Partisan Politics and Party Lines
If we vote along “Party Lines”, are we not just as sheep-like as the Republicans?
If we vote for Democrats who have demonstrated nothing but their desire to get reelected are we just as bad as the people who voted for and continue to support Bush?
Do we really want to see Hillary Clinton in the White House?
I'm a New Yorker, and the thought of a self-serving, self-promoting and self-absorbed "politician", with little credibility and a lack of original thought bothers me and is the last thing this nation needs right now.
We need a government that consists of leaders. We need a government that is focused on fixing what is wrong with our government.
We must ignore party affiliation and elect based on the individuals track record.
If an already elected official or candidate does not mention tax reform, campaign finance reform, government transparency, civil liberties, lobbying reform, ending corruption and the elimination of "pork spending", do not vote for them.
Both parties are broken. Both parties are at fault.
The Democrats have not spoken up for "real" government reform. Two Democrats out of all of them have spoke out against domestic spying. They are not "seen" as weak, they really are weak. They focus more on getting elected than taking on real issues.
The republicans are so focused on their "far-right", super-kook, guns and god bullshit, they don't realize that nobody is taking them serious any more, again.
Republicans say they are "conservative", yet they are so quick to stray from every "conservative" value they proclaim to adhere to.
Democrats say they are for the people, yet rarely do they speak out for those they claim to champion, if it means they'll look bad.
If we vote along party lines we are just as bad as the "sheep" who continue to support Bush. We must rid our government of politicians and elect leaders.
A look at our government: DEMOCRATS
From the Washington Post:
“A U.S. District Court has issued grand jury subpoenas to six aides to Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) who has been implicated in a bribery case.”
In statements read on the House floor, aides notified House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) that they had been served with subpoenas for testimony issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The court is set to hand down a sentence to Brett Pfeffer, a former aide to Jefferson. Pfeffer pleaded guilty in January to aiding and abetting bribery of a public official and conspiracy. He faces as much as 20 years in prison.
Pfeffer, 37, said a congressman demanded bribes in exchange for his assistance in brokering two African telecommunications deals. Court documents make clear that Jefferson is the accused congressman without naming him.
A look at our Government: REPUBLICANS
From the Mercury News:
“The latest plea deal in the GOP lobbying corruption scandal has moved the investigation to Rep. Tom Delay's inner circle, congressional insiders said.”
Delay's former deputy chief of staff, Tony Rudy, 39, did not implicate Delay in any wrongdoing when he pleaded guilty Friday to conspiracy in the case involving convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
But Rudy did finger his ex-boss - Delay's former chief of staff Ed Buckham - as playing a role in the congressional bribery scandal.
Investigators are looking into accusations that lobbyists funneled campaign donations to members of Congress in exchange for help on legislation that would benefit their clients. The congressmen and their top aides were wooed with overseas trips, lavish meals and other gifts.
The probe has worked its way up the ladder, getting closer to Delay, R-Texas, the former House majority leader.
If we continue to vote for a party and not for the individual we will continue to have elected officials who are incompetent, crooked and who's main purpose is self preservation and continued electability, not serving the public.
Vote with your head, not your heart or the heart of your pastor. Vote smart. Ignore those who want to collectively vote based on hot-button issues. We must reform our government, make it ours again, then debate issues that are important to us all.
Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at April 3, 2006 8:23 AM
Andre, I have not been following Hillaries record. Don’t need to until 2008, at which time I will research her record. But, there is no question that many Democrats will back her for one reason alone, name recognition which is viewed as essential to winning.
But, backing Adolph Hitler because everyone knows his name lead to some real problems in Germany. We should not make the same mistake, again, and again, and again.
Like you said, an intelligent vote is one which backs performance and results. A rare commodity these days. If I had to back a Democratic presidential candidate today, it would be Russ Feingold. But we are a long way from 2008.
Hillary is the monster under the bed used by Republicans to keep their base in check. I don’t know any Democrats who actually think she has any chance of winning.
Your comparison between Sen. Clinton and Hitler right out of the gate should prevent anything you have to say from being taken seriously by any thinking individual. That was beneath you.
Interesting piece, but you’re overlooking a most important point. If the Democrats can get Sen. Clinton elected, they get President Clinton (as in William Jefferson Clinton) back in the White House. I would think the Democrats would march through the gates of hell to make that happen.
its a very good thing to see the liberals splitting and fighting amongst each other.there is still hope.
BillS, if you read a comparison between the persons of Hillary and Adolph in my remarks, I suggest reading glasses or your money back on your education.
Hitler was an example of how wrong name recognition can be for placing a person in power. My words were quite clear on that point, and no other comparison between them was made, except in your mind. Now George and Adolph is another story. :-)
Now George and Adolph is another story. :-)
Bad David! BAD David!! No chew toy for you.
Well written article. Good points. I do think Hillary has a shot at the Democratic nomination, but not at the general election. Though David seems to like Feingold, I’m not sure he is viable either, unless he meanders back towards center which I doubt a man of his principles will do.
Party should come into play when we vote. We know that party affiliation gives us some clue as to how someone will rule. In this political age, the party has control along with the individual. That is to say that an individual cannot get elected without the party support. I suppose they can turn on the party after being elected, but there would be a price to pay for that.
There are very few times I agree with you, but this is one of them.
As long as we follow the party line, we are only perpetuating the “culture of corruption”. As you know, the term “culture of corruption” has been used (and over used) to describe Reps. But as you pointed out, this is true of Reps and Dems as well.
If there are any Reps or Dems who have clean hands in our government, they are few and far between.
I call myself a moderate conservative, and one reason is that when I vote, I vote for the man or woman, not the party.
If it comes down to “more of the same ol’ crap” candidates from the Dems and Reps in 2006 and 2008, I will be moving to a 3rd party.
When it comes to representing my values and my beliefs, neither party has anyone that I could vote for. Hillary…nope. Rudy…nope. McCain…nope.
It’s time for a strong third party to counterbalance the two major parties.
I couldn’t agree more.
It is kinda wierd being on the same side for once.
andre after reading your post again i still say your party is splitting a little more each day.hillery is going to make a great wedge issue.
Well I’ve previously said that I’d vote for Hillary, so I’m going to stick to it. Jbod is right though, if you do a mental red state/blue state I don’t think you can come up with a win for her in the general election. And the Democrats will, once again, run away from progressive candidates during the primaries over “electability” issues.
A person like Hillary, one who is willing to compromise personal positions for the sake of votes, actually makes a pretty good President. WJC between ‘94 and ‘96 is a prime example; he signed NAFTA, welfare reform, and even went too far IMO by signing DOMA. His willingness to engage the opposition (and their ideas) without losing the support of his base helped salvage the rocky start to his Presidency. Contrast those two years with what he have today….
Excellent post! You point out the dangers of stright party voting. In my part of the world, outh, we have a term “yellow-dog Democrats”. This is a person who would vote for a yellow dog it it ran under the Democrat label. There are far too many on both sides who look at the party label first and then the person.
I was once a Republican, but no more. The current crop of GOPers in Washington are not Republicans or conservatives. For the most part, they are self-serving whores, and I don’t use that term lightly. I looked at the other side, but could not find enough of my kind of representatives, that is fiscal conservatives, social moderates, defense oriented, whom I felt I could support.
Now I am a libertarian. The philosophy is not perfect, but it fits the way I look at things. If one of the major parties would field a candidate that would truly espouse my values, I would do everything in my power to help that person get elected. Unfortunately, I don’t one of these on either side of the aisle. So, I will continue on my 3rd party way until the American people rise up and throw the bums out and start all over.
I’m a New Yorker, and the thought of a self-serving, self-promoting and self-absorbed “politician”, with little credibility and a lack of original thought bothers me and is the last thing this nation needs right now.
A totally undeserved attack.
Lack of original thought compared to who? Self serving compared to who? little credibility compared to who?
Not voting for someone is one thing but Andre yielding to the influence of Republican politics is very disappointing.
Unfortunately, a lot of Americans today don’t bother to investigate a candidate and his or her position on critical issues before they vote. They make up their minds based on campaign ads, which we all know tell us what the candidate wants us to know, not what we need to know.
Another problem is that Americans have been conditioned to believe that what they see on TV or hear on the radio or read in the paper, in other words, the media.
How do you think tabloids manage to stay in business?
Please evreyone remember…you are asking the electorate to think…the same electorate that elected Cheney/Bush after the Swift-boat bruhaha. Folks are going to vote for the squeakiest wheel.
You can only change that if you become a squeaky wheel yourself…we’re doomed…DOOMED, I say!
The other thing to remember is that most of this discussion is about 2008. ‘08 doesn’t mean a thing if you ain’t got that thing…(2006).
Good discussion and points brought up….except for a couple poison darts. I agree about a lot thinking that if Hillary wins, Bill goes back to the White House, too…and there could be FAR worse things happen. Voting 3rd. party is an option, but not yet…just not enough votes to make a change happen, and we have to get serious about unseating the current regime. We’ve got to start the climb out of this pit soon !!!!
Hillary has done very little to improve my state.
She gives speaches that directly contradict her previously stated position and that are meant to inflame rather than fix.
She, to me is the definition of the career politician, not leader.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Yeah…but she’s a YANKEES FAN!!!
(Couldn’t help myself)(BAD Jim…BAAAAD Jim!)
Bad David! BAD David!! No chew toy for you.
Aw, shucks JOBD, you sure are a stern master!!!
I don’t get the Hillary or Bill hating stuff. Why hate Hillary? She’s been effective, she’s worked with a lot of Republicans in the true uniter not a divider spirit, and she’s effective. But… people hate her.
It reminds me of Republicans with Bill. What did they hate so much about him to compare him, like is done with Hillary here, to Hitler? Even if there were a reason it would be over the top, but strangely nothing specific is mentioned. I think in America people need to stop voting for who they want to have a beer with and start voting for people with records for success who can pronounce the names of the other countries on this planet.
I’m not making an endorsement, but the hate is out of control. There’s only room in this country for one guy that can be compared to Hitler and that’s Bush.
Please don’t try to con your own that the last 6 years have been some kind of bi-partisan screwup. It was Republicans and Republicans alone that put us in the hole we’re in. Please don’t put Republicans back in office by throwing away your votes to 3rd party candidates as was done in 2000.
The sad truth of the matter is we don’t have the luxory this time around of picking exactly who we want, only of picking something that remotely resembles what we dare not get: the kind of irresponsible, reckless, barbarous, and disastrous behavior the Republicans have hailed down on this country for the last 6 years.
Seriously, don’t cut off your nose to spite your face or Republicans will win. It’s right they vote like sheep, but that doesn’t mean you should dance like their puppet and vote for a third party candidate just like they want you to. Make your vote count and vote them out!
Yeah…but she’s a YANKEES FAN!!!
all the more reason to have her buried.
If she were a mets fan, i’d vote for her. that would show she had real convictions.
Andre M. Hernandez wrote: If we vote along “Party Lines”, are we not just as sheep-like as the Republicans?
If we vote for Democrats who have demonstrated nothing but their desire to get reelected are we just as bad as the people who voted for and continue to support Bush?
You are absolutely correct.
I was one of the sheep that voted for Bush and some of his other cronies.
But, please forgive me.
I have learned my lesson.
I thought Republicans, if they finally had enough seats, they would get something done.
Well, they did.
They have totally BUBARed (Bushed Up Beyond All Recognition) everything up.
Hence, I’m no longer Republican.
However, there also wasn’t much logic to switching to the Democratic, Libertarian, Reform, etc. Party.
It is now all too clear that parties are not necessarily the problem.
Parties are made up of people.
The problem is irresponsible incumbent politicians in all parties, and the voters that tolerate it.
So, in the future, I will be as likely to vote for a Democrat (something I’ve never done before) as I might vote for any candidate of any other party. I will have a strong preference to non-incumbents since most (if not all) incumbents, IMO, are corrupt, and look the other way.
So, in the future, the rule for me is …
The Status Q is The Foe.
Stop Repeat Offenders.
Don’t Re-elect Them.
Regarding Hillary Clinton.
I know a lot of people like her, but I don’t trust her. There’s something very calculating and insincere about her. She’s not even a good actress. But, it wouldn’t surprise me if she got elected. It might be a good thing, since things usually have to get much worse before they can get better.
I’ve never understood this hate thing, whether it’s for Bush or Clinton. Hating someone takes such an emotional toll on the hater. Personal attacks don’t tell me anything useful about the person being attacked, but it says volumes about the character of the attacker.
How can any sane person compare Bush or Clinton or any other American leader to an insane Nazi murderer?
“the thought of a self-serving, self-promoting and self-absorbed “politician”, with little credibility and a lack of original thought bothers me and is the last thing this nation needs right now.”
It’s the truth. And since that is exactly what Hillary is, and most people realize this, they aren’t going to go out of their way to vote for her. Indeed, it is as clear as day that she is a losing proposition as a presidential candidate, which is no doubt why the DNC, which is run by the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) is going to back her all the way to her ultimate failure.
I would never vote for Hillary because she isn’t a liberal where it counts. She’s only socially liberal wherever she thinks it will further her career — all that wedge issue crap, but used only for effect.
Being liberal where it counts for me is having someone who stands by their rock solid positions on social issues because they naturally reflect their liberal positions on economic issues — which for me means they actually try to represent the needs and further the interests of the middle class and the poor. That’s not Hillary. Indeed that is not a good portion of the Democratic Party these days — but liberal politicians whose votes reflect the interests of the working classes will always get my vote.
Voting for Hillary is a vote against my own economic wellbeing and those of people who are doing less well than my husband and I have managed to do. Actually, the truth of the matter for us is that no matter how rich we may become, we’d never want to vote against our own roots: Immigrant Working Class.
That’s because he and I know that this is where most of America’s strength lies — in making all boats rise — in spite of the wealthy who always have and always will do just fine.
“We need a government that consists of leaders. We need a government that is focused on fixing what is wrong with our government.
We must ignore party affiliation and elect based on the individuals track record.
If an already elected official or candidate does not mention tax reform, campaign finance reform, government transparency, civil liberties, lobbying reform, ending corruption and the elimination of “pork spending”, do not vote for them.”
Exactly. That is why Russ Feingold should be the presidential candidate in ‘08. He’s got all that covered. Plus, he is so obviously a man of real intellect and integrity who has always known how to work in a bi-partisan fashion with Republican Senators when and where necessary. In fact, he has sometimes done so in direct opposition to his party — because he’s no party sheep or weak-willed wimp. He’s a true leader who knows his own mind and sticks by his own principles.
That is the kind of candidate people will go out of their way to vote for: one with intelligence, upstanding integrity, and real principles.
I liked Gen. Wesley Clark for the exact same reasons, but if I had to choose between him and Feingold, I’d probably go with Feingold — simply because I know where he stands on everything (and I agree with most of those positions) and because his votes and his rhetoric have always been one and the same.
I can’t think of any reason to distrust Hillary and, maybe the second time around she might get National Health Care right.
Another thing; I voted for George the first time, on the basis I thought he would be a “leader for the people”. However, after his first term, I was convinced I’d made a huge mistake. Unfortunately, all the Dems could come up with was Kerry who had as much charisma as Gore.
I am convinced, right now, that either Feingold or Clinton could win, if the Democrats can get their brains in gear start moving forward instead of sideways.
Sorry, David, I couldn’t vote for Nader. He destroyed my favorite car.
It’s nice to see that there are a number (hopefully a large number) of democrats who are not inclined to support Hillary for President. I think she would be a losing proposition for the democrats. In fact, it’s my opinion that the only ones who really want her to run are the republicans, because they know that they can beat her.
I’m hopeful that there will be enough voices heard before the primaries that will cause her to drop out and throw her support to someone who will win the election for the Democrats.
I don’t get the Hillary hating either. I’ve followed her political career and she’s a moderate with some good ideas.
I don’t think she’ll win the Democratic primary, though. After watching how Republicans twisted some mundane procedural votes by Kerry, I think thte party will be wary of another legislator candidate. I’m betting it’ll a Democratic governor this time.
Janet Napolitano, anyone? :)
The Clintons have done nothing if not good in nearly every endeavor. Please remember that health care was one of Hillary’s things in the beginning of Bill’s first term. Given a little time she would have likely come through, but the opposition was monied and fierce. She was just not experienced enough to handle it that early-on. I wish they’d waited at least another year to begin the health care initiative, as we’d probably be well into a good national program right now. We missed the boat that time, but it might not be too late. Dems…we could do a lot worse.
But, I still say we are thinking too far ahead…plenty of time to select the Prez candidate…let’s concentrate on ‘06.
Any good coach will tell you to approach one game at a time…’06 is the first game of the new season…if we lose it, ‘08 is meaningless.
“Janet Napolitano, anyone? :)”
Shall I assume the smiley means you are joking, or are you drinking at the moment, AP? ;^)
Believe me, I think Napolitano is damn good — but her running against and beating John McCain? Don’t you think someone that people are much more familiar with is going to be needed to run against a conservative with such broad appeal?
“The Clintons have done nothing if not good in nearly every endeavor.”
You really think so? Pretty crappy on the environment, NAFTA, and gays in the military, if you ask me.
“Please remember that health care was one of Hillary’s things in the beginning of Bill’s first term. Given a little time she would have likely come through, but the opposition was monied and fierce. She was just not experienced enough to handle it that early-on. I wish they’d waited at least another year to begin the health care initiative, as we’d probably be well into a good national program right now.”
Maybe I’ll catch hell from many lefties from this, but I remember thinking at the time that the way that Hillary was handling the healthcare issue was actually because she and Bill wanted it to fail. She was arrogant and developed the whole thing in isolation. Had she instead asked for a lot of input from Congress (bi-partisan) we might well have gotten something rather than the nothing we’ve still got. That’s the way such things tend to actually happen IMO — a bit at a time — never major ground-breaking legislation in one fell swoop. Personally, I thought she really blew it big time on that score.
>>Personally, I thought she really blew it big time on that score.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 3, 2006 11:23 PM
Right you are. She handled it poorly and she was over-bearing and waspish and secretive. You made my point. She needed a little more time in the saddle. If you look back, nearly everything she recommended has been profered by someone else at one time or the other, so her findings were sound…her approach was lousy. One more year might have put it over. All Insurance companies, medical and drug corporations were propogandizing on TV and in the halls of Congress, and the Repubs were bashing…Bill should have held her back for one more year.
Some possible 2008 democratic presidential candidates, ranked in order from most well known to lesser known.
Hillary Clinton, former first lady, New York senator, former Arkansas first lady, high negatives because she is too well known? She will bring William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd president of the United States, with her.
John Kerry, 2004 presidential candidate, Massachusetts senator, war hero, all around good guy, nearly won the electoral vote in 2004. Unfortunatley brings Teresa Heinz with him.
John Edwards, 2004 vice presidential candidate, North Carolina senator,
conservative liberal confusion, now considered more liberal than Hillary, is he the new RFK?
Bill Richardson, New Mexico governor, a great guy, better known outside of his state than most governors.
Joe Biden, Delaware senator, too many votes on too many things for too many years.
Evan Bayh, Indiana senator, too likely to be confused with neocons
Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania governor. don’t know.
Tom Vilsack, Iowa governor
Mark Warner, Virginia governor
Why bother nominating someone from a state that will vote for the Rpblcn presidential candidate?
George Allen, Virginia senator, same thing but with a football.
The list is mostly from Susan Estrich, but in a different order. I deleted Dean. Any comments?
>>The list is mostly from Susan Estrich, but in a different order. I deleted Dean. Any comments?
Posted by: ohrealy at April 4, 2006 01:17 AM
Yep…you’re still getting old cart in front of old horse…’06 first, then ‘08…without ‘06, there’l be no ‘08.
Hillary Gets Her Space (cagw.org)
Her “space” was invaded by her Senate campaign adversary, former Congressman Rick Lazio. Opponents criticized her $8 million book deal. Her new colleagues want to close the “Hillary Loophole” because she received thousands of dollars in gifts prior to her Senate induction. After all the wrath she has suffered, maybe it’s time to give Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) a break.
But, then again, she refuses to give taxpayers a break.
In another move that will vex the electorate, Sen. Clinton has signed a $514,148-a-year lease for an office on Manhattan’s Upper East Side.
The 5,650 square feet of usable office space costs $91 per square foot and while this is under the cap of $91.14 per square foot, it is the most paid by a senator.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), owner of the Senate’s second most expensive lease, shells out only $420,000 for her San Francisco digs. The senior senator from New York, Democrat Charles E. Schumer, pays $209,000 to reside only one block away from Sen. Clinton’s office.
The cost for Sen. Clinton’s office is comparable to the rent for presidential offices — four presidential offices. The combined annual rent paid for the offices of former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George Bush is $624,000, only $110,000 more than Sen. Clinton’s palatial chamber.
The most expensive presidential office is Ronald Reagan’s California suite, which costs $285,000, about half the price of Mrs. Clinton’s office.
The former first lady signed the lease for this posh space, nestled inside the peach-colored Teachers Insurance Annuity Association of America building and complete with a 154-seat auditorium, around the same time her husband was under scrutiny for his first-choice office, which would have cost the taxpayers $800,000 annually.
Fortunately, former President Bill Clinton decided to save taxpayers a few bucks by moving to Harlem.
Mrs. Clinton’s excuse, said spokesman Jim Kennedy, is “every year, somebody in the Senate has to have the most expensive offices.” Taxpayers can be sure that as long as Sen. Clinton is in office, that “somebody” will be her. After all, who are the taxpayers to violate Hillary’s space?
Hillary is porker of the month (Feb-2005).
“The Clintons spent their last month in the White House battling deadlines. While Hillary rushed to help her friends give her as many pieces of fine china as possible from her registry at Borsheim’s Jewelers before the Senate’s gift ban took effect on January 3, husband Bill has been a “busy beaver” (so described by a Bush spokesman), approving federal regulations and issuing executive orders on the environment and business before leaving power. The president, apparently vexed at Congress’s refusal to enact his program through normal channels, is using every day up to Jan. 20 to accomplish his agenda through these backdoor methods.
…CAGW’s “Porker of the Month” award is a dubious honor, given to lawmakers and government officials who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers. Recipients of the award are listed on an online “Hall of Shame,” located at CAGW’s website, www.cagw.org. Past recipients of the award include First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) and Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).
Fresh from her taxpayer-subsidized campaign, Senator-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) comes into the U.S. Senate promising to fight for universal health care, universal pre-school, and mandatory (i.e., universal) trigger locks on handguns. She could lead the crusade to bigger government all by herself.
But Senator-elect Clinton will find out that it is costly to “universalize” private services. Prior to the election, the National Taxpayers’ Union (NTU) totaled all the promises she made during her “listening tour.” NTU estimates that Mrs. Clinton’s promises would cost an additional $241 billion annually. This is a conservative estimate because her ideas are broad and undefinable. They are also full of warm, fuzzy sentiments and faulty math, but without price tags or accountability.
Mrs. Clinton’s faulty math is evidenced by her promise to support expanding “second chance” maternity homes by doubling current investments in these initiatives. When she made this proposal last February, there was no such program and therefore no investment to double. Mrs. Clinton really had no idea how much money she was talking about. Fulfilling her promise would require an entirely new program, new staff, new regulations and new spending.
She does not stop there. Mrs. Clinton believes that the world’s problems can be solved by combining a miscellaneous adjective with the word “corps,” calling it a “brilliant new federal program,” and handing that program billions of dollars. Mrs. Clinton proposed two such programs. She called for a National Teacher Corps and a National Principal Corps, which together would cost $2.2 billion annually. While John F. Kennedy’s volunteer program, the Peace Corps, has been a success, most other corps are a bevy of waste. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Corps commands a fleet of aircraft that is obsolete; their duties could easily be carried out privately. Americorps, President Clinton’s “volunteer” corps, rewards college students with an average of $27,000 in grants each for work in urban areas. Last time we checked, this was called paid labor, not volunteerism.
(Washington, D.C.) - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today announced the final results of its online poll for the 2005 Porker of the Year. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer (both D-N.Y.) received 45.5 percent of the vote, with Reps. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Don Young (R-Alaska) coming in a close second with 40.5 percent. The six finalists were chosen by CAGW staff from among the 12 Porker of the Month winners for 2005.
… more; much, much more … Hillary is one of the worst, right up there with Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) …
Yep. The bar is set so, so, so, very low.
No wonder this nation is in deep $#!+
Please Stop Repeat Offenders.
Don’t Re-Elect Them !
Adrienne, ‘08, Feingold vs. McCain. Not that will have a lot of independents and fence straddlers stumped for a choice? LOL!!!
I am encouraged that Senator Clinton is the worse thing that the Republican’s can seem to come up with… I thought she was the “victim” of the Presidents behavior that they wished to protect her and the nation from? Seems like everyone wants to use her. They actually froth at the mouth and their eyes grow really big when they mention her. Amazing! I can just see them tucking their children to bed and telling them if they don’t go to sleep “Hillary” will come and snatch them away. Hehehehehe.
As far as Political Lines… I have discussed this with many people… Some want to proclaim themselves “independent” thinkers and that is a good thing… I too like to think of myself that way.
However, I have to look at the entire platform of each party and determine for myself which most closely matches my beliefs. That is the independent part. For some it is a single issue that overwhelms any other… such as abortion (pro or con), gun control, or the environment.
Others like myself are not completely devoted to just one issue even though we may agree with the other party on some things. What is important to me is which overall party best reflects my beliefs and vote for that party.
I cannot understand saying that a congressman or a senator reflects my beliefs and vote for them while sort of negating that vote and the message by voting for a presidential candidate from the other party. Now, this is assuming that none of the candidates have actual serious defects of character (not just allusions to or mud being slung.
I believe that within the Democratic party if there are certain aspects of the party or their position I am not in agreement with I am able to express my views… as evidenced by the Republicans always saying that we aren’t “unified”.
I just can’t see anyone within the Republican party being able to question the powers that be. Look at the tight rein that DeLay had on the other Republican congressmen. They were completely unable to express their own views… but once he was removed the cracks finally began to appear. I really don’t see much ability within the Republican party for reform or change from within. Everything is sacrificed for a “united” front. To me, that is not independence of thought, but adherence to a party line.
Hillary, like most (if not all) incumbent politicians, don’t look too bad if you can ignore :
 the rampant pork-barrel (even the worst pork-barrel offenders like Stevens and Clinton),
 waste, abuse of tax-payers money,
 the refusal of incumbents to pass any badly-needed reforms,
 trollin’ for big-money-donors to build up their campaign war chests;
 the hypocrisy;
 the fueling of the petty partisan warfare;
 mismanagement and continued plundering of Social Security and Medicare;
 growing the National Debt ever larger;,
 deficits, and the government ever larger,
 pandering and bribing voters with the voters’ own money (great…all we need is another vast, mismanaged government entitlement healthcare system???),
 and ignoring our pressing problems as they grow worse every year.
But, they are only human.
Would any of us do any better?
So, perhaps that is why we excuse their corruption and hypocrisy.
To expect better is folly.
There’s no point in trying to educate voters about the resulting corruption when power exists without sufficient education, transparency, or accountability.
Even though we’ve tried everything else, and discussed every type of reform under the sun, without any ever being implemented, it makes no sense to think any of it could ever change by doing the one simple thing voters were supposed to be doing all along.
It is illogical to think anything would ever improve, or any reforms could ever be passed, by voters doing the most logical, simple, and responsible thing they were supposed to do all along.
No…that simply makes too much sense. Besides, if by some chance it did work, we would no longer have the petty, partisan bickering and warfare to wallow in. How boring that would be?
No, we are all too fond of wallowing, and fueling the petty partisan warfare. So, it makes perfect sense to vote for incumbent politicians that fuel it too, and pretend that their jobs are extremely complex and difficult (like rocket science).
Thus, the best thing to hope for is more of the same. It’s best to endlessly talk about all of the countless reforms, with no hope of any of them ever being implemented, because if congress actually ever did solve and problems, we’d have nothing to argue endlessly about.
“That is why Russ Feingold should be the presidential candidate in ‘08. He’s got all that covered. Plus, he is so obviously a man of real intellect and integrity who has always known how to work in a bi-partisan fashion with Republican Senators when and where necessary.”
As usual, you are correct. You have a great grasp of the seriousness of the upcoming elections. Name recognition is not the answer. Credibility and honesty are going to sway the Christians(not the kooks), seniors and moderate Republicans.
Someone actually called her a uniter. If she is already hated by the far-right, she will never have the capacity to unite because just mentioning her name to members of “the right” is divisive.
All of what is being discussed about 08 applies to 06 and every election in the future.
“Adrienne, ‘08, Feingold vs. McCain. Not that will have a lot of independents and fence straddlers stumped for a choice? LOL!!!”
It’s perfect isn’t it? It’ll probably now depend on whether or not the independents and fence sitters are religious since McCain is now courting the likes of Falwell and Robertson.
“As usual, you are correct.”
Thanks for thinking so!
“You have a great grasp of the seriousness of the upcoming elections. Name recognition is not the answer. Credibility and honesty are going to sway the Christians(not the kooks), seniors and moderate Republicans.”
Absolutely, and I honestly think Feingold is the only Dem who is a match to run against McCain. One “maverick” battling another — but Feingold could easily come out on top because he is so amazingly articulate and is not a flip-flopper.
Also, on a purely female note (which should never be underestimated), I gotta say, Feingold is rather easy on the eyes! McCain is an old man.
Ohrealy - just for the record, PA Governor Ed Rendell sucks. Pittsburgh is one billion dollars in debt and needed to put two financial professionals in charge of Pittsburgh’s money as to not declare bankruptcy.
Lynn Swann is running against him as the republican candidate. Remember Lynn Swann? The wide receiver for the Pittsburgh Steelers in the 1970’s?
You know how bad Rendell really is whenever he’s the incumbent and has no lead on a football player with no prior political experience!
Also, realistically people, do we really think this country’s ready to elect a woman president? I have no problem with Hillary, but try to look at the big picture. The majority of people that vote in this country are baby boomers and senior citizens. People in this country don’t look at the election process as a job interview as they should, they look at it like they’re hiring someone to run their church. Presidents are put on pedestals and are looked at to be omnipotent. There’s no way she’s gonna get elected. Geez, we couldn’t even get a war hero like Kerry elected over a spoon fed rich boy. Too many of the majority of the electorate think women should still be barefoot and pregnant, not running the country.
Just so you can see what I was saying in my last post about Feingold being easy on the eyes compared to McCain being an old man:
Take a gander at this photo.
Oh, I forgot:
Marysdude - I’m right with ya one the ‘06 before ‘08. Gotta take one step at a time.
If only the Dems could get Al Gore to run again; polls have shown that he would attract a strong “Jayus, if only you had made it in 2000, we could have skipped all this misery!” vote.
His campaign slogan could be: “Don’t Blame Me: I Voted For Gore!” Al has previously said that he won’t run - and that he “hasn’t shut the door” on the idea. There he goes, flip-flopping again. Oh, to have an Intelligent Flip-Flopper rather than a Decisive Idiot…
Remember Lynn Swann?
How can I forget. I’m a Cowboys fan. Superbowl X. I’ve hated that guy ever since…