American 2008 Election

[TheSixCents 0]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy After reading that I really do not like him. I think he would be a terrible President.

Though one of the reasons he won Iowa was due to religion. He has no chance in New Hampshire, where people seem to have more sense and tend to ignore religion, thankfully.quote>

Politics and Religion in America go hand and hand, sadly, but it is what it is.

[Boggy1 45]

beltfastuniguy: Ah, of course, I keep forgetting Northern Ireland because it devolved in the 1920s, whereas Scotland and Wales both devolved in 1997. Ah, but I should really not forget it, I'm writing a 4000 word essay on devolution in the United Kingdom

TheSixCents: I think my Mother summed it up quite well: "America is meant to have seperation of the Church and the State, but I find it funny that presidential every candidate and member of congress is religious, and they keep playing that religion card.."

[GingerBlokey 30]

The Republicans have gone fatally wrong because I have no idea who Huckabee is yet I could tell you most of Obama or Clinton's life history and I even know who Edwards is.

The Republicans need something memorable other than racism, conservatism and relgion which is all they are good for.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[DocRorlach 25]

After just having spent six years in the USA (and now being savely back in Europe), is that today's results are not a trendsetter: Obama or Huckabee or McCain (who really ought to be called Cain) in my mind would spell the possibly worst scenarios for US ploitics abroad and at home. Only the self-styled hero, Master Guiliani, who for all intents and purposes might out-do Bush in terms of failures, could be worse.

What I always failed to understand is why US voters seem to have this ambigious love-hate view of Hillary Clinton. Granted she's no barrel of laughs btu she appears to be the only one of the lot with any chance of regaining both western and eastern (speak Arabic) cooperation. She actually appears to know what Realpolitik means.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

First off, as someone who can track the family name to SW England as far back as the Roman occupation,(link to root name) you are right, I shouldn't lump the entire UK together under the name 'England', my apologies. I do know better.

I don't see an enormous problem with most of Huckabee's views. They are common conservative views shared by large segments of the population to one degree or another. He is not some far-right weirdo for his beliefs. Maybe he would be if this were Europe, but here ain't there. Like Gordon Brown's ideas would be laughed at in say, Russia, or Indonesia. Does Europe even have Southern Baptists?

I don't trust Rudy or Mitt, although Rudy actually had a very good reputation leading crackdowns on the mob as a prosecutor. Longtime FBI agents had a high opinion of him.

I like Ron Paul because he says what needs to be said, and share a great many of his views concerning the role and size of the federal gov't. Very few candidates have the guts to say the Fed Reserve is unconstitutional, and that the very existence of the IRS is wrong. While he is classified as a Libertarian, he is actually a strict constructionist Republican.

 Many of you on the Left wringing your hands over the influence of religious conservatives would like his distancing himself from that, although I doubt the wisdom of him quoting Sinclair Lewis while seeking the Republican nomination. 

[DocRorlach 25]

Well, I mean there here, but they aren't supposed to be here. If they are hardworking well good for them I say, but they know they are not supposed to be here. They are breaking our laws and you say we should give them our money? bah! I can barely pay for petrol!

And they are here illegally, think for a momeny sir, they are breaking the law...our laws anyway, so technically it is ok to call them illigal, in our system anyway, maybe to germans or something they are just here "against our wishes" but if your an American and they are breaking laws that the American people and the American founding fathers implemented I would go as far to call them illegal and not simply that "they are here against our wishesquote>

There waas once a movie, albeit a silly one, about a day when the "illegal aliens" in California laid down their working arms. While overboard in its tones, it did spell out a simple truth: most border states and nowadyas quite a few mid-western states, too, would be dark and economically unviable places were it not for the aliens.

The US, some long time ago, committed an error we later repeated in Europe: it failed to recognise the need for a) aliens, and b) legal ways for them to become "guest workers" the way the German's dealt (not always successfully) with the Turks and Greeks and what not.

It's not too late. Accidentally, the kids never really have a choice. So why punish them for whatever their parents did?

[JanYpe 17]

Does Europe even have Southern Baptists?quote>

Of course not. There are comparable Baptist churches and a whole host of Protestant and Reformed churches though.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

Well, I mean there here, but they aren't supposed to be here. If they are hardworking well good for them I say, but they know they are not supposed to be here. They are breaking our laws and you say we should give them our money? bah! I can barely pay for petrol!

And they are here illegally, think for a momeny sir, they are breaking the law...our laws anyway, so technically it is ok to call them illigal, in our system anyway, maybe to germans or something they are just here "against our wishes" but if your an American and they are breaking laws that the American people and the American founding fathers implemented I would go as far to call them illegal and not simply that "they are here against our wishesquote>

There waas once a movie, albeit a silly one, about a day when the "illegal aliens" in California laid down their working arms. While overboard in its tones, it did spell out a simple truth: most border states and nowadyas quite a few mid-western states, too, would be dark and economically unviable places were it not for the aliens.

quote>

I hate it when people act as if illegal immigrants are just animals. Oh, sure, people want illegal aliens deported, but first they want them to clean their gutters and mow their lawn first. 

I, for one am for Obama. I like John Edwards too. But not Hillary, she's okay and all, it's just that she's already been in power before, and you know how that turned out with Bill Clinton....

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Boggy1

I think my Mother summed it up quite well: "America is meant to have seperation of the Church and the State, but I find it funny that presidential every candidate and member of congress is religious, and they keep playing that religion card.."quote>

There is a group of conservative Christians who are determined to take over the US government and "return" it to its so-called Christian roots.  If you doubt this, ask yourself why  there is at least one college for  kids homeschooled by conservative Christians where the only major is political science.

Thing is, our Founding Fathers went out of their way to establish separation of church and state.  and a non-trivial number of them were Freemasons.    While the Freemasons themselves claim there is no conflict between Freemasonry and Christianity, you don't have to look far to find conservative Christians who claim the two are incompatible.  So basically what this group is saying is they don't like how the Founding Fathers did things and want to do it their way.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: Boggy1

TheSixCents: I think my Mother summed it up quite well: "America is meant to have seperation of the Church and the State, but I find it funny that presidential every candidate and member of congress is religious, and they keep playing that religion card.."quote>

This isn't meant as an insult to your mother or anything, but I think a lot of people have a serious misunderstanding of what the Constitution says and means in the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"  ~ maybe not the exact wording since I pulled it off the top of my head, but close enough.

OK, that says that the government can't promote an official religion.  Although they've thought about getting a new standard, there's something that the courts commonly use to determine if some act is "establishing religion."  They call it the "Lemon Test."  The things that the Lemon Test looks for:

Bona fide secular purpose: In other words, does the event serve some useful purpose to society as a whole regardless of whether you have religious beliefs.

Promote or inhibit another religion: Does it favor one religion over others, or does it make an attempt to do discourage one religion over others.

Intertwining government and religion: Does it put the government (as a whole) in a situation where it is becoming involved in the affairs of a particular religion.

While the Lemon Test is kind of controversial, something can be highly religious and still be allowed if it can somehow manage to pass that test.  One of the big issues that would come up a lot in recent years was prayer at a high school football game or something.  It pretty much always flunks the Lemon Test, so it gets ruled against whenever it goes to court.  However, if a high school were wanted to keep a prayer session in before its football games really badly, they could do something like invite a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Jewish Rabbi, etc along with an atheist to speak about how they're all wrong.  Basically, if you're willing to cover the entire gambit, you can pass the whole thing about promoting or inhibiting another religion.  Now, in the event of a football game and having prayers before it, you're not exactly running the risk of intertwining government and religion, so that one really wouldn't be an issue here.  (That's more of an issue for things like state funerals and official state churches, etc).

Now, where the First Amendment comes into play with political offices is quite different.  The only thing that is being said there is that they can't make an official religion (which before the Constitution was one of the most popular ways to keep someone out of office.  Now, the government can't do that.  However, it does not at all say, or even remotely discourage people who are religious from running.  Doing so would violate the second half of that statement - "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  From a legal standpoint, the government doesn't care what your religion is, or if you even have one.  Nor, contrary to popular argument, do the Founding Fathers write the Constitution with the intent to discourage religion in government.  If you read the thing from beginning to end (the original part, and not some version where it shows the parts that have been changed - I mean the unadulterated original document) does it at all favor or discourage religion.  It's quite indifferent to it, despite the fact that many of them had some sort of religious ties.

In practical terms, what all that means is that whether religion plays a part in some Congressional r

[patriots_1228 51]

Well, the only reason Huckabee won Iowa was because Iowa is in the midwest with all those "Praise tha lord! Yea sinners be damned!" religious types. When he comes over to New Hampshire, I'd expect another candidate to take the lead from him, because, over here in the new hampshire, vermont, massachusetts area nobody talks about religion any more (unless it has to do with catholic preists ). So I doubt religion will help him out like it did in Iowa.

As for Romney, I don't see whats wrong about his saying "a child of an illegal immagrant should not get our scholarships." or somthing. If his parents aren't paying taxes, and aren't citizens of the US, then why should he be able to take a scholarship from a US citizens child, who pays taxes.

I if I could vote, I would vote either Obama or Romney.

[Callbat 8]

I if I could vote, I would vote either Obama or Romney.quote>

Yes!!!

If his parents aren't paying taxes, and aren't citizens of the US, then why should he be able to

take a scholarship from a US citizens child, who pays taxes.quote>

 EXACTLY!

[SIMFUN01 0]

Well coming from my home state of Arkansas which Im proud to say is a great state in a great country im proud of former Gov. Huckabee he is a down to earth person very smart a forward and rational thinker that chooses to do the right thing. I lived in Arkansas when he was Gov. he did a terrffic job he created jobs, balanced the state budget, got the state out of a financial trouble redone the entire interstate system in the state that was the worse in the country and with a billion dollar surplus when he left out of office people wanted him to stay being the Gov. but of course there are term limits the state grew and people had more money in there pockets and better jobs and education and health care when he said he was going to do anything it happened and things got done instead of talking about it and hoping it just falls out of the sky he showed leadership he cared and made a difference something that should be a part of us all in our day to day lives in other words hes the real deal what you see is what you get I would vote for Huckabee no matter what party he was with I think he would make a great President. I on the other hand am not a bible thumper i am a christian and have been all my life Im not perfect but I believe whatever gets someone closer to God or have peace and vision in their life no matter what religion that doesn't promote hate but tolerance sounds like a good plan to me. So be proud of who you are and what place on this Earth you are from and if they tell you different just slap them up side the head just kidding ........

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa But the truth of the matter is that Iowa means diddly-squat.  It is nothing.  Iowa does not represent the demographics of the US, by a long shot.  Neither does New Hampshire.  These States have their position due to history, not due to practicality.quote>

I don't agree with you too often Barbarossa, but I definately like this comment. Two states with completely different populations that don't even represent the majority of our nation don't really matter.

Anyways...

I'm seeing quite a few people on this topic judging candidates solely by their political party, religion, or origins. Does that kind of stuff really matter in the long run? Shouldn't the role of President be filled by someone who can just do the job regardless of background? The sooner people learn to respect each other has fellow human beings, instead of judging by such superficial principles, we'll be a hell of a lot better of.

I think expectations are too high, and people expect the president to be a perfect decision maker. Everyone makes mistakes, and no one is perfect, so I guess no one will ever be happy with any president we'll ever have...

Lastly, theres this apparent assumption that all Conservatives are Republicans. This is simply not true, there are Liberal Republicans just like there are Conservative Democrats (such as myself).

Remember, always base your choice on the best CANDIDATE, not for your favorite party.

[purpledaddy 6]

So which candidate on either party best supports giving us more days off again?

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228

As for Romney, I don't see whats wrong about his saying "a child of an illegal immagrant should not get our scholarships." or somthing. If his parents aren't paying taxes, and aren't citizens of the US, then why should he be able to take a scholarship from a US citizens child, who pays taxes. quote>

Everyone has the right of being educated, regardless of their origins. You'll also let someone die in the hospital without saving him just because he didn't paid taxes and is taking the hospital place of a US citizen? (nvm, there's no social healthcare in the US, I forgot that one)

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Anyways...

I'm seeing quite a few people on this topic judging candidates solely by their political party, religion, or origins. Does that kind of stuff really matter in the long run? Shouldn't the role of President be filled by someone who can just do the job regardless of background? The sooner people learn to respect each other has fellow human beings, instead of judging by such superficial principles, we'll be a hell of a lot better of.quote>

No matter how nice is a candidate, a country is governed by a party and they (should) follow their electoral promises and plans for the government, you cannot forget it, you're voting for the leader of your country, who is a member of a party which will decide an important part of your life , you're not voting for mrs/mister US. 

[WeekendCityPlanner 19]

I usually go republican, but this year is gonna be owned by the democrats. I have to make sure that the right democrat wins, which is Obama.  Americans will want a leader, and not a politician.  A politician is all we've had for the past few years. All of these politicians ever do is bicker. Bicker bicker bicker. 

[The_Family_Guy 2]

All of the front runners have a strong message to convey. The only thing that seems to come into question for both Huckabee and Obama is their experience. Seems like Huckabee would be pretty close to Bush if he were to be elected, in my opinion...

I do agree, however, that this year will most likely belong to the democrats. They seem to have a great energy about them this year, and Obama's speech last night rivaled that of MLK or JFK.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Originally posted by: patriots_1228

As for Romney, I don't see whats wrong about his saying "a child of an illegal immagrant should not get our scholarships." or somthing. If his parents aren't paying taxes, and aren't citizens of the US, then why should he be able to take a scholarship from a US citizens child, who pays taxes. quote>

Everyone has the right of being educated, regardless of their origins. You'll also let someone die in the hospital without saving him just because he didn't paid taxes and is taking the hospital place of a US citizen? (nvm, there's no social healthcare in the US, I forgot that one)quote>

That's not quite a valid comparison.  You're talking about a life or death situation versus one that's been planned out.  If you want to come to the United States, do it legally.  (People seeking political amnesty or other such situations not withstanding).  (And, for what it's worth, if an illegal immigrant ends up in the hospital with some sort of life threatening situation, they're going to worry about legal status after they patch him up.  They have a life to save first.)

If the issue was a few people doing it, we wouldn't be talking about it.  The problem is that it's not a few people doing it.  It's millions of people doing it.  No system is perfect, but I'd really love to see a system that can take on hundreds of thousands of people, year after year, when there's no money for it.

One of the hallmarks of socialism is that everyone puts in their part.  If you have someone illegally immigrate, they aren't putting anything into the system.  If they're taking stuff out of it, you're creating a negative balance there, and that can't be supported indefinitely.  There has to be a point at which you can or can't claim rights to certain privileges.  A common place to draw the line is at citizenship, where at least people are putting something back into the system.  What's so illogical about that?

As an example, I go to a state university.  I pay tuition, but I only pay half of what an non-resident of the state would pay.  Why?  My parents have been paying educational taxes to the state for the past twenty years to make that possible.  They cut me some slack as a result because of that.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Everyone has the right of being educated, regardless of their origins. You'll also let someone die in the hospital without saving him just because he didn't paid taxes and is taking the hospital place of a US citizen? (nvm, there's no social healthcare in the US, I forgot that one)

quote>

 

The Constitution doesn't mention a right to education. At all. 

If there is one, it certainly doesn't authorize the use of tax money to educate non-citizens.

 It is also against the law for a hospital to refuse to treat a patient based on ability to pay or immigrant status. Chicago's Cook County Hospital is a model of emergency care for the poor, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars per year. I don't know if county ownership would qualify as 'socialized', though.

[Callbat 8]

Everyone has the right of being educated, regardless of their origins. You'll also let someone die in the hospital without saving him just because he didn't paid taxes and is taking the hospital place of a US citizen? (nvm, there's no social healthcare in the US, I forgot that one)quote>

     Everyone should get an education but its isnt a right, nor is it a privelage, you can't just tell someone threy can't go to school, nor are you entitled to an education. Like I said before, illegal immagrants are very hardworking, yes, and their children too, origins are of no concern either, but under our laws they shouldn't be here, they are not entitled to the benifits of our constitution or our system if our laws say they can't be here!! They wish to become part of our system yet they are fully conciously breaking the very laws that govern our system!!  Doesn't that seem a bit wrong to you sir  / madam??? And do you know how much taxpayer money goes to care for those who cannot afford to hospitalise themselves?? Regardless of their status??

[dalmatianfan2020 1]

They are using our services without paying for them in a sense, so they're stealing in my way of thinking. Sure sure they pay sales tax but that's loose change compared to what the rest of us pay. They don't pay into social security, federal or state income taxes etc etc. We need to be way stricter with immigration as lovely as it would be to allow free entry to anyone, in this world we just can't do that anymore. The bad thing is that tougher immigration laws seem to labeled as "racist" which is absolutely ridiculous.

I am very sad about the results of the Iowa primary. I hate Huckabee and I'm not a fan of Obama. Huckabee compared me (yeah...I'm gay) to pedophiles and people who have sex with dead bodies in a book (I know there's a fancy word for that but I don't know how to spell it.) He also sucked on Meet the Press last Sunday, where he talked about the book actually and was totally ripped apart on most every point he made. Obama I guess is fine but I just don't really like his policies (...except that one obviously.)

AHHHHH! I'm worried about the Republican Party and the direction it's taking. It's tough being a gay conservative sometimes. Mitt Romney I think I hate even more than Huckabee. He supported the Federal Marriage Amendment! Can we stop legislating people's personal lives please???

[hamsterTK 93]

Regardless, creating a mistreated minority is a sure-fire way to cause chaos in the future.

[ccecill 52]

He thinks giving a hard-working child of an alien living here against our wishes (most would say living here "illegally") a scholarship is wrongquote>

Well, I mean there here, but they aren't supposed to be here. If they are hardworking well good for them I say, but they know they are not supposed to be here. They are breaking our laws and you say we should give them our money? bah! I can barely pay for petrol!

And they are here illegally, think for a momeny sir, they are breaking the law...our laws anyway, so technically it is ok to call them illigal, in our system anyway, maybe to germans or something they are just here "against our wishes" but if your an American and they are breaking laws that the American people and the American founding fathers implemented I would go as far to call them illegal and not simply that "they are here against our wishes"quote>

There is a party.. a party in which most members do not support reporations for Black folk or First Americans. (not getting racial, I swear.)  This is the Republican Party... the party in which Mitt Romney claims to be more closely aligned with than his opponents....

Now, the argument I get when the reporations debate comes up: "You didn't pick any cotton. Why apologize to you for what happened to your ancestors?" Fair enough.

With reporations... there is no generational binding. I am not rewarded, nor am I punished, for what had transpired with my parents, grandparents, etc. Nothing that they do affects me at all.

But with scholarships for "illegals"... there is generational binding. Although I have committed no crime at all, I am punished. I can work my ass off, send off my accomplishments and questions off to every university imaginable, and study like a mad man.. only to be told "Go back to ___" because of what my parents did. Priceless.

Oh yeah, and Republicans generaly support Legacy.

So, If my dad went to Harvard, I would have a 2 to 4 times better chance (if I applied) than my peers. No matter how many times I wouId've even thought about the school. No matter how many times I would've even considered going there. I have a chance.

But, If my dad went from Monterrey to Houston, I have no chance of getting into Harvard. No matter how much time I spent academicaly.. no matter how well I've achieved academicaly. I have no chance at all. That, callbat, is where my chance for an Ivy-league education ends.

Well there aren't any "republican" family values there are just general values of society.

And saying that only "blacks" require more family values is totally out of context, this whole stinking country of a place needs a good smack in the face. Anyway, that was totally out of context ccecill, I don't know how democrats can pull such crap out of their arsequote>

Before you deride my stance - before you attack my position, please do me a favor and grasp what I am trying to say first. To display such a lack of understanding, while later attacking me on what you think you know is at the epitome of a hypocriticaly captious act. So, I hope that you do not take my words out of context again (due to your lack of knowledge of the american dialect I presume) and If you do, I hope that you do not make such a degradingly untrue statement again. Also, remember to quote all of my words, as "that we (black people) need some good ol' republican "family values" is not all that I said.

In addition, by saying "good ol republican "family values", I was not suggesting that you can have "republican" family values as opposed to democratic or independent ones. I was simpl

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: ccecill

But with scholarships for "illegals"... there is generational binding. Although I have committed no crime at all, I am punished. I can work my ass off, send off my accomplishments and questions off to every university imaginable, and study like a mad man.. only to be told "Go back to ___" because of what my parents did. Priceless.quote>

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying here, but it sounds like you're talking about a person immigrating illegally and then having kids.  Last I checked, if you're born in the US, you're a US citizen.  Am I remembering that incorrectly or are you talking about something totally different?

Oh yeah, and Republicans generaly support Legacy.quote>

Are you saying that "legacy" is some party line or something?  Can't say that I've exactly heard anyone singing its praises lately.

[DuskTrooper 314]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: ccecill

But with scholarships for "illegals"... there is generational binding. Although I have committed no crime at all, I am punished. I can work my ass off, send off my accomplishments and questions off to every university imaginable, and study like a mad man.. only to be told "Go back to ___" because of what my parents did. Priceless.quote>

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying here, but it sounds like you're talking about a person immigrating illegally and then having kids.  Last I checked, if you're born in the US, you're a US citizen.  Am I remembering that incorrectly or are you talking about something totally different?

Oh yeah, and Republicans generaly support Legacy.quote>

Are you saying that "legacy" is some party line or something?  Can't say that I've exactly heard anyone singing its praises lately.quote>

Furthermore, on the basis of legacy, and the reference that Ccecil used; Harvard.  The Government probably should not enact Legacy policies in state schools and such, but an act restricting legacy should not apply to PRIVATELY held universities/colleges/schools.  They are privately run and self sovereign institutions that should choose to run things the way they want to.  Once again, this would be another example of the Gov sticking its nose where it does not belong.

Now, as for immigration; try coming here LEGALLY.  My family and I came here legally about 17 years ago(heck, I'm a first generation immigrant myself), and thus, we were allowed to experience the perks of being an American citizen basically up front.  Of course, we had to work hard to get where we are now, but still; LEGALLY.

Now, as for the candidates, I have no idea.  I'll just go for whoever is NOT Hillary.

[ccecill 52]

No. Sorry for not being clear enough (11 here.)

If a 34 year-old man and his 10 year-old son come here "illegally", then the son should be allowed to recieve scholarships. Should've made that more clear, I know.

And on your second comment: While you are correct, they don't necessarily condemn it in droves either, which is just as bad. He (callbat) supported a republican belief, and I made an attempt to expose hypocrisy by bringing up a similar republican (and clearly republican) establishment - legacy.

[Duke87 1,070]

What I find interesting here is that the front page of the Daily News had a huge headline about Obama ...and no mention of Huckabee. Same with the Post. Didn't get to look at the Times, but it was probably a similar deal. So, children, what does this teach us? Two things:

1) New York is a blue state, and

2) the media is generally left biased.

That said, the idea of Huckabee in charge of the country gives me the creeps. I had thought being worse than bush was physically, mathematically, statistically, and logically impossible- but I was wrong. Fortunately, he's probably going nowhere. Iowa is but one of fifty states. Unfortunately, the same can probably be said for Obama. Clinton will likely get the nomination. Especially since she has major party connections. Her still getting the nomination even of she loses the caucuses/primaries doesn't seem that out of the question, frankly.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: ccecill No. Sorry for not being clear enough (11 here.)

If a 34 year-old man and his 10 year-old son come here "illegally", then the son should be allowed to recieve scholarships. Should've made that more clear, I know.quote>

OK.  I see where you're coming from, and don't have any answer for that right now.  In theory, there's the issue about them turning 18 and then being an adult in the eyes of the law, which means that he could choose to become a citizen or choose not to.  But, liked I said, I don't really have an answer for that right now.  I'd have to think about it, and since it's late, the odds of me doing that are pretty slim.

And on your second comment: While you are correct, they don't necessarily condemn it in droves either, which is just as bad. He (callbat) supported a republican belief, and I made an attempt to expose hypocrisy by bringing up a similar republican (and clearly republican) establishment - legacy.quote>

Again, I see what you're saying, but on this case, I don't know that I agree with you.  Legacy tends to be an establishment of the stereotypical rich, which are usually republicans.  The thing here is that I don't think calling it a republican establishment is exactly correct since the fact that the rich person who favors it just as easily could have been democrat.

In another way, DT's got a point about the whole thing about Harvard being a private school.  They can get away with almost anything they want because they are private.  For the most part, that's fine, as long as they aren't breaking any laws (and a discussion on legacy and discrimination laws is something that I'm not even going to bother touching since it's a whole different topic).  Now, any state university that tried to get away with that should have their board of regents fired or something like that.