Tweet
My apologies, I saw that a little too late (on page 2).
-
"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." -- JFK Inaugural, 1961
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is not a vice." -- Barry Goldwater, 1964 GOP Nomination acceptance speech (not George W. Bush 40 years later...)
2004 Presidential Candidate
2008 Presidential Candidate (for what its worth) -
Only two credible candidates? Even discounting the obvious Bush and Kerry from that list surely there were more than two credible candidates? I thought New York had a simlar system to the rest of the United States regarding elections? I had at least half a dozen candidates to choose from on my ballot here in Colorado, and they were chosen to represent their parties on the national ballot by different people in every instance (members of their own party) and not by the same people who decide everything else in the country as is done in Iran. Aside from this, if I were unhappy with the selection of candidates I am allowed to write in anyone I want.Originally posted by GePap
And of course, as is most common with your commentary, your wrong.
On DanS's notion that the Iraqiu presidential elections were undemocratic. Hmm, they had 6 Candidates for President.
I had 2 credible candidadates last time I went to the polls, and the winner does not even have to win a mayority if the popular vote, but a Byzantine system of state caucauses.
Should seem obvious that the Iranian model is so much less democratic....
Iran is effectively a one party state, and that one party never has to stand for elections, but instead rules from the shadows. It decides who runs, who gets arrested and which election results to nullify when it doesn't care for the outcome. Democracy has receded constantly since the formation of the republic, and now serves only as a means to play the Iranian public and gullible outsiders like Imran and now apparantly you.He's got the Midas touch.
But he touched it too much!
Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!Comment
-
Re: Hard-core fundamentalist leads Iran presidential vote
But Dan this is so predictable - the invasion of Iraq was always going to play into the hands of extremists in Iran.Originally posted by DanS
Even though this is largely a symbolic post, it still is dismaying to me. Iran appears to be heading right back into islamofascism...
Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..
Look, I just don't anymore, okay?Comment
-
Weak. By that definition no country would ever have a chance of moving relatively peacefully from fascism or stalinism etc. as they would never have a "sane" candidate for change. Extremely weak argument considering the fact that there exists a sizable population (probably a plurality if not a majority) in Iran who want just the sorts of reforms that lotm mentions.Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is in Iran's political spectrum... and Ebadi would be considered a wacko radical.
Just like people like Bush, who are within the US spectrum would be a crazy right wing wackjob in any European country... countries have different political spectrums.He's got the Midas touch.
But he touched it too much!
Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!Comment
-
Revolutionary secularists weren't in any position to win a Presidential election in Iran, particularly considering the boycott of many Reformists in the past election (and, hence, Moin's loss). It'd be like if the Supreme Court banned Nader, Cobb, Brown, etc. from running over here, i.e. it wouldn't have made much of a difference, and the election would've been by and large "democratic." The FPTP system, ballot access rules, etc. here serve a similar function as the Guardian Council's exclusions. Obviously in Parliamentary elections and so forth, these bans are a lot more relevant."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap
"Maybe LoTM you are missing the distinction between "Reform" and "Revolution"
Asking for the Council of Guardians to be removed would be a very difficult political step. NO sane reformer will run on such a platform because they would lose."
How do you know? No one is allowed to run on such a platform.
"You see, it seems in Iran reformers actually attempt to get elected, as opposed to making stands that take them nowhere."
There are Iranian reformers who boycotted both rounds of the election. Of course the ones who RAN in the election had to first get approved by the Mullahs, and so had to adopt "acceptable" positions.
"Winning a Nobel Peace Prize is nice, but how does it actually affect the people on the ground??"
Er, it indicates that someone may actually know more about what the hell is going on in Iran, and in its reform movement, than you do? And that her charecterization of the situation is quite different from yours?"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Originally posted by Ramo
"Revolutionary secularists weren't in any position to win a Presidential election in Iran, particularly considering the boycott of many Reformists in the past election (and, hence, Moin's loss). "
the reason the real reformers boycotted the election was precisely because of the limitations on democracy.
" It'd be like if the Supreme Court banned Nader, Cobb, Brown, etc. from running over here, i.e. it wouldn't have made much of a difference, and the election would've been by and large "democratic." "
A. It wouldnt be
B. AFAICT the support for the real reformers is greater than that.
" The FPTP system, ballot access rules, etc. here serve a similar function as the Guardian Council's exclusions. "
er, no. They are content neutral. The GC doesnt exclude anyone with small support - they specifically exclude people with a platform they dont like."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Is Ayatollah Montazeri also a "revolutionary secularist"?Originally posted by Ramo
Revolutionary secularists"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Which has more to do with the power of the judiciary vis a vis elected institutions, rather than the inadequacy of Moin in particular.the reason the real reformers boycotted the election was precisely because of the limitations on democracy.
And that's effectively equivalent. On what basis do you say that a revolutionary secularist could win an election?er, no. They are content neutral. The GC doesnt exclude anyone with small support - they specifically exclude people with a platform they dont like."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Possibly. I'd have to to think about that. But he wasn't 20 years ago.Is Ayatollah Montazeri also a "revolutionary secularist"?"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo
"Which has more to do with the power of the judiciary vis a vis elected institutions, rather than the inadequacy of Moin in particular."
AFAICT its some of both.
"And that's effectively equivalent."
Its not equivalent in terms of the basic elements of democracy.
"On what basis do you say that a revolutionary secularist could win an election?"
Your use of the tem revolutionay secularist is far from neutral. One could well want some elements of Islamism in the Iranian govt without wanting power lodged in a group of unelected mullahs. Indeed, Sistanic, Jaafari and others in Iraq (which has viewed and reacted to the Iranian system) whom we are repeatedly told are "Islamists" dont want a role for the clergy in govt. In fact they are closer to Shiite tradition than the Khomeinists are. Ayatollah Montazeri opposes the role of the mullahs in govt. There are definitely people in Iran who are NOT revolutionary secularists who would like to see the end of the power positions of the mullah councils.
as for the basis, I must say its real hard to get a good read on the public opinion in Iran. Esp on those who support POVs the mullahs disallow. I would say the burden falls on the mullahs and their apologists to demonstrate that the real reformist position is NOT widely supported, since they are the ones justifying its suppression on the grounds that its unpopular anyway. If its so unpopular, why do the mullahs bother to ban it? Better to let it out in the light of day, and thus show its weakness."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Im referring to his position now, as an esteemed Shiite cleric, who is opposed to the role of the Guardian Council and Expediency Council.Originally posted by Ramo
Possibly. I'd have to to think about that. But he wasn't 20 years ago.
I presume your view that everyone who opposes the domination of an unelected body of cleric is a "secularist" is confined to Iran. Because otherwise Sistani, Jaafari, the Christian Social Union in Bavaria, and even the right wing Christian Fundamentalist Republicans in the US are secularists. So also, the Islamist party in Turkey."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
The point you so glaringly miss is that, NO, noone will be elected asking for the removal of the system that decides whether they can run or not.
Once you get elected, and get a mayority in the legislature, then you can push. Otherwise, you are left waiting for a revolution, simply because the President of Iran, without a legislature to back him, could not really hope to take on the conservatives politicvally, and would need to wait for the streets to erupt.
That is what distinguishes "Reformer" from "Revolutionary".
Is that distinction too difficult to grasp?If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard ShawComment
-
ergo, by definition, no regime ever effectively oppresses reformers, since if they are effectively oppressed, they can only take power by revolution, and thus cease to be reformers. Breathtaking.Originally posted by GePap
The point you so glaringly miss is that, NO, noone will be elected asking for the removal of the system that decides whether they can run or not.
Once you get elected, and get a mayority in the legislature, then you can push. Otherwise, you are left waiting for a revolution, simply because the President of Iran, without a legislature to back him, could not really hope to take on the conservatives politicvally, and would need to wait for the streets to erupt.
That is what distinguishes "Reformer" from "Revolutionary".
Is that distinction too difficult to grasp?
The point remains - the elections did NOT represent the full spectrum of political opinion in Iran. And the excluded represented an opinion that could only be called reformist, except that the very exclusion made them by definition "revolutionary""A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
WTF.Originally posted by lord of the mark
ergo, by definition, no regime ever effectively oppresses reformers, since if they are effectively oppressed, they can only take power by revolution, and thus cease to be reformers. Breathtaking.
How the hell do you get to that statement?
Maybe you missed the point earlier, but the Council of guardians had originally left out all the reformers-only because of protests did the Supreme leader reinstate two. That meant that the Iranian system had done a pretty good job of, well, efefctively repressing reformers.
No election ever does. You call Germany's elections always undemocratic because there is no legal way for a Nazi to run in Germany?The point remains - the elections did NOT represent the full spectrum of political opinion in Iran. And the excluded represented an opinion that could only be called reformist, except that the very exclusion made them by definition "revolutionary"
And yes, a Reformist DID RUN. That was the whole point of posting the candidates. Had the people wanted to elect a reformer, they had one running!
What happened is that the sectors who would generally vote for a reformer boycotted the elections
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard ShawComment
Comment