![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on January 22, 2012, at 20:35:20
Politics is so often discouraging.
Posted by sigismund on January 23, 2012, at 1:12:54
In reply to Sigh, posted by Dinah on January 22, 2012, at 20:35:20
I'm glad I'm not younger.
But I have found a few bright spots. Rick Santorum comes from a long line of lefties, and Newt has pledged to be faithful to wife number 3 and is now reconciled with the Lord.
Posted by Dinah on January 23, 2012, at 9:15:02
In reply to Re: Sigh, posted by sigismund on January 23, 2012, at 1:12:54
I was just thinking of the disadvantages of age. I remember when the candidates' baggage was current events.
I need a third party. Neither of the current ones are meeting my needs.
Posted by Dinah on January 23, 2012, at 10:24:44
In reply to Re: Sigh » sigismund, posted by Dinah on January 23, 2012, at 9:15:02
You know, I'm a natural republican. Maybe more of a sixties or seventies or eighties republican than the sort of republican that's been around in recent years, but still a conservative leaning moderate.
These last two presidential elections with Palin and Newt have hurt my heart, and may well force me to vote Democrat in the presidential race twice - despite my strong feelings about an judiciary exceeding the scope of the balance of powers that has driven my presidential voting for years.
I'm not saying that no one should vote for them. I'm just wondering where the Republican party I remember went to. The national ticket no longer represents conservative leaning moderates.
Posted by sigismund on January 23, 2012, at 14:14:23
In reply to Re: Sigh, posted by Dinah on January 23, 2012, at 10:24:44
Well, you are younger than Pat who often enough spoke of the Republican platform from the time of Goldwater (I think it might have been). On an unrelated (?) note I can recall my mother calling Nelson Rockefeller a pornographer.
What I notice, at the most superficial level is this....there are those who seem of this world, and those who seem of another. Romney is in the middle. (They do make you long for some English dental practice though....that would sort them out.)
There was a program on the radio talking about Reagan and how the lunar candidates would have (negatively) judged those policies. I forget all the details, but at least some of them involved taxation.
I am reading "Rainbow Pie" and will move onto "Deer Hunting with Jesus".
Posted by sigismund on January 23, 2012, at 14:39:09
In reply to Re: Sigh » Dinah, posted by sigismund on January 23, 2012, at 14:14:23
I wondered whether this Rockefeller being a pornographer thing might be part of some Republican civil war. Was the Heritage Foundation beavering away then? Anyway I found this bit of trivia on wikipedia............
On 14 February 1948, he married Jievute Paulekiute, an actress and model who had worked professionally under the names "Eva Paul" and "Barbara Sears," and popularly known as "Bobo."[1] She was the former wife of Boston Brahmin figure Richard Sears, Jr.[citation needed] The wedding took place in Florida, and at the reception, a choir sang Negro spirituals. [2] Seven months later, Jievute gave birth to Rockefeller's only child, Winthrop Paul.
The couple separated in 1950 and divorced in 1954. The dissolution of the marriage was acrimonious, with suggestions that Rockefeller owned an extensive collection of pornography. [3] Jievute claimed that the $1 million trust fund set up for Winthrop was unworthy of a Rockefeller heir. She eventually received a $5.5 million settlement composed of $2 million in cash and a $3.5 million trust fund for herself and Winthrop. [4] She was later engaged to Charles W. Mapes, Jr., but never married him. [5]
On 11 June 1956, he married Seattle-born socialite Jeanette Edris; Rockefeller was her fourth husband. [6] She left her first husband, Nate Barragar, less than three months after they were married. [7] The couple had no children, and divorced in 1971. [8]
Posted by sigismund on January 23, 2012, at 16:16:29
In reply to Re: Sigh, posted by sigismund on January 23, 2012, at 14:39:09
Maybe my mother was thinking of this?
Rockefeller, favored by moderate and liberal Republicans, was considered the front-runner for the 1964 campaign against conservative Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, who led the right wing of the Republican Party. In 1963, a year after Rockefeller's divorce from his first wife, he married Margaretta "Happy" Murphy, a divorcee with four children.[49] This turned many in the party off, especially women.[49] The divorce hurt Rockefeller's standing among voters and was widely condemned by politicians, including US Senator Prescott Bush (R-Connecticut), father of President George H.W. Bush and grandfather of President George W. Bush who spoke out condemning Rockefeller for his infidelity,divorce, and remarriage.[
Posted by Dinah on January 23, 2012, at 16:23:26
In reply to Re: Sigh, posted by sigismund on January 23, 2012, at 14:39:09
Oh. He *owned* pornography. I thought you meant he starred in it, which was a very odd (and none too attractive) picture. Was that really considered an oddity, even then? How nice to find standards by which I feel quite worldly. :)
I'm not the morality police. My recollections have more to do with performance in office.
Posted by Dinah on January 23, 2012, at 16:29:53
In reply to Wrong Rockefeller, posted by sigismund on January 23, 2012, at 16:16:29
You're making me feel nostalgic! Well, nostalgic for times I never really knew. I came of age in the era of free love, key swap parties, and drugs. Porn? Divorce? So what? Chill, baby, chill.
In theory anyway. In practice I was a traditional Mormon girl who made it to adulthood without even being offered drugs. My (non-Mormon) social group exerted positive peer pressure. :)
Posted by sigismund on January 23, 2012, at 16:58:42
In reply to Re: Sigh » sigismund, posted by Dinah on January 23, 2012, at 16:23:26
>I thought you meant he starred in it, which was a very odd (and none too attractive) picture. Was that really considered an oddity, even then?
That idea is too extreme for even the Heritage Foundation. It may stem from Lyndon LaRouche. Here they call themselves the Citizens Electoral Council and have radical looking (made me quite nostalgic) young people on their stalls. But when you look at their ideas they are a bit strange. They keep on talking about damming Australian rivers. I suggested that nearly all our rivers had been ruined and it was time to leave them alone to recover.
Anyway it is like the viewpoint that the British Royal Family controls the world drug trade.
"Although all of the groups, at their core, adhere to LaRouche's ideology, which holds that a "super elite"--including such disparate elements as the Rockefeller family, the British Royal Family, the Anti-Defamation League, the Soviet KGB, National Review, and The Heritage Foundation--controls world events, many are set up ostensibly as academic or charitable organizations. The use of various fronts has been among the LaRouche network's most successful tactics, enabling it to attract unwitting, well-intentioned citizens to its cause. While these individuals generally break any connection as soon as they realize the real nature of LaRouche's organizations, in some cases longer term,relationships are established."
Posted by Dinah on January 23, 2012, at 20:21:00
In reply to Re: Sigh » Dinah, posted by sigismund on January 23, 2012, at 16:58:42
I've never quite understood think tanks. But I suspect I'd like working for one. :)
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.