Third Party & Independents: Archives

David…great article, I could not have said it better, though often I have tried. You are dead on when you state that the middle class is far to pre-occupied and self absorbed to pay attention or care about politics or policies. This is how G.W. Bush was elected in the first place. I often joke to my spouse that we should start looking for a place in Vancouver…

Great stuff David and I echo what V. Edward said.

Now that America is using diplomacy with Libya and NK it’s called “bribery”??? I’m sorry —- but when leftists assume such a position it’s just plain hypocritical. Use arms, get called “hawks” and “war-mongers”. Use talk and make concessions, get called “bribers”. There’s just no way to win. I hope the logical absurdity of such a position is clear.

It’s easy to bash Bush —- but you have very few concrete, practical suggestions about improving what you’re complaining about (short of moving to a new, unspecified system of government).

Vivek commented: Use arms, get called “hawks” and “war-mongers”. Use talk and make concessions, get called “bribers”. There’s just no way to win.

You are right, there is no way to win if we keep using the same failed tactics and short-sighted election enhancing responses which have proven ineffective in the past. Defending same is precisely why we are on our way to a ‘once great nation’ status.

We have the capability of surgical strike. Should we support, grow, and lead the U.N. to a realistic and fruitful future for the world, we would support the International Court, instead of fear it, we would pass international laws that would ban our own WMD as well as all others, and we and the U.N. would then be justified in performing surgical removal of heads of state found guilty in absentia in the international court of violating WMD development.

But, of course, as long as we remain the biggest hypocrites of all, developing WMD of our own but condemning other nations for the doing the same, no long term solutions, no creative and honest leadership is evident and the body bags we bring home for such Imperialism are of our own making.

There is a way to win. We simply have to quit using the same old losing moves we should have learned from long ago.

“Three and one half billion people in this world live on $1.00 or less per day. The United States population is only 280 million. Want to fight terrorism? Address the needs of those 3.5 billion people who have nothing to lose and everything to gain by suicidal bombing of the seemingly uncaring well to do. At the very least, give them hope for their children’s future. Addressing their needs will require decades of committed action to long term plans that are practical, possible, and motivating.”

I think you don’t take the religious motivations of the Islamist terrorists seriously. Bin Laden wasn’t poor, and he wasn’t fighting for the poor. Many in the West treat religion as if it were a mere distraction or confusion. To those we are fighting now, it isn’t.

Ignoring the preeminent position of religion in the minds of our opponents is likely to cause all sorts of confusion when trying to make long term plans to fight them.

BTW, what are your short term plans to keep people like bin Laden from getting nuclear weapons and using them against US cities?

I do not disagree with you regarding Islamist fundamentalists who are exercising terrorism to fulfill some kind of holy war dreams of their own. I think the international effort to seek out, and take out such cells and organizations is appropriate and necessary.

However, once they are removed, terrorism will remain. It is the only weapon the hopeless, poverty stricken peoples who unite to fight have access to under governments which would just as soon make them disappear. Recent African history is full of examples, though, here in America, it makes little news. The Phillipines have a long history of such acts by many factions whose central glue has not been religion.

Not so long ago it was the former Yugoslavia. Albania and Lebanon still get recruits from the hopeless. It is a gross mistake to assume all terrorists acting today fall under the umbrella of Islamist fundamentalists heeding the call of Osama Bin Laden.

China saw many thousands rise up in demonstration and threat of terrorism should the government not yield to concerns. The Chinese government yielded, recognizing the movement would not be stopped by force of military, and an attempt to do so, would have created a terrorist movement of their own to deal with.

If you think about it, uniforms make no sense to those seeking change against power. And attacks upon power, by definition mean attacking the institutions of power. Who works in those institutions of power? “Innocent” servants of the power establishment. Hence, we are reaching an age in which any attempt by any group to take down power systems through physical force shall be deemed terrorists, for their attacks upon power must of necessity inflict harm upon those who get up and go to work unknowing that they are today’s victims.

But what does it mean that terrorists refuse to wear uniforms? It means that they are specifically not protected under the Geneva Conventions. What does it mean that the only times they distinguish between military and civilian targets is so that they can attack civilian targets? It means that they are not protected by even the smattering of international law that exists. What does it mean that they choose to totalize their war? That we can’t spend 50-100 years fixing them.

If the items you identify are increasing problems in the long run, we can deal with them in the long run. But you fail to identify vital short term solutions, and in fact argue against almost all of the short term solutions proposed. There isn’t going to be a sane long term western civilization if we fail to deal with Islamist terrorism before they get nuclear weapons.

Sorry I was opaque in my response. I am convinced the short term strategy against fundamentalists of all religions who believe there is no room on this earth for any other religion but their own, should be swift, sure, and decisive in removing thier influence. If that influence is violent, they should be stopped at any cost. If their influence is non-violent, they should be opposed by any legal non-violent means.

My problem is the waste of American money and lives in Iraq which was not where the terrorists were, until we attracted them their giving their cause a huge boost in popularity. I believe our effort in Afghanistan was justified and warranted, but we have to go further in assisting Karzai in rebuilding the country to the point that fundamentalists cannot again use it as a staging area or rallying point.

My problem also, is that the long term solutions to ending terrorism are not being addressed. That is about as clear as I can state my case. It is a complicated world requiring sophisticated thinking and solutions which afford both short term and long term solutions, lest we continue to revisit the past again and again.

Space based nuclear geo synchronous orbiting nukes, new bunker busting low yield nuclear weapons, and failure to strengthen and lead the U.N. and NATO are not the answers to the problems ahead, nor are they any assurance that the future will be more secure. In fact, they are an invitation to a less secure future as we reinitiate nationalistic arms development escalation.

Also, Sebastian, I should say, I don’t believe Osama Bin Laden is religious at all. He is a man with wealth who seeks power and wealth and power are his religion. Islam is just an armament in his arsenal to support his own recognition, power of influence, and stamp of his name immortally engraved in history books. Like most persons of power and wealth, preserving that power and wealth is their first duty, and using that wealth and power to immortalize their presence, their goal. I call it the “Kilroy was Here” syndrome and our founding fathers knew it well, which is why they tried to write a Constitution that would protect the people from such persons. But that protection isn’t worth the paper it was written on if the people become illiterate to it, and the powerful ignore it, much like our current President is doing.

>>These United States, under the Presidency of George W. Bush, with tremendous assistance of dire and challenging times not of his choosing or making, have taken the first major step down the slippery slope toward the end of a great civilization. As Rome bribed the barbarians, only to whet their greed for more, as ancient Greece with its wealth and democracy fell into complacency, apathy, and political expediency, as the Great British Empire upon which the sun never set lost its great dominion by spreading its power and reach too thin, we Americans are following all of these same paths toward diminishment, failure, and demise as a once great nation.

This is quite silly. The US leads the world in manufacturing and cutting edge services, leads the world politically and is a quantum leap above any other militarily. Our democratic process is vibrant, based both on Dean’s insurgency against the Democratic establishment, the strength of Republican grass roots and the amount of money being poured into the political process on both sides. Unlike many other countries, it appears we have the political will to begin to reform entitlement programs like Social Security before they are facing immediate bankrupcty. We’ve already taken steps to reform welfare and Medicare.

Morally, the country is experiencing a religious revival. So where’s the evidence of decline?

The evidence is actually that when liberals lose political power, they fall into baseless cynicism and despair.

>>What we have for leadership in both the Whitehouse and the Congress, are politicians instead of statesmen, tacticians instead of problem solvers, and short sighted parochial viewpoints instead of long term learned and pragmatic policy priorities.

Sorry, Bush has compromised a little too much for political reasons, the now dropped steel tariff comes to mind, but in general he puts olicy before politics.

>>In current events are stories of bribing North Korea and Libya to conform to our will to stand down from their threatening postures. (The Libyan bribe is particularly interesting since, in stead of money and trade, the door is being opened for Libyan conquest beyond its own borders.)

The strongest incentive for both to reform is the threat of force. It would be impossible to deal with either if there is not some sort of carrot. In contrast, Pres. Clinton was mostly empty threats and bribes. Few dictators in the world feared him. Osama Bin Laden said so explicitly.

As Uday Hussein said shortly before the end of the Hussein regime,”This time I think the Americans are serious. BUSH IS NOT LIKE CLINTON. I think this is the end.” — Uday Hussein….in early April, according to an associate. [cited in the Wash Times, if I recall.]-

And like the great British Empire, the U.S. now has a military presence strung out around the globe . Our military is stretched so thin, that if an adversary were to launch a military attack upon our troops overseas other than in Iraq or Afghanistan, or commit a breach of treaty, the U.S. would have no choice but to withdraw from current engagements and, or, reinstate the draft.

So what if we had to reinstitute the draft? Since when would that be a sign of great decline? Bush’s military advisers all fell reasonably comortable that we can defend our allies as our treaties demand.

>>The best this Administration can come up with is war with oil rich nations

Oh, I didn’t realize Afghanistan was “oil rich.” Could you back that up with some facts? And it is now a PROVEN FACT that Saddam had established a working relationship with al Qaeda, which was our primary motive in taking out Saddam. Bush has been vindicated and liberals have egg on their face as usual.

>>new trips to the Moon, more nuclear weapon research and development, space based strategic weapons hanging over the heads of the rest of the world’s peoples, huge tax cuts to insure next years election, and huge deficits and national debt to become the inheritance of whomever should be so unlucky as to become president after George W. Bush leaves office. We must do better than this in selecting our leaders if we are going to avoid that irreversible first step toward the decline of our status as the greatest nation on earth.

Bush offers occasional symbolic measures, but most policies he is pursuing are sound.

Richard, my father was a welder for Ford Motor company and in the 60’s on his blue collar wage was able to provide food, clothing, a house, a car, insurance and health care for himself, wife, and seven children. That is not possible on a welder’s salary at Ford Motor company today, that worker today must leave his kids unattended as both he and his wife must work full time jobs to have the same purchasing power.

Sociologists in numerous studies have demonstrated the decline of religiosity in America which is strongly and inversely correlated with education level.

The Democrats now have the upper hand on wealthy donors over Republicans while Republicans have captured more of the lower middle class and poor small donations, formerly Democratic supporters. See a correlation here?

In the past, our taxes provided non-fee access to BLM and national parks, which were well tended and safe places to go. Now, under Republican President’s and congressional majorities, BLM land is ruined by cattle ranchers who have access largely on the back of tax payers, national parks now require use fees and are understaffed, trashed, polluted, and unsafe. Murders have now occured in Big Bend and other parks which never had such problems when they were properly staffed. And with all these fees and reductions in Park Rangers, taxes, deficits and National Debt have not gone down, but up over the last 16 years.

I could go on with a host of anecdotal evidence of the decline of American quality of life, to include the demise of the extended family, but, what is the point? Conservatives will view the glass half full when they are in power and Liberals half empty, and vice versa. That is because the American citizens and their quality of life is secondary to the political game of winning, regardless of which major party is in office. Sad, but, true.

>>Richard, my father was a welder for Ford Motor company and in the 60’s on his blue collar wage was able to provide food, clothing, a house, a car, insurance and health care for himself, wife, and seven children. That is not possible on a welder’s salary at Ford Motor company today, that worker today must leave his kids unattended as both he and his wife must work full time jobs to have the same purchasing power.

Two things, it’s a good thing your dad wasn’t a buggy whip maker or a basket weaver, because their salaries have gone way, way down. Conditions change, and people must change with them. If someone expects the same job to be there for four decades or so, they’re a fool. But the bottom line is that Americans’ incomes are higher than ever before.

Second, the principal reason it takes two incomes per family is that 1) the tax burden is far higher than it was when your father raised you, and 2) the hidden cost of regulations is far, far higher, roughly $16,000 per household. That raises the cost of just about everything a family buys.

Lower taxes and cut unecessary regulations, and it’ll be a lot easier for families to get by. During the last few days of his presidency, Clinton signed thousands of pages of regulations into effect, which is one reason the economy has been so weak. A going away to Bush from the Felon-in-Chief.

>>Sociologists in numerous studies have demonstrated the decline of religiosity in America which is strongly and inversely correlated with education level.

From what I’ve read, the US is more religious, not less, than it was roughly 20 years ago. And you’d be suprised how well educated evangelical Christians are. I cannot dispute your general point, if one emphasizes the importance of PhD’s and Master’s, which tend to be concentrated within the elite, secular liberal-left.

>>The Democrats now have the upper hand on wealthy donors over Republicans while Republicans have captured more of the lower middle class and poor small donations, formerly Democratic supporters. See a correlation here?

Yes, the Democrats have not been the party of the average person for many years now. That was just empty posturing on their part. They are the party of Big Government, but they’re too dishonest to admit it.

>>In the past, our taxes provided non-fee access to BLM and national parks, which were well tended and safe places to go. Now, under Republican President’s and congressional majorities, BLM land is ruined by cattle ranchers who have access largely on the back of tax payers, national parks now require use fees and are understaffed, trashed, polluted, and unsafe. Murders have now occured in Big Bend and other parks which never had such problems when they were properly staffed. And with all these fees and reductions in Park Rangers, taxes, deficits and National Debt have not gone down, but up over the last 16 years.

Actually, the national debt has gone down very significantly as a % of GDP over the last 20 or 25 years. Taxes will always go up if we give free rein to politicians sefl-interested spending. Will you now support Repub’s plans to control spending, hmmmm?

But why is it any suprise that federal parks are mismanaged? Just about anything touched by government is either priced far beyond what it should cost or mismanaged or both. It’s just so funny how liberals complain about mismanagement, yet advocate government expansion and intrusion into evern more of our lives.

>>I could go on with a host of anecdotal evidence of the decline of American quality of life, to include the demise of the extended family, but, what is the point? Conservatives will view the glass half full when they are in power and Liberals half empty, and vice versa. That is because the American citizens and their quality of life is secondary to the political game of winning, regardless of which major party is in office. Sad, but, true.

This is not “true.” It’s just another groundless assertion from your subjective opinion. Even Under Clinton, things improved once the Dem’s lost the House and he tacked to the center, signing welfare refrom and Repub’s tax cuts. Now that Bush has his policies in place, things are looking up once again.

Believe me, if Americans were really unhappy, politicians would know. Just look at what happened in California.

You simply fail to acknowledge the drop in buying power of the dollar over the last 40 to 50 years. Ever heard of inflation? Blue collar wages have not kept up.

It is obvious however, that this discussion is not productive so take your last word if you wish. Like all believers, ample evidence can be produced, fabricated, or pulled out of context to support the belief. And as I have always believed, the one impossible thing to do is convert a believer. Only the rational and intellectual are willing to question their own premises, and thus their conclusions. Believers require neither premises nor conclusions save for THE WORD.

>>You simply fail to acknowledge the drop in buying power of the dollar over the last 40 to 50 years. Ever heard of inflation? Blue collar wages have not kept up.

What, are you BLIND? My point was that people must continue to educate themselves to keep their earnings up. If you allow yourself to stagnate, your income likely will, too.

But besides that, who says you’re right? Who says welding is the only blue collar skill that should be considered? Lots of carpenters, plumbers, yard workers, etc. make relatively good livings. Try hiring a refrigerator repairman, wow! But if you’re factually correct, cite statistics to prove it.

And again, Americans’ incomes are HIGHER than they have ever been. Them’s the facts, but don’t let the facts get in the way of your weeping and moaning.

>>It is obvious however, that this discussion is not productive so take your last word if you wish. Like all believers, ample evidence can be produced, fabricated, or pulled out of context to support the belief. And as I have always believed, the one impossible thing to do is convert a believer. Only the rational and intellectual are willing to question their own premises, and thus their conclusions. Believers require neither premises nor conclusions save for THE WORD.

Look if you can’t even get my basic point, maybe it’s time you accepted that you’re the believer in the liberal “WORD.”

I’m the one citing evidence and logic. You’re the one posting personal generalizations, unbacked by evidence.

The evidence overwhelmingly shows that the US is THRIVING, not failing like you have claimed.