June 24, 2005
The Great Divide
We are all Americans. The Democrats, Republicans, Consrvatives and Liberals. We cannot afford to be divided any longer.
Rove says that "The Liberals" lack the fortitude to fight terror. He is a spokesperson for the Bush administration.Our "Leader".
A leader is a uniter. A leader uses his or her power to bring together those that he leads. This administration has caused a division in the United States using labels and outright name calling so that they can blame partisan politics, to deflect criticism for the war in Iraq,the torturing of prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Graib and to cover the croniism, corruption and mismanagement that has plagued the White House and pentagon during his time in office.
Both parties represent only the wealthiest 5% of their constituants. They use the tax payers money to pay back those who put them in office, they line their pockets with money from lobbyists and special interests groups while we sit back and bicker about which party is better.If you drive a "piece of shit" car,does it really matter which side looks worse? The fact that it needs to be scrapped and a new car is needed should be the primary focus.
We seem to have lost the ability to focus on the issues that we are faced with as Americans. This is not Yankees vs. Red Sox, people are dying and our image in the world community is faltering every day.The Americans who liberated other nations during WWII,the organizations and church groups who have reached out to feed and provide clothing to the poor around the world.They created the image of a powerful,caring nation of good and honest people. Now people around the world see us as dishonest,barbaric and greedy.
We can fix this. We need to come together, not focus on the differences. If Tom Delay walked in to a room full of people and said I have the cure for cancer, hell, half would walk out before he had the chance to say anything. If Hillary Clinton walked in to a room and said I just made time travel possible,same thing. Let's listen as Americans to both sides and see what they have to say.We might be missing out on something important(good or bad). If we keep allowing them to label us as anything other than AMERICANS and we focus on the labels and not on the issues this great nation will suffer
Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at June 24, 2005 01:34 PMPart of the problem is that the Politicians all think what they say is more important than what anyone else has to say.
Included in most of their comments and speeches are digs at the ‘other side’.
It is the best way to get airtime - bash someone.
‘They’ - the media and the politicians - think that this is the only way anyone will listen. Maybe they are right.
The same thing happens right here at Watchblog. People don’t seem to think they can get their point across without name calling.
No wonder people around the world think the U.S. is a problem. We can’t even argue with each other without trying to destroy someone with a differing opinion.
Thank you very much, Andre M. Hernandez !
It’s admirable when some people can get over their deep rooted resentments, and do the right thing for the nation. We must convince politicians to do the same (yeah, yeah…good luck right?), and stop perpetuating the partisan bickering (regardless of how hopeless many will be quick to say it is).
It just may be possible, if the people demand it, because what we’ve been doin’ ain’t workin’ !
Posted by: d.a.n at June 24, 2005 03:29 PMWhat no quotes from Howard Dean?
I agree w/ all that was said, but your very first statement was one to underhand the other side and point fingers so it just negated every point you were trying to make!
Delete the first paragraph and then it would be a very valid argument.
Posted by: Traci at June 24, 2005 03:30 PMMatty said,
Andre, my dear, I do agree with some of your points. But listen and listen carefully… The element of “division” is in the nature of each and evry politician. The replublican divides the democrat. So does the democrat! This is how you win the White House and be The Powers That Be. (By the way, just to let youn know, I ain’t no republican or demoncrat — and I see the world with both eyes unclouded and with no prejudice.) The only different is — who is a better divider. The answer to this question is undoubtly “The Republican”. So,if you want to win back the White House, BE FEARLESS! BE A GREAT DIVIDER. And always in the attack mode.
For those who said “The Liberals” lack the will to fight terror, they have no idea what the f**k they are talking about. They are buch of pussy, girly men! Simply ignore them.
The bottom line is, my dear, “IF YOU DIVIDE, YOU SHALL WIN.”
The gospel according to Matty
Posted by: Matty at June 24, 2005 03:30 PMAndre M. Hernandez,
You can’t know how delighted I am to read your post. This is one of the best I ever read, because I couldn’t agree more. Short, and to the point. I also like the two-sides-of-the-car analogy.
—-
What no quotes from Howard Dean?
—-
Last time I looked, Bush was President… Dean is the leader of a political party. One should lead, the other promotes… Huge difference. or at least there should be.
Karl Rove is a very calculated man. He appears when he needs to. He wouldn’t have gone out in public and said all those lies if he was trying to make a point. How long did anyone think that it would take Democrats to respond that those were lies. This is a guy who bugged his own office to DISTRACT FROM a gubernatorial debate. Bush’s approval ratings are at an all time low, and they needed some type of diversion. That’s what the speech was all about. And he even got to talk about the Republican’s FAVORITE topic, September 11.
Posted by: Mike at June 24, 2005 03:53 PMI agree wholeheartedly with your comments. I was very active in trying to engage people to vote in the 2004 election. The thing that bothered me more than anything else is that we were focusing on non-issues as opposed to shit we can actually control. Case in point - does anyone really think not allowing gays to marry is going to stop gay sex and gay relationships? HELL NO… But we still focused on that during the election. I was nauseated half the time during the presidential debates and when I watched campaign ads because so much time and money was spent on addressig non-issues.
I think the American public can be a lot more intelligent than we give ourselves credit. But the American public -in general- is very lazy. Most us are not going to search for alternative media outlets like Free Speech Radio News to get news and commentaries that no main stream outlet will give us. The media and politicians know this and this is why they keep getting away with feeding the American public crap.
I appreciate you trying to reach out. Yes your first paragraph was a little militias, but I’ll get over that. The thing you have to understand is we are at war. Our president and his administration don’t have time to make everyone happy. A leader not only brings his people together, but also makes tough decisions when it is not popular, but will save lives. You can not worry about the opposition party. When the opposition party makes constant negative public statements it makes it impossible to unite, and the President can not worry about that or our lives will be in danger.
If your looking for a fix on your local personal problems go to your local governments, don’t blame them on the current administration.
So yes unite, but not at the expense of losing lives and losing the war.
Posted by: Tony at June 24, 2005 04:37 PMYou don’t unite by attacking in the first couple of lines of your apology.
In our democracy people only “unite” when there is a clear and present danger. I hear it was like that in 1941. I remember it was like that right after September 11. Even in a united country, however, you are usually talking about only 70%.
We don’t have to like each other; we just have to work together sometimes. Americans bicker constantly, but they usually can work together to do the important things. BTW – the important things are sometimes NOT politics. Put a politican in charge of suppling us with fuel, groceries and housing and we will soon be cold, hungry and homeless. We don’t let them do the really important things.
Many people like divided government because very little gets done and the people can get on with their own business.
If we are talking politics, the question I would have is unite and do what? One reason we can’t unite is because we can’t answer that question.
I would like to unite to win the war in Iraq. We would all agree with that sentence, but the ones that come after would be very different.
I would like to unite to reform SS and Medicare. We all agree on that sentence too and then agreement disappears like the snows of last winter.
I would like to unite to make the environment cleaner, but we can’t even agree on what that means.
The only thing that I think we should agree on is to stop calling names. We should all here agree not to use the words like Hitler, Nazi or communist unless we mean specifically people who really are or were. We don’t have many in America. We should also agree to calm down a little.
I think we should also agree that Bill Clinton was a good president, for the most part. We can still disagree about George Bush, since he is still in office, but we should agree that he is trying to do what he believes is right for his country.
I wish we could agree to stop trashing our officials. I know some Republicans and I know some Democrats. Some are better human beings than other, but I have never met a politician on the national level who didn’t think he was doing what was best for his country – most of the time. They may be self-deceptive, but even Teddy Kennedy and Tom Delay think they are doing good.
I started laughing when I heard Bill Clinton and good President in the same sentence.
Posted by: Tony at June 24, 2005 05:02 PMA Political Leader should be, above all a statesmen. He does not cave to the popular opinion of the masses. He does what is right by his/her moral compass. We have very few Leaders in the US. They are more concerned about what others think and they say what they think people want to hear. (which explains all the problems with our politicians)
I’d much rather have a statesmen as my leader, even if I disagree with him. There is nothing worse then a flip-flopper…(no pun intended)
Posted by: Cliff at June 24, 2005 05:02 PMAndre-
Given your earlier posts here on the blue side, and afer reading your blogspot “Letters to People who actually think (Anti-BUSH)” it’s kinda hard to take this article too seriously.
And yes Rove was just playing politics Tuesday night. He also managed to get Hillary to defend MoveON.org. McClellan’s spin was probably thought of on Monday….
Posted by: George in SC at June 24, 2005 05:22 PMMatty wrote:
Matty said,
Andre, my dear, I do agree with some of your points. But listen and listen carefully… The element of “division” is in the nature of each and evry politician. The replublican divides the democrat.
Matty, my dear:
(1) Partisan divisiveness and partisan politics is a tactic used by politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) against the people primarily (not their fellow politicians). Need Proof? There’s really very little peer-pressure amongst politicians as they all look the other way when they see rampant corruption.
(2) Partisan divisiveness and petty partisan bickering benefits the politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) by distracting the people from the fact that government (both Democrats and Republicans) are failing the people.
(3) The politicians love it, and perpetuate it, and the people keep fallin’ for it. It’s a great gig. It’s one of the last few things they can use (themselves), because almost everything else is no longer politically correct (e.g. race, gender, religion, gender, etc.). So, they each put on a great act of the evil Democrats or the evil Republicans, and the people fall for it. The people are cleverly seduced into the petty partisan squabbling, spend all our time doing battle with the evil Democrats or Republicans, while the politicians sit back and do very little (if anything) that provides a net benefit to society. That is, many of these pressing problems are being ignored.
CONCLUSION: We don’t need these divisive blame-game tactics, while the house burns down around us. Government and the People are both ultimately responsible and both equally to blame. Government is irresponsible and unaccountable, and the people empower them to be so.
SOLUTION: Government won’t reform themselves. The people must force them to. There’s only one way to do that; to peacefully balance (not simply shift) the balance of power between government and the people. How? Simple: Fire them!. Vote them out! The more the better! That is, don’t fall for the partisan divisiveness and blame-game again!. Vote only for a non-incumbent. It’s unlikely we’ll unseat 100%. That’s OK. It would still be effective if we can unseat 20% or 40%, and 60% or more would be very effective, because it would show government that The People are sick and tired and they ain’t gonna take anymore !
It’s the only approach that provides the force required to peacefully make government responsible. Just 20% would change the political landscape significantly. After all, what we’re doin’ now ain’t workin’ is it?
The solution is:
(1) capable of restoring the balance of power between the people and government (not simply shift it);
(2) capable of unseating a significant portion of incumbents (e.g. 20% or more) by only voting for non-incumbents, which can change the political landscape significantly;
(3) simple and easy to understand;
(4) easy to do;
(5) the least costly;
(6) requires the least coordination;
(7) doesn’t need a party or members, just people that agree and share the simple idea with a friend;
(8) provides force that many other approaches lack;
(9) is the most peaceful way to do it.
Despite it’s simplicity, the people may never realize the power they have to force government to be responsible, balance power (not simply shift it), and start making things better. , And, politicians are privately wondering why the people don’t do this one simple thing, and hoping this is the one thing they never figure out.
The people must be responsible too make government be responsible and accountable too.
But, force is required. What other method has the required force, and is also peaceful ?
Otherwise, it’s not too hard to see where history, exacerbated by our many festering problems is taking us … another economic meltdown (like the The Great Depression)? Or, revolution? Or, civil war necessary? Or, worse?
Don’t think this is possible again?
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
Think again. Even if you don’t believe, how prudent is it to ignore it. Those that ignore history, are condemned to relive it.
So, we’ve got to learn to recognize the manipulation, the partisan-democrat-republican-blame-game, bashing each other, being distracted and manipulated. We’ve got to not be seduced into participation in the negativity, and unproductive divisiveness, and hate-mongering based on party affiliation. That’s what the politicians want you to do. Besides, do you really think Republicans and Democrats are that different? See the many similarities for yourself.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 24, 2005 05:39 PM—- What no quotes from Howard Dean? Last time I looked, Bush was President… Dean is the leader of a political party. One should lead, the other promotes… Huge difference. or at least there should be. Posted by: tony at June 24, 2005 03:52 PM
Hi All:
thought I’d throw in my nickles worth:
Just to clarify….Just which one the part of P.T. Barnum in this circus?
As Always,
Wayne
When in history has revolution ever been followed by liberty and then somehow returned to totalitarianism?
Posted by: Tony at June 24, 2005 05:47 PM—-
Just to clarify….Just which one the part of P.T. Barnum in this circus
—-
Can you clarify… please?
To clarify about the huge divide between the LEFT and the Right: Bill was impeached for lying about a blow job. Bush is still running full-speed-ahead with complete support from his party after (at best) being completely incompetent in gauging the pre-war intelligence or (at worst) being a complete liar. We initiated a FIRST STIKE POLICY on falsified intelligence. We were preached to about faith-based initiatives and bible-thumping-gay-bashing cloaked as patriotism. As far as I can see – Bush has tuned patriotism into the new form a racism (hate all those who ‘HATE FREEDOM!!!) Freedom Fries and the Patriot Act… What to biggie size that?!?
I feel miles away from ardent supporters of Bush, and if that means we have a divided country… then that’s the way it’ll be. I can live with conservatives who disagree with me - I expect people to disagree with me… but to preach unity in the face of The Evil Empire… I’d rather sell my children to the circus…
Republicans? Absolutely! But anyone who can still support Bush… Never in a million years.
Posted by: tony at June 24, 2005 07:09 PMI for one would like to see one article on this blog that doesn’t dwindle down to name calling or typical liberal or typical conservative response.
I’ve seen conservatives and liberals alike who have given pretty solid evidence to support their points, only to have someone burn them with a slur, as though they have no validity because of their political slant.
I don’t want there to be any more terrorist attacks on my city. I want people who commit acts of terrorism to be punished. I don’t want anyone to die for nothing, whether they be American or anyone from the Midddle East. I would like the leaders of my country to come to the diplomatic table interested in finding common ground with our allies, and to consider the rights of all human beings on this planet when they make decisions.
Posted by: Loren at June 24, 2005 07:20 PMRove:
“Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year? Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.”
My question: What about the dangers to our troops, and what could possibly have been the motive of a president who says “Bring It On”?
And:
“Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,”
Not this Liberal. This Liberal happened to have lost one of her oldest and dearest childhood friends in the North Tower of the WTC that day.
All I can say to this is: F*CK YOU, Karl Rove!
And does this idiot actually believe that not one soldier who has died in Iraq has been a liberal voter? Or their parents?
Just who the hell does he think he is, talking to one half of America this way?
What strikes me most about the aftermath of Rove’s comments is that neither he nor the White House believes he has anything at all to be sorry for. Which means the people in charge of our government now feel they don’t need to retract or apologize for an utterly hateful and sweeping statement that covers approximately half the citizens of this nation. That it is now officially okay to say that all Liberals were, or are soft and totally complacent in the face of terrorism.
THIS IS NOTHING BUT A LIE.
Or should I say, YET ANOTHER LIE that they are trying to brainwash their followers into believing.
And it is frighteningly fascistic.
Blaming Liberals for their failure in fighting the Iraqi insurgency is nothing but Scapegoating.
Why not just replace the word Liberal with the word Jew and it’s 1930’s Germany all over again. That started out with some statements (mis)placing blame and a few unapologetic comments, and before you knew it, there was Cristalnacht.
Now, many of us folks here in Watchblog — Left, Right and Center, may realize that underneath we’re really not all that different from each other, despite our political leanings and opinions — but this happens to be the LEADERS OF OUR COUNTRY saying these things, these lies, about Liberals in general. That is what makes it very different, and something everyone should be take much more seriously.
I would like to know why more conservatives aren’t criticizing Rove’s comments.
I can tell you this much, if a Democratic administration was making bullsh*t blanket statements like this about you all, I’d be pissed off and complaining very loudly about it. Because I would see right through such comments as being nothing but lies.
White house communications director Dan Bartlett today:
“I think Karl was very specific, very accurate, in who he was pointing out,” communications director Dan Bartlett said, contending the comments weren’t aimed at all Democrats. “It’s touched a chord with these Democrats. I’m not sure why.”
He’s not sure why. Yeah, right.
“It’s outrageous that the same Democrats who stood by Dick Durbin’s libeling of our military are now expressing faux outrage over Karl Rove’s statement of historical fact,” said Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman.
Does everyone still think it’s only Howard Dean that says inflamatory things about the other side?
Congressional Republicans earlier joined the White House in standing solidly behind Rove, saying he shouldn’t apologize and that he was outlining a philosophical divide between a president who sought to win the war on terrorism by taking the fight to the enemy and some Democrats who questioned that approach.
For anyone who doesn’t know, today they’ve decided to claim that that Rove was referrencing MoveOn.org when he said what he did — and that’s supposedly why they don’t think he needs to apologize.
But the truth is, that too is a LIE, since MoveOn.org actually SUPPORTED the war in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks.
“Taking the fight to the enemy”?
Excuse me, but practically this entire country agreed after 9/11 that going into Afghanistan was taking the fight to the enemy.
But going into Iraq? Yes, of course we had to question that, since there wasn’t enough evidence linking Saddam with Al Qaeda to justify a full scale pre-emptive invasion before we’d finished the job in Afghanistan.
And now we know we were entirely right. There were no WMDs, and only now is Iraq a place that is useful to Al Qaeda — as a training camp for killing US soldiers, as well as a place where they may find many new recruits.
(To keep the topic on track, I won’t even get into the recent revelations of the Downing Street Memos)
Indeed, many of us believed that if there was another country we might have needed to take our fight to, it should have been Saudi Arabia — since so many of the 9/11 hijackers were from that country, as is the entire Bin Laden family, including Osama.
But no.
Liberal’s are to blame that this administration is losing their war in Iraq. It has nothing to do with their lack of planning or the numbers of troops they sent in. It has nothing to do with the fact that they didn’t listen to what their own generals were saying to them about the likelihood of an enormous insurgency rising up before they invaded.
No, the great danger that our troops are currently facing by having to fight an insurgency that grows larger everyday has to do with the motives of Liberals in America and MoveOn.org.
Question:
When are conservatives going wake up and admit that these Neocon’s are a bunch of madmen?
—-
I don’t want there to be any more terrorist attacks on my city. I want people who commit acts of terrorism to be punished. I don’t want anyone to die for nothing, whether they be American or anyone from the Midddle East. I would like the leaders of my country to come to the diplomatic table interested in finding common ground with our allies, and to consider the rights of all human beings on this planet when they make decisions.
—-
I completely agree with this. Absolutely. It’s what unites us all far beyond political boundaries. Aligning with people of varying views to help build a better society/world - Yes. My comments above still ring true to me though, because the present administration has done everything in it’s power to make sure none of what you have mentioned happens.
Adreinne: Wow… going back for another pass at your post. very sincere and right on point.
Thanks
One more point to mention: Don’t you love the chicken hawks who love to preach the honor and good of war but were too YELLOW to face that HONOR when they were given the chance.
Posted by: tony at June 24, 2005 07:33 PMThis is hard because I WANT to agree, but I don’t think I can. In the old days 50s, 60s, 70s we all argued all the time about money and taxes, etc. Nothing anyone was going to go down dying for. But the movement of the religious right in to the political arena just grinds me to a halt. There is no discussion, there is no compromise about womens rights, about gay marriage, about gun ownership, etc. ad infinitum. This prticular group of people have identified their political goals with a religious morality which by definition has no give at all. I once had a long drawn out argument with a conservative man about women’s rights which went on and on until I sid I did not believe that life began before birth. Boom. Stop. End of discussion - would not even respond. I guess he had a point - where could we go after that? I do agree that we could be more civil to one another, but I don’t know if there are compromises to be made. pam
Posted by: p. jernegan at June 24, 2005 07:47 PMTony:
IMO “Dean to me is the greatest Huckster we dems could ever dream up, while Bush is the biggest clown in Washington history, however you people seem to back him no matter how many times he steps on it.”IMO
PT Barnum has been quoted to having said the following:
“There’s a sucker born every minute.”
or if you prefer:
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”
- P.T. (Phineas Taylor) Barnum,
often attributed to Lincoln
Your Choice, who wears the hat today, Bush or Dean?
As Always,
Wayne
Wayne:
Before you lambaste Dean and lump him into the same dung heap as Bush… read his past… study his beliefs, and then , if you still think Dean is even remotely as putrid as Bush, then you do not understand the difference between their basic principles: standing up for the people who support you (even if somewhat unorthodox) and standing on the people who support you.
Posted by: tony at June 24, 2005 08:12 PMhttp://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quotes2/quautbarnumphineastx001.htm
This is the link to where I got the quotes, Sorry for not citing.
Please Forgive:
As Always,
Wayne
Tony wrote: When in history has revolution ever been followed by liberty and then somehow returned to totalitarianism?
(1) The American Revolution was followed by liberty and abundance.
(2) But there was a problem still: Slavery, which lead to the
(3) Civil War
(4) which was followed by liberty and abundance,
(5) but corporate greed took over, anti-trust laws tried to fight it, and fiscal irresponsibility, and isolationism lead to
(6) followed by fiscal and moral bankruptcy,
(7) followed by the Great Depression,
(8) which was followed by civil unrest,
(9) which led to some government reform,
(10) which was followed by WWII,
(11) which was followed by growth,
(12) and abundance, and liberty,
(13) and followed by selfishness, complacency,
(14) and followed by fiscal and moral bankruptcy,
(15) which will lead where? Has anyone seen signs lately of an irresponsible and unaccountable government? Who knows? You tell me?
But, it’s not hard to see that these many culminating problems, continuing to grow in number and severity will someday lead (say 10 to 20 years). It’s not mere alarmist or chicken-littlish to suspect a problem is brewing. These many pressing problems are the recipe for disaster. If you don’t think so, then you’re like any fool who ignores history…you’re condemned to relive it. If I were to make a prediction, I’d say we’re headed for something like the Great Depression. It will be triggered by a combination of things, such as:
[1] an energy shortage, blackouts, perhaps riots and looting
[2] failed pension system (currently in the hole $1.6 trillion), and GPBGG ($350 billion in the hole)
[3] shortfalls in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid
[4] one or more terrorist attacks, or another war with Iran, Korea, China, Pakistan, Syria, Lybia, Saudi, etc. ?
[5] increased taxes to cover shortfalls and ever increasing National Debt (now about $8 trillion, so large, it would take 128 years to pay down, if we ever had the discipline to do so, as they did after WWII).
[6] a government that is increasingly for sale.
There’s more, but that’s sufficient. Don’t think so. Keep stickin’ your head in the sand. Maybe it will be all over when you pull it out.
Hard to say really where it will lead, because no cycle is identical, but the cycle does exist, and history proves it, and ignoring it is foolish.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 24, 2005 08:52 PMI’ve enjoyed reading the thoughts and observations from above, particularly when it comes to whether civility and compromise are (a) possible and (b) desirable.
Personally, I believe that civility is the essence of what makes a democracy work. Look, I know that conflict is inherent in our political system and that is probably naive to assume that it will ever simply “go away.” But still…progress usually only happens when politicians put political gain aside (or at least on the back burner) and work together on something for the benefit of the nation (particularly when times are so polarized as now, politically speaking). It is always possible to fight, condemn, or criticize a measure in order to prevent the other side from “winning.” But then nothing gets accomplished for our nation. This doesn’t mean that the parties shouldn’t disagree and have debates when there are important principles at stake — but in general I think the country is best served by pragmatic politicians who are willing to get things done rather than try to score cheap political points.
BTW and IMHO, this is clearly what Rove was trying to do (i.e., score cheap political points). I think this error should be acknowledged by anyone who also pointed out that kind of error from speeches by Democrats.
Some posters have observed that some groups (like the extreme religious right) seem so close-minded that discussion or compromise seems impossible. I would argue that close-mindedness in return only furthers their resolve. We must respond to close-mindedness with respect, tolerance, moderation, a willingness to listen, and taking principled stands when necessary.
Posted by: Steve Westby at June 24, 2005 08:57 PMTony:
Mea Culpa I have a brain tumor and sometimes in my haste(I now type at a snail’s pace, in fact I often see them pass me) I don’t always proofread as dilligently As i would have before November
First off this should have read:
AS READS:
Just to clarify….Just which one the part of P.T. Barnum in this circus?
AS IT SHOULD HAVE READ:
Just to clarify….Just which one these two will portray the Role of P.T. Barnum in this circus?
Though I have reffered to Howard Dean as both a Huckster, and as a Clown, he is a formidable opponent to the GOP and as such, a good man for us to have in charge if any one man can get us riled up to fight the righ twingers(sic). It won’t take much to gain back the house at least if we all work for it….TOGETHER.
Nuff Said
As Always,
Wayne
Wayne:
Just wanted to send prayers and best wishes to you in your treatment and recovery. God bless.
Posted by: Steve Westby at June 24, 2005 09:32 PM—-
It won’t take much to gain back the house at least if we all work for it….TOGETHER.
—-
POWER BROTHER!
The tank is full and foot on the pedal. The road’s full of REPs, but we’ll stop once in a while to wipe them off the windshield.
Posted by: tony at June 24, 2005 09:32 PMThe political divisions are self-sustaining and mentally ingrained. At this point, the group controls the beliefs of many individuals, who come to think of themselves by a label (ie liberal or conservative) and then surround themselves with others of like kind. Then the socialization of such beliefs ingrains them further and further until you have propagandist hate-fests spewing out of Howard Dean and Ann Coulter. The fact that people ally themselves with a side and then begin to believe that most things that the side stereotypically believes are right creates a vortex for major political camps. Then a propagandist media sways public opinion, as well as attracting like-minded viewers, furthering the slide into disunity.
How to overcome it? Well, for one thing, you can’t as long as people refuse to admit they might be wrong (ie, overcome personal pride). You shouldn’t be proud to adhere to a certain party and bash all those who don’t. People can’t overcome their personal pride to do what’s right sometimes.
Am I saying people should not disagree at all? No. But sometimes you can see in politics that people just stick with a viewpoint to avoid embarassment or loss of political support.
Basically, what I’m trying to say is, America is too stupid and stubborn to pull it’s act together; it’s not going to happen on it’s own.
Steve Westby & others:
I can not tell you what seeing your continued support means to me. Words can not, and do not express my thanks to all of you adequately enough.
Thanks All,
Wayne
Wonderful article. We need more focus on the challenges that face America and less name calling. Lets get back to the job of making America better and showing that we DO care about the rest of the world.
Posted by: Bobby at June 24, 2005 11:19 PMAll this just reminds me of the words of the immortal philosopher that said;
“I don’t care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.”
Groucho Marx
I do not agree that Iraq is an American problem. Iraq is a Republican War and a Republican Problem. When Republicans start talking about “us” and “Iraq” in the same sentence, they are just trying to wimp out of the responsibility.
Posted by: Aldous at June 25, 2005 06:08 AMI’m so grateful that we have so many Dems to show us how to unite.
Oh wait a minute….read through the above posts their sure are a lot of Dems slaming Reps.
Eye for an eye? That sounds a little religious to me.
By the way all of you stating the differences in offices betwenn Dean and Bush….Are they not both elected officials…you go berserk over Hannity, Limbaugh, and Rush when they are just using their free speech(that by the way, you claim to have the market on). They don’t owe anyone anything, as far as I can tell they were not elected. If you don’t like it simply use your remote!
Posted by: Traci at June 25, 2005 08:22 AMI support of what you have written. However with this administration, your point of view is nothing but liberal utopia. And they laugh in our faces. This administration does not share our perspective, and parade us around like a bunch of limp wristed cry babies. They feed off the American people at any cost (1,735 killed, and 13,074 wounded in Iraq). All of this killing to line their pockets, and justified by lies. How can we as human beings, begin to talk to these monsters?
Posted by: Wade at June 25, 2005 10:25 AMGregorio wrote: The political divisions are self-sustaining and mentally ingrained…..the group controls the beliefs of many individuals, who come to think of themselves by a label (i.e. liberal or conservative) and then surround themselves with others of like kind. Then the socialization of such beliefs ingrains them further and further until you have propagandist hate-fests….. The fact that people ally themselves with a side and then begin to believe that most things that the side stereotypically believes are right creates a vortex for major political camps. Then a propagandist media sways public opinion, as well as attracting like-minded viewers, furthering the slide into disunity.How to overcome it? Well, for one thing, you can’t as long as people refuse to admit they might be wrong (ie, overcome personal pride). You shouldn’t be proud to adhere to a certain party and bash all those who don’t. People can’t overcome their personal pride to do what’s right sometimes……America is too stupid and stubborn to pull it’s act together; it’s not going to happen on it’s own.
Gregorio,
Yes, sadly, if we’re resigned to it, it seems we all, sort of, deserve each other. But we’re all ultimately responsible. We often, as humans, like to think we’re so intelligent, and logical, but history says otherwise.
The test at the web-site you link to, is interesting. I’m not too keen on labels, but the test results show me to be somewhat of a libertarian, but not far from the center. That’s intertesting…someone on this site once labeled me libertarian.
Still, too much emphasis can be put on labels, and often can be misused as a tool by those that want to divide and distract the people, and turn every issue into a partisan hate-fest. Labels are popular because they let us skip the analysis of issues on a case-by-case basis, and let us (usually inaccurately) lump people we don’t agree with into a group that we can brand and demonize, and the inherit unfairness leads to unnecessary conflict.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 25, 2005 10:40 AMThe Dems helped vote us into the war in Iraq and supported it until they started campaigning for president against DEAN.(If Dean hadn’t been in the race we probably wouldn’t have the divide we have now.) Now they say they were lied to when they could have researched any info they received but didn’t bother? Now they say they knew there were no WMD’s, that any fool knew that? Who’s the fool? The Dem who voted for war knowing that.
Bush may be the President but any one of those politicians, on either side, can help put the divide in our country. Blaming the divide in our country squarely on Bush’s shoulders is the biggest bunch of crap.
Dean is like the leader, the ‘president’, of the Dems and saying he has nothing to do with sustaining the divide is also a bunch of crap.
Saying everything that goes wrong in our country now is the blame of the Reds because they are in charge is also a bunch of crap. The Dems are doing everything humanly possible to make sure nothing is getting done.
‘If it goes wrong, it’s your(reds)fault, but you can’t do anything without consulting with us first.’ the Dems.
When the Dems mouth off about the Republicans they call it dissent. When the Republicans mouth off about the Dems, the Dems cry fowl.
If the roles were reversed the above sentence would simply reverse.
They all need to grow up.
—-
you go berserk over Hannity, Limbaugh, and Rush when they are just using their free speech(that by the way, you claim to have the market on). They don’t owe anyone anything, as far as I can tell they were not elected. If you don’t like it simply use your remote!
—-
No… they owe us nothing. They nothing to give us… they are morons. I am stunned/in shock that you take them at their idiot words and try to use their arguments in public conversation. (One thing confusses me through, I thought Rush and Limbaugh were the same person. He’s not gotten that fat has he?)
I am at a loss of words with you trying to compare Dean and Bush. Dean is not an elected official in the same way as Bush is. He’s not in any government position - he is the head of the Democratic Party. He is a promoter, the lead PR spokeperson for a political party. His job is to promote the DEMS…
Bush is the President. His job is to run the country.
Dean is a bit of a free spirit and sometimes makes us nervous.
Bush says stupid crap when mic’d, he lies about Iraq, costs us $300B and 1700+ American lives.
Posted by: tony at June 25, 2005 11:48 AMbugcrazy:
I see even you have started to mouth the “Iraq is OUR War” line. Well done.
Iraq is a Republican War. The Conservatives have begun to make noises that Iraq is a bi-partisan action and all should take responsibility. You can see it in all Red Blogs like FreeRepublic. The “Us” factor is noticeably in the increase.
I believe this is the start of the campaign either for a Draft or for retreat. Bush will either force Little Red Children to fight or he will run with his tail between his legs.
I believe it is the former. Why should Bush retreat in Iraq? Its not as if HIS Kids are over there.
We must not like the Right succeed. Remember, Iraq is a Republican War. Do not forget.
Posted by: Aldous at June 25, 2005 12:27 PMi do not believe the country is as divided as people say. it is similar to the point of seperation. that point when you and a friend have been friends for a while, and you each start doing things on your own until neither of you are hanging out anymore. except that it is the government and the people not two friends. people dont want to get involved because they dont think they can make a damn bit of difference. its true no one person can change a thing in our government. it is a government of the people. people make a difference not an idividuals. if you wan to make a difference, get together everyone else who wants change and do something about it. This is america! we are losing our can-do additude. if you want change stand up anddo something. i can’t, im a minor. you adults talk about democracy and things can be changed and how we kids cant understand and we’re lazy. i dont see adults any better. i dont see any of you doing more then complaining on this blog. tell me what you hae done
Posted by: Sara Lang at June 25, 2005 03:40 PMTraci,
Just to re-iterate, Bush heads the Executive Branch of our government. His job is to represent ALL Americans… or at least, it should be. He is paid with taxpayer dollars, as are Rove & others.
Dean is head of the DNC. He is NOT paid with US taxpayer dollars (at least, I don’t think he is). Dean is a spokesman for the minority party, which usually involves dissent. His Republican equivalent is Ken Mehlman, head of the RNC.
Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, as well as Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, and others, are entertainers. They are in the business of show business. They entertain with propaganda- slanted information intended to incite, & so keep your interest. Nothing necessarily wrong with being entertained by propaganda, as long as people see it for what it is, and do not mistake it for a reasonable, balanced point of view.
Posted by: phx8 at June 25, 2005 03:43 PMSara Lang:
First of all, welcome to our discussion, and thank you for your comments. Just a few thoughts.
it is similar to the point of seperation. that point when you and a friend have been friends for a while, and you each start doing things on your own until neither of you are hanging out anymore. except that it is the government and the people not two friends.
Well…except that I don’t think the Republicans and Democrats would have considered each other “friends,” exactly. Maybe more like that person in your school or office that you wish would flunk and/or get fired!
people make a difference not an idividuals. if you wan to make a difference, get together everyone else who wants change and do something about it. This is america! we are losing our can-do additude. if you want change stand up anddo something. i can’t, im a minor. you adults talk about democracy and things can be changed and how we kids cant understand and we’re lazy. i dont see adults any better. i dont see any of you doing more then complaining on this blog. tell me what you hae done
Your call for us as adults to take action is a good one. But I hope that you don’t mistake our discussions here as an indication that this is ALL we do. I would guess that people on all sides of the isle, in ways big and small, work to make their lives (and the world) a better place.
Also, I would encourage you not to feel that you are politically powerless just because you happen to be a minor. There have been many times when youth involvement has turned the tide of an election, made a community rethink an issue, etc. You have more power than you realize. Use it well.
Posted by: Steve Westby at June 25, 2005 05:00 PMAndre,
I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of your article. Your examples are excellent and, you are right on with those examples that suggest that depending upon who the person is with the great idea will determine it’s success.
There are opposites of everything, politics, religion, law, and so on. There are people whose life’s work is to discredit someone else’s. Sadly in some case they don’t even know why.
I live in the East so I should dislike those who live in the West, I am a Republicanj so I should dislike the Democrats, etc.
IMO nobody would argue the “strength in numbers” concept. My question is how do we break down the wall, or replant the scorched earth or whatever other nametag we continue to develop.
WHO HAS A PLAN FOR UNIFICATION.
Posted by: steve smith at June 25, 2005 05:17 PMSara Lang wrote: i do not believe the country is as divided as people say. it is similar to the point of seperation. that point when you and a friend have been friends for a while, and you each start doing things on your own until neither of you are hanging out anymore. except that it is the government and the people not two friends. people dont want to get involved because they dont think they can make a damn bit of difference . its true no one person can change a thing in our government. it is a government of the people. people make a difference not an idividuals. if you wan to make a difference, get together everyone else who wants change and do something about it. This is america! we are losing our can-do additude. if you want change stand up anddo something. i can’t, im a minor. you adults talk about democracy and things can be changed and how we kids cant understand and we’re lazy. i dont see adults any better. i dont see any of you doing more then complaining on this blog. tell me what you hae done
Sara Lang, there may be a simple solution, that:
(01) peacefully forces government to reform (something most other approaches do not have);
(02) peacefully restores the balance of power (not merely shift it) between the people and government;
(03) forces politicians to police their own ranks;
(04) is very simple; which increases likelihood of success;
(05) is very easy to understand;
(06) will increase transparency, yielding accountability and responsibility
(07) doesn’t need a lot of money;
(08) doesn’t need a party affiliation;
(09) would eliminate pork-barrel
(10) would reduce pandering;
(11) would reduce waste;
(12) would reduce greed, and corruption;
(13) would eliminate the need for term limits and would eliminate bad career politicians;
(14) sends a clear message to politicians that can not be ignored any longer;
(15) would make elections less expensive;
(16) will reduce negative campaigning;
(17) will reduce apathy and sense of futility;
(18) ends voters foolishly empowering politicians to continue the abuse and corruption;
(19) proves that politicians don’t have any power except for the power voters give them;
(20) requires the least coordination;
(21) is the most simple thing to do,
(22) uses one thing each of us already has, but uses it wisely to make it count the most: our vote
Just vote for a non-incumbent / non-main-party cadidate only,
No exceptions. Repeatedly, every election.
Until things improve and our pressing problems start getting resolved,
and a few other changes are made to make government more transparent, which will lead to accountability and responsibility.
But, the people must stop letting themselves be led like sheep to the slaughter-house.
steve smith wrote: WHO HAS A PLAN FOR UNIFICATION
Steve, I’ve got a plan !
But it really doesn’t have anyone to demonize.
Unfortunately, we only have ourselves to all thank for our:
(1) irresponsible government,
(2) and voters (the people) that allow it.
Unfortunately, like David R. Remer says, it may take something drastic or catastrophic to focus the people and government on some solutions.
I just hope we don’t wait too long. Otherwise, it may not matter.
At the moment, we’re all oblivious to this fragile house of cards we’ve built. And, we don’t have an abundance of options, due to our long list of pressing problems.
It only needs a little push, and this house of cards will come tumbling down about us. It could quite easily be triggered by an energy shortage (with some blackouts, riots, & looting maybe)? Or perhaps, another terrorist attack? Or perhaps, another war? Or perhaps, interest on the debt reaches 50% or more (on each dollar of revenue)? Or perhaps, simultaneous shortfalls in Social Security, Medicare, GPBGG, and pensions? Or perhaps, any combination of things on our growing list of pressing problems occurring about the same time? Many just scoff at such predictions, and comare it to “chicken little - the sky is falling”.
Yes, I’m afraid David R. Remer may be right.
It will get resolved. But, it won’t be the easy way. We only know how to do things the hard way. The U.S. is quite likely headed for an economic melt-down. Not just a recession.
d.a.n.
I understand what you’re saying, but fact is labels exist, and a lack of prominant political figures combating (either by example or otherwise) labeling is not helping overcome the circumstance. And so many people label and become labeled themselves, which is something that is logically presumable and that is necessary to consider in political circumstances.
Still, too much emphasis can be put on labels, and often can be misused as a tool by those that want to divide and distract the people, and turn every issue into a partisan hate-fest. Labels are popular because they let us skip the analysis of issues on a case-by-case basis, and let us (usually inaccurately) lump people we don’t agree with into a group that we can brand and demonize, and the inherit unfairness leads to unnecessary conflict.
Yes, I agree, but what I am saying is that there are people, and particularily the prominent leaders, who fall within the criteria of a given “label,” as do their followers, and so on, until the label takes over the group, because they surround themselves by others who think alike, and then take on some views that were previously alien to themselves. Peer pressure at its finest.
Obviously, not all of the individuals are necessarily given over to the label. But it’s not the “labeless” people (is anyone truly labeless?”) that count and provide support in politics. It’s the masses of screaming supporters, or, as I would call them, the yes-men.
Ever notice that after you type it a dozen times, label suddenly stops looking like a word?
Posted by: Gregorio at June 26, 2005 12:00 AMIt’s interesting to see the tone expressed here today. Seems like no one thinks that things will get better. There are a lot of good points made here, but there is also the usual contentiousness that is prominent in most political discussion these days.
During my youth, the attacks of politicians against the other side of the aisle were usually against a particular politician’s views or those of a party. Now it seems that the officials in Washington are attacking the voters. Karl Rove’s comments are just one example of that.
When it’s a Senator or Congressman, it’s usually taken with the proverbial grain of salt because we are accustomed to seeing some lively debates on Capital Hill. But when it comes out of the White House, we’re surprised because we don’t usually see such attacks from there.
The White House is normally the place for tempered comments and reasoned responses. Lately, it seems that they are in campaign mode all of the time. Rove seems to be the pit-bull of the presidency. The attacks are meant to be “over the top” and hurtful against the other side, and that side includes the democratic voters. It’s my personal opinion that this is irresponsible and very troubling. It reduces the level of honor of the presidency and his staff.
But the good thing about all of this is that the level of debate in this country is as high as it was during the latter days of the Viet Nam war; a time when political activism by ordinary citizens was at its 20th century peak. It may even be higher. More voters are getting involved, learning more, and voicing opinions via the many new outlets available to them (like this blog) than ever before. We have a real touchstone situation here!
The politicians are playing with all of this, attempting to find a way to wrestle some control of it all and turn it to their benefit. They aren’t doing very well, thank goodness. I hope they never do. I hope that the truth finds its way faster and more effectively out to the clear light of day for all of us to see, than it ever has in the past.
If the political involvement of the voters continues to rise, we’ll soon see a different Washington; much more responsive to the desires of the citizens.
Sure, devisiveness works for awhile. Then everybody finally sees it for what it is and then starts dealing with the issues. Or the country breaks out in civil war. Either one.
I think that things will get better, and the politicians will settle down if we turn the heat up on them.
One thing that will help that is term limits for both houses of Congress.
So let’s vote for a shift change in Washington. Send them all home and let’s start over again. Let’s let them know that we don’t like being manipulated like sheep. I like what someone said about not voting for any incumbents. Probably a good way to get the message across.
d.a.n,
Is the plan you allude to the 9 point plan you previously published? I think it includes voting for a different person every time you vote?
Posted by: steve smith at June 26, 2005 10:45 AMsteve smith,
Yes, that’s the plan (click on my name to see it).
But, despite it’s simplicity and being very easy to do, voters may never accept it, because they’re either too complacent, or caught up in the partisan demonizing, which distracts, prevents progress, and allows problems to grow in number and severity.
But, still, I try to have hope.
d.a.n.
I went to your site and gave your 9 point plan a cursory read, and already can poke some holes in it. I’ll give you just a couple of examples.
Your item 2, End Grid Lock: You say to automatically send an issue up for referendum vote if a bill cannot reach the floor to be voted on. Sometimes bills are bad. They are the result of emotion, because of events that occur. Remember the internment camps after the attack on Pearl Harbor? There is a case of a knee-jerk reaction. The public has to have time to get perspective on very emotional issues. That’s why some delaying tactics can be good. You can’t just turn it over for a vote right away.
Your item 3, Election Reform: You say to make it illegal for anyone to spend money on behalf of a candidate. Yet you say that we should obey the constitution to the letter. I see a free speech case here. You can’t limit anyone’s right to free speech on behalf of anyone or anything, as long as it does not incite violence or insurrection. I do, however, agree with the idea that no corporation or organized group should be allowed to use money on behalf of or against a candidate, except for the registered party backing them.
You also go on to say to solve certain problems, yet there is no clear way to do that. Some of your statements are restating the obvious, yet the problems are so much more complicated than you are allowing for. Even the balanced budget amendment assumes that there will never have to be emergency spending. I agree that certain expenditures should not be allowed if we can’t afford them, but there are others for which you just can’t plan, yet are necessary. They can’t wait for a vote. Then there is the case of which items will have their funding cut in order to balance the budget. Everyone has different ideas. It will create gridlock. You can’t put a budget before the people to vote on. It’s too complicated for the voters.
I appreciate the spirit of what you are saying, but I don’t think you’re being pragmatic.
On the other hand, I like some of the things you are saying. I like the idea of legislated campaign lengths. Six months should be plenty of time to get the message across in a national election. I also advocate term limits, but they should be a bit longer than what you suggest. Perhaps 6-10 years in office is quite enough, depending on the office. I also advocate term limits for all judges. They should be longer so as to offset the lengths of congressional and executive terms. Perhaps 12 years.
Your advocacy of biometrics requires the creation of a huge database, containing the info of every voter. That makes me very nervous. It also will not stop identity theft.
One item per bill is not a bad idea on the surface. I’ll have to think about that one.
You say to stop entitlements, but you advocate a welfare program. Which is it? Social Security is a good idea, and needs to be better managed. Welfare is a necessity and a means of keeping a record of the expenses which are paid by society for the underpriveledged, no matter what. It has to be managed better, also. Workfare should be used to replace much of it.
You’re idealistic, and we need more of that. Kudos to you. I also noticed that you incorporate both liberal and conservative points of view into your ideas. Not bad. And don’t feel bad if you don’t have all the solutions. No one yet has been able to do that. Maybe in another 10,000 years…
Posted by: Cole at June 27, 2005 06:14 AMd.a.n,
I have perused your 9 point plan and must admit that you have some extremely constructive ideas.
Unless I missed something, here are a few of my comments/questions :
Point 3 Where does the campaign money come from.
Obviously a candidate has to communicate
with potential voters.
Point 4 I think in following the Constitution we
need to look at applying some “common
sense” guidelines to the laws.
Also a & b of your final bullet point are
questionable IMO.
Have you thought about eliminating the Electoral College and making the election based solely on the popular vote.
Dear Republicans,
We who disagree with Bush are not bashing Republicans. We are bashing Bush. We are bashing specific instances that were reported in The news (I know that any story that shines a negative light on Bush,Cheney and Rumsfeld must have been written by the “Liberal,Homosexual Abortionists, hell bent on destroying the American way of life) but I happen to believe the story about the Downing Street Memos. I believe Colin Powells assesment of Bolton. I believe that the fact that KBR and the oil companies have made hundreds of billions of dollars is not just a coincidence.I believe Bush and this administration have damaged our image in the world.
I can’t stress enough that this is not the bashing of a party. It’s the bashing of a bad administration who use deceit and manipulation to gain more power for those who have power and trample the rights of the rest of us.
___________________________________________
Cole wrote:
d.a.n.
I went to your site and gave your 9 point plan a cursory read, and already can poke some holes in it. I’ll give you just a couple of examples.
Your item 2, End Grid Lock: You say to automatically send an issue up for referendum vote if a bill cannot reach the floor to be voted on. Sometimes bills are bad. They are the result of emotion, because of events that occur. Remember the internment camps after the attack on Pearl Harbor? There is a case of a knee-jerk reaction. The public has to have time to get perspective on very emotional issues. That’s why some delaying tactics can be good. You can’t just turn it over for a vote right away.
Good point. Perhaps it should be modified to say “it goes up for vote” after being in gridlock for a period of time (e.g. 3 months)?
Cole wrote: Your item 3, Election Reform: You say to make it illegal for anyone to spend money on behalf of a candidate. Yet you say that we should obey the constitution to the letter. I see a free speech case here. You can’t limit anyone’s right to free speech on behalf of anyone or anything, as long as it does not incite violence or insurrection. I do, however, agree with the idea that no corporation or organized group should be allowed to use money on behalf of or against a candidate, except for the registered party backing them.Yes, that could be a free speech problem. However, the goal is to get the money out of elections, which makes it rotten; not limit speech. Free speech is one thing, and money is another. Perhaps there is distinction. Also, perhaps an Amendment is required for the case of elected officials. The obvious problem with the current system, is that it gives rise to control of the government by a few elitists with money and power. 90% of elections are won by those with the most money. The system is currently rotten. Some Amendments need to not be too idealistic either…they need to consider human psychology and human tendencies.
Cole wrote: You also go on to say to solve certain problems, yet there is no clear way to do that. Some of your statements are restating the obvious, yet the problems are so much more complicated than you are allowing for. Even the balanced budget amendment assumes that there will never have to be emergency spending.I thought it allowed for national a emergency. I check on that.
Cole wrote: I agree that certain expenditures should not be allowed if we can’t afford them, but there are others for which you just can’t plan, yet are necessary. They can’t wait for a vote. Then there is the case of which items will have their funding cut in order to balance the budget. Everyone has different ideas. It will create gridlock. You can’t put a budget before the people to vote on. It’s too complicated for the voters.Well, everything depends on some small degree of common-sense and trust; otherwise, it’s all hopeless (which is highly likely).
Cole wrote: I appreciate the spirit of what you are saying, but I don’t think you’re being pragmatic.It’s not just a matter of being realistic or pragmatic. I all too well understand the probable futility of it. That’s why the idea must be simple, must balance power (not just shift it), is preferably peaceful, and is easy to do, doesn’t need a lot of money, and uses one thing we all have already: our vote That is, there are many angles to this approach. But, I realize, despite it’s simplicity, the people may never realize the power they have if they could ever unite to see government as one entity, that they empower, to do what they do.
Cole wrote: On the other hand, I like some of the things you are saying. I like the idea of legislated campaign lengths. Six months should be plenty of time to get the message across in a national election. I also advocate term limits, but they should be a bit longer than what you suggest. Perhaps 6-10 years in office is quite enough, depending on the office. I also advocate term limits for all judges. They should be longer so as to offset the lengths of congressional and executive terms. Perhaps 12 years. Your advocacy of biometrics requires the creation of a huge database, containing the info of every voter. That makes me very nervous. It also will not stop identity theft.Cole wrote: Nothing will probably ever completely eliminate identity theft, but biometrics is much more difficult to fake than an ID card. Also, you mustn’t rely on one biometric. It must be 2 or more biometrics, and possibly combined with a password.
Cole wrote: One item per bill is not a bad idea on the surface. I’ll have to think about that one.That one thing would add a lot of transparency, and probably eliminate a lot of pork, and make a Congress person’s vote a little harder to explain when there’s not 10,000 pages per bill, with all sorts of pork-barrel attached to it.
Cole wrote: You say to stop entitlements, but you advocate a welfare program. Which is it? Social Security is a good idea, and needs to be better managed. Welfare is a necessity and a means of keeping a record of the expenses which are paid by society for the underpriveledged, no matter what. It has to be managed better, also. Workfare should be used to replace much of it.No….welfare is something I think we all could agree to (to a certain extent); it’s for the truly needy. We can’t turn our backs on those that truly need our help. That’s not to say we should perpetuate a lifestyle in which able bodied people become dependent on welfare. There must be guidelines and rules to prevent that.
Cole wrote: You’re idealistic, and we need more of that. Kudos to you. I also noticed that you incorporate both liberal and conservative points of view into your ideas. Not bad. And don’t feel bad if you don’t have all the solutions. No one yet has been able to do that. Maybe in another 10,000 years…Thank you for your responses. That will help me improve the solutions. Sadly, you may be right. The next melt-down won’t be a simple recession. It will be worse. It will be exacerbated by these many pressing problems. Collapse is not that far fetched. ___________________________________________
Steve Smith wrote: d.a.n,I have perused your 9 point plan and must admit that you have some extremely constructive ideas.
Unless I missed something, here are a few of my comments/questions :
Point 3 Where does the campaign money come from.
Obviously a candidate has to communicate
with potential voters.
The plan is to provide equal time and access to the media for all politicians (paid for by tax payers). The playing field must be equal. However, this may require an Amendment to the Constitution that restricts money entering into campaigns, except for the equal amount provided for every candidate.
steve smith wrote: Point 4 I think in following the Constitution we need to look at applying some “common sense” guidelines to the laws. Also a & b of your final bullet point are questionable IMO.
I believe you’re referring to this?
l QUESTION: UNTIL when ? WHEN DOES IT END ?
When is it OK for voters to vote for incumbents ?
l ANSWER: ONLY after:
(a) government has implemented the necessary reforms (i.e. see 9 Point Plan below) which will provide voters the much needed tool (i.e. transparency) to quickly and easily identify only the irresponsible politicians to be voted out of office (i.e. hold them accountable).
(b) things have improved drastically. Eventually, politicians will get the message (e.g. probably after a few elections; but as long as necessary).
(c) government has produced acceptable performance grades; government must create and maintain a list of the most pressing problems facing the nation, and show, on a regular basis (e.g. once per month or quarterly), the problems that are being resolved, how they’re being resolved, and show the problems that have been resolved. The People will be the judge at the next election.
….. the idea is, we have to give government some no-brainer problems to solve first. If they can’t sovle the no-brainer, uncontentious problems first, then they should all be fired, and the process starts over in the next election. Keep firing them, until they focus on the business of the people. The people will provide the incentive….that is, keep firing them.
Steve Smith wrote: Have you thought about eliminating the Electoral College and making the election based solely on the popular vote.Yes, that should be eliminated. There’s no longer any need for it. Especially, since it is flawed, as some past elections have revealed. ___________________________________________
Traci
Bashing the Bush administration is not bashing the Republican party!
So my point is, that we should not be divided over how the government spends our money. How the gonvernment tarnishes our image. We should not allow partisan politics to take over our need to stick together for government reform. My problem is not with the people our government calls “Conservatives” or the Republican party. My problem is with the people in both parties not looking out for us but just themselves and using partian lables to to keep us from the real issues.
d.a.n.
You mention the idea is to get the money out of the elections but not to limit speech. My point was (although I didn’t say it) that money is the means by which the right of free speech is exercised. If I want to buy an ad in a paper and voice my opinion about a candidate, I have that right as long as it’s an opinion or if I don’t misstate facts. But don’t get me wrong. The old saying about money being the root of all evil is even more true when it comes to politics. So I agree with your intent there.
Yeah, it might require some new laws or Amendments. We have to decide what has precedent. “Free speech” or “influence for sale” ? The “free speech” issue can be avoided if we can agree that “money in politics” leads to corruption, government-for-sale, and gives rise to government by a few wealthy and powerful elitists, and should be illegal. Should free speech be carried to the extreme to allow any form of pornagraphy? Likewise, should free speech be carried to the extreme to allow money to buy and control politicians? The Constitution serves as a guide post, but there must be common-sense exceptions sometimes. Campaign finance should be one of those exceptions…otherwise, the group with the most money wins. As it is already, 90% of all elections are won by the person with the most money.
Posted by: d.a.n at July 2, 2005 06:00 PM
