e. skin color, gender, nationality, etc). Basically, grouping based on things that one is born with and can’t change. Beyond matters of equality, these groups politically angle for special rights and favors.