Nov 20 2007
02:24 pm

From another Roane County blog ((link...))

"Becky Ruppe, County Executive of Morgan County , has announced her bid
for the open senate seat that will be left from Tommy Kilby's vacancy.
According to a press release, Ruppe has the endorsement of Lincoln
Davis, Tommy Kilby and Dennis Ferguson."

I cannot vouch for the veracity of this statement - I quote it verbatim. The person that posted it is not given to be unreliable.



She's a Democrat?

She noted that she will part with some in the Democratic Party on social issues. Ruppe said she is pro-life and a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment Rights. She opposes gay marriage and opposes an income tax.

So Becky is "pro-Life" and supports at least one amendment to the Constitution. I hope we hear from her that she supports ALL the Amendments to the ....and that other part, too.

I just gotta ask...

To be a "real" or a "good" Democrat, does it require being in lock step on all issues?


Kinda missed the point, RB

To be a "real" Democrat you can't be in lock step. That's a Republican.

I'm just pointing out the contradiction between being pro-gun and pro-life, and the fallacy of picking out one rather intentionally misinterpreted amendment to the Constitution and waving it.

I want my candidate to support the entire Constitution. This is East Tennessee and I understand the realities of running for political office, but why can't a deep respect for the higest law of our Country be a platform issue, particularly with new high Constitutional crimes of our leadership coming to light almost every day?

Then she's a true Democrat...

Because she's not in lock step. She allows for inconsistency. She allows contradiction. It's a bow to reality. Sounds fine to me.


Is there some indication...

... that she does NOT support the entire Constitution? It doesn't follow logic to assume that because she says she supports thus-and-so that she does not support anything else that's there.

She's not running against George Bush (although if she were her chances would be greatly increased) - she's running, essentially, against Ken Yager.

Is it raising a straw man argument to imply that she may not support all the Constitution just because she didn't make a fuss over all of it in one single press release?

She forthrightly and honestly told people in her electorial district that she feels pretty much they way they do about these two issues. No hem-hawing or waffling. That's who she is. To my way of thinking, that's giving voters the kind of information they'll need. In Tennessee, she's not likely to be addressing any legislative issues that impinge on high Constitutional crimes in the White House or the Cabinet or even in the US Congress.


Some observations from another Democrat...

... on this topic. Full comments may be found at:
"In Kilby's 12th district, I would say the district is fairly even, but
the Democrats have a long relationship of holding on to that seat,
especially since the Democrats that run are usually in line both
socially and fiscally with the constituents' values.
Ruppe has already
stated that "she will part with some in the Democratic Party on social
issues. Ruppe said she is pro-life and a strong supporter of 2nd
Amendment Rights. She opposes gay marriage and opposes an income tax.
Ruppe said many of her values are principles taught to her by her
father, a minister." This is in line with the previous Democrats who
have held the seat and stances that are hard for Republican to
Ruppe's ability to keep taxes down will also be in stark
contrast to Yager's all out effort to do the same, while putting the
County is dire straights to accomplish it.

Interesting days, eh?


Some more comments from a Democrat

Not from me... But these are germane, I think to the discussion of the party/parties in general, and in specific of Becky Ruppe's candidacy...

Found on (link...) under the conversation thread called " Ruppe announces for Senate Seat"
Begin Quote
"As I've said or implied, I don't really think it is wise to align with a party on just one or two pet issues, as this is a big and complex world with intertwined issues. I personally prefer working together across the aisle, so I really see waiving on some issues as a plus with candidates. Tommy and Lincoln's pro-life stance has been in the form of supporting the Democrats for Life organization through their 95-10 plan with the goal of reducing abortion by 95% in 10 years. The goal should be a no brainier for everyone; however I would put the plan to get to the goal clearly in
the democratic leaning policy side as they want higher "support" for
mothers so they can keep their child while still supporting
themselves, without making a decision between the two.

"I really see some of their common sense tactics as good middle ground between the two extremes of those that want to criminalize women and those that don't see the potential life in the unborn. Regarding guns, I think
there is common sense required there too. When I was the Democratic
Chair of Roane County, I held a statewide gun shooting contest on
Independence Day to honor our shared freedom. (I even had Sheriff
Candidates participate in the event.) Tennessee's Democratic
Governor is a supporter of guns and during his first election offered Van
Hilleary the opportunity to compete against him. I guess given this,
some may questions the Governor's standing as a democratic, plus his
strong pro-business stance, but I personally think pro-business (in a
balanced approach) is also one of those common goals that we should
strive for so we can enjoy a good economy facilitated through a
fiscally responsible government. It's interesting that the more
middle/center (or open minded to compromise) Democrats are bashed by
those in their party that are more closed minded from the outside
fringe, but at the same time it's the middle/center Democrats that
helped win back the Congress, including Heath Shuler. It's my opinion
that compromise and common sense is the only future for either party
and will aid in a successful future for our Country."
End Quote

Very interesting comments, IMHO.


What is Inconsistent?

RB, I'm going to have to disagree with you that Ms. Ruppe "allows for inconsistency" and "allows contradiction." I'm not sure if you were trying to make a rhetorical point about Democrats here, but Ms. Ruppe is not inconsistent or self-contradictory by taking conservative positions. To the contrary, she expressly says that she "will part with some in the Democratic Party on social issues."

I think you've corrected this with your later post that she "forthrightly and honestly told people in her electorial district" her positions with "[n]o hem-hawing or waffling."

Godel's Theorem

Ever since spending a lot of time thinking about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem way back when, I haven't worried too much about inconsistency in nontrivial systems. :)

Before Gödel's, I used to strive for consistency in my own world view, a difficult task. Coming across that theorem from angle after angle in course after course was a very freeing experience. :)

Now I try to extend the same reasoning to others, and am willing to assume their world view systems are nontrivial until proven otherwise. :)

-- OneTahiti

OK, OneT, ya gotta share another secret with me...

how'dja make the umlaut in this text? Is there an HTML tag for that?

Good point, BTW.



I used a named character entity, such as those at: (link...)
or (easier to understand):
with more at:

The character entities don't work in the titles at RoaneViews, but do work in the message bodies.

To use a named character entity, type an ampersand, then the name of the character entity, then a semicolon.

For example, the name of the character entity for ö is: ouml

To get an ö, you must type in: ö

So, to show Gödel, one must type in: Gödel

These named character entities will work in any web pages, not just RoaneViews.

If you have any more HTML or web questions, please just ask! :)

-- OneTahiti


Thanks - very kind! Figured it was an HTML thing.


Mark - I can't say you're wrong...

but rather that my wording was probably clumsy. Not a rhetorical point about Democrats, rather one about the fact that it is normal and healthy and ALLOWABLE for humans to hold positions that, at least in some circumstances, can seem on their faces to be inconsistent. That is simply an acknowledgment of reality. Not everything can be forced into consistency. At least a rigid, artificial consistency that says Ms Ruppe isn't a real "Whatever" because of her positions. She is a real human, and she shares the beliefs and opinions of many of her constituents, whether they adhere to the label of "Democrat," "Republican," or "neither of the above." [Of course, this means that most people are NOT the kind of hard-core, extreme Democrat OR Republican that lives on the fringes of either party.] The kind of consistency that says it's impossible to do that is not natural and does at least smack of a desire for being in lock-step. Which, as WC points out, is not what Democrats do. Nor should it be what Republicans do. I think the point made in the blog that I quoted says that more eloquently than I.

And, in her quote where she said she "will part with some in the Democratic Party on social issues" is not a sign of weak inconsistency, rather a sign of realism and the recognition that the art of politics is about the art of compromise where compromise is possible.

Does that help?


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid / TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding.