Third Party & Independents: Archives

David, short article but it proves a point.

America is changing and for the worse. The only resolution I can think of besides an Administration change is society overall learning to be more tolerant of each other, stop classifying people according to their political views, accept others, and quit being so damn greedy. Greed is America’s problem and more so than that, greed will led America to its downfall. People just get to much of what they want. I know that the best modern President of the modern era is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Why is it that, considering both parties love the guy, hate social security? It is socialism from a few republicans I know, who hold that view. I say it is for people who work in a country of the lowest amount of vacation time than any industrialized country in the world, PEOPLE DESERVE TO RETIRE AT 65. Social Security and Health Care is a good thing. Greed is when someone already is spoiled rotten rich and they can’t pay an extra 5 dollars in taxes a month for the common good. Mr. John F. Kerry you have my vote in this excellent. Good heads up David.

I find a lot of this disturbing as well, but I take serious offense at the tactics employed in the reporting on some of these issues, which I find is unhelpfull and also distracts from the real issue. For example, regarding the disenfranchised voters article, the article continuously references “the total number disenfranchised” by such laws as those stopping ex-fellons from voting. Although I think this is important issue, the article deals with the issue dishonestly. It assumes that -all- of the people touched by the law even wanted to vote or tried to vote. That’s simply not true.

Now sure, the full number -are- impacted, since they -would- all possibly face the obstacle, but the article doesn’t cut that fine. It simply says “X people are disenfranchised.” Ok…. well… there’s a bit of dishonesty in that delivery (though not necessarily wrong). What percentage of X really did vote, or would vote. Yes, it can be argued that all of X, regardless, should be allowed to vote, but that’s not the tone of the article, the tone is: BEHOLD ALL THOSE TURNED AWAY!!! LOOK AT THIS MASSIVE NUMBER! But the number does not represent the actual number turned away, but rather the maximum number of those that could have been.

Anyway, that doesn’t take away from your overall point. But, honestly, I don’t think any America has ever been the America we grew up in, largely because when we are growing up we are seldom aware of the inequities that constitute reality, or the realities that constitute inequity.

Still, our idealized America is lacking. A sad thing. But then, if we all sat in a room and wrote down what that America should be, I wonder how many of us would actualy have matching descriptions.

PS: I don’t love FDR. He was ok,and he did a good job in a tough time, but among the best? hm. Someone will have to convince me.

Thanks for the comments, Noel. I just had a thought, when America elects to engage in war toward a nation that did not attack it, I think the law should give soldiers the right to abstain from that war if it is being led by a President not of their party.

Also, we should allow anyone from the same party that wishes to sign up, to go fight their President’s elective war. Do you think the idea would have legs in Congress? :-D

David, maybe you should take comfort in knowing that many of the headlines you read which cause you such consternation and doubt are Dan Ratheresque lies. At heart, you and I both know you are a decent man with an admirable capacity for reason, a true blue (I mean red) Republican!

Martin, rig-g-g-h-h-h-t-t-t-t !!! :-D Good to see your humor is still intact. WB needs occasional humorous respites (in good taste, of course). Got any mustard? (just kidding).

I’ve got the hot W mustard if you’ve got the 57 varieties of flip-flop!

As they say, nothing is a better match for ketchup (Theresa) than a weenie (Kerry)!

But seriously, the headlines can be percieved as anything you want them to be. For every anti-Bush headline from Reuters, the NYT or Rather’s CB-S, you can find as many more balanced perspectives from less partisan and virulenty anti-American sources in our homegrown media. These will make you feel much better about the America we grew up in, which is the America Bush is fighting to preserve against all the combined forces of the Paris/Brussels worshipping forces of the elite, privileged and wealth-protected forces of the MSM and their snobby anti-egalitarian Democratic allies.

Melancholy thoughts along the same lines…
Most decisions are emotional decisions. People usually make up their minds in the first 30 seconds. The rest of the decision-making process is finding a rationale to justify that emotional choice.
The average American reads one book a year.
10% of Americans think Ben Franklin or Abe Lincoln was the first president.
Well, I won’t go on, everyone’s probably seen this kind of thing… politicians reading a speech written by someone else off a teleprompter… ugh…
Enough! Something more positive! The political awareness fostered by the internet is definitely a cause for hope! And the Managing Editors of this site do a very fine job, and it is appreciated.

Also, we should allow anyone from the same party that wishes to sign up, to go fight their President’s elective war. Do you think the idea would have legs in Congress? :-D

NO WAY. When you have the Bush Administration and a Republican Congress this will obviously never happen. If it ever does happen it will be in a 100 years when the Libretarian have presidency and Congress. Democrats wouldn’t even do that. I believe atleast a Democrat Congress would make sure a war of lies, half truths, and out right exaggerations will be examined closer due to the historical implications Iraq II will have on three generations atleast. To answer your question, it won’t happen. Signing up in the military means you give up all rights honestly so you are being paid to die if asked.

Damon, you make some very good points. Your comments reminded me to retrieve another story on this topic.

Pentagon restricts overseas access to voter registration site

I think I saw another story where the Pentagon responded by saying it was looking into fixing the problem. Hmmm….. Perhaps by Nov. 3rd, eh?

Don said: “The political awareness fostered by the internet is definitely a cause for hope! And the Managing Editors of this site do a very fine job, and it is appreciated.”

Your comment did not go unnoticed, Don. Many thanks on behalf of all who participate to make WatchBlog the success that it is.

David, according to the article you link to, all that’s being restricted are ISPs for registering voters that have been used to hack US government sites. If we’re interested in combatting voting fraud, isn’t that the least we should do? Prohibiting overseas ISPs with a record of illicit hacking? It’s a matter of minimal verification and accountablilty.

Otherwise, Osama himself could register to vote in our presidential election, no? This seems like a bare minimum security measure. A legitimate voter has many ways to register—an anonymous yahoo or hotmail email account in Libya or Iran should not be enough qualification to get a ballot.

Martin,
I actually wouldn’t mind if Osama Bin Laden registered to vote. I think he would vote for George Bush and that would speak volumes of how affective the Bush Administration has been on the War on Terror.

Martin, that is accurate regarding ISP’s. The issue boils down to how many ISP’s and which ones. Even a few ISP’s could be locking out a million or more potential voters. One ISP could be handling a huge number of folks.

The other issue is, if WatchBlog which is a volunteer web site is able to avoid ISP blocking for spammers with something like Movable Type’s Blacklist, for all the taxes we pay, can’t the Pentagon find a way of excluding hackers without excluding access to their customers. Businesses have not problem doing this. Oh, yeah, that’s right, it’s a Pentagon computer, therefore it is a top secret server and we can’t afford letting any repairman know that it exists, right?

David,

Seems you’ve got a case of ‘fed up’ too?

I’ve posted the following sentiment several times recently, like to hear your response?

The reason that British PM Tony Blair’s approval rating is at 18% percent, is due to his country’s Parliamentary system that subjects him to open, uncensored and weekly public interrogation before the House of Commons.

In the span of this entire Presidential campaign, George Bush will be subjected to a similar situation, only 3 times.

Our stop gap, was always the news media. But, in this era of saturated and increased competition, it is not beneficial to go your own way, when the masses are easily duped into following your rival.

As a result, a state such as Ohio, which lost over 230,000 manufacturing jobs last year, is siding with the man responsible. A friend asked how somebody who has lost their job can vote for Bush, I point to Ohio.

you know what…at this point im so tired of both parties….

as long as the election doesn’t ruin the release of “Halo 2” for xbox….

everything’ll be just fine…..

now…stop talking…head in sand.

lalalalalalalalalalalalbubububububububuub

Bert, I can’t think of a more pervasive and influential cultural activity influencing politics in America than sports. In America we pay 10’s to 100’s of millions of dollars to an athlete for their particular contribution to ‘winning’. Teams are worth far more, if they are finalist winning teams. And in America, most voters are vicarious players in these games, and like Romans of old, identify themselves with the victor, and have no sympathy for a loser.

Getting couch potatoes to spend exorbident amounts of time and money, especially money, on watching, following, and identifying with a player or team has to be close to a trillion dollar a year industry in this country.

So what has all this to do with politics? Simple. Folks in America are specialists, they do their job for money and hire out for everything else that needs doing in their lives. They don’t trust themselves to fix their car, replace a washer in the faucet, or to landscape their yard. So, why should Americans be any different about politics. They want to back a winner (remember, they have no sympathy for a loser), and they don’t spend enough time on current events or political events to feel competent in making and independent assessment. So, they in a sense, hire out for a voting decision to Rush Limbaugh, or James Carville, Hannity, or Dan Rather.

This too is where political parties come in. Folks contribute to political parties to tell them what they should think are the issues. All those mailings reassure voters that they are in the know. Afterall, those parties spend millions testing population samples to determine what issues voters should be thinking about that will best suit a party’s candidate’s win.

So, why do Ohioans who have lost their jobs back Bush? Most of them take it on faith that what they are being told is true, accurate, and in their best interest. There is a strong correlation between those who attend church regularly voting for Bush, and those who don’t voting for Kerry. the difference is large a capacity for faith. Those who attend church regularly exercise their faith muscles far more often than those who don’t. Those who don’t exercise faith muscles do their best to get informed but, ultimately rely on parties, pundits, and news to become informed.

I suspect, though I have not seen research on this, that non-regular church goers consume more news media products. If that is the case, they are exposed to more critical appraisals of candidates, to the extent the media is willing to be critical. In this election, that would mean they are more exposed to critique of President Bush. But that is speculation.

But, I am convinced that Americans rely very heavily on their desire to back a winner and the opinion of others they respect, and these two factors, sports, specialization of labor, account for why Americans make gut decisions in the booth rather than self-interested rational and logically defensible decisions. True on both sides of the party divide too.

Then of course, there is the other half of the electorate who don’t vote. I have the feeling they are either generalists or non-sports fans. More skeptical, cynical, they probably have less faith in specialists and winners than voters do. I would also suspect a majority of them don’t attend church either, so little exercise of the faith muscles. Just my guess. Who is going to pay for research on folks who don’t vote?

David:

You did a nice job of focusing on negative headlines in an attempt to make a point. There are plenty of positive headlines as well to choose from.

If you truly believe America is in such bad shape, you have two obvious choices. One is to leave cuz its such a horrible place to be. And second, to try and change things. Whining and complaining wont do it. You must have solutions.

Thats why the anyone but Bush campaign strategy aint working, friend. Its a whiny campaign with no solutions.

America is certainly not without its flaws. In fact, I would submit that our flaws give us opportunity to display our strengths. Abu Ghraib is an example of a blatant flaw, but the fact that those proven to be involved are being prosecuted is an example of our strength. In many countries, such actions go without consequences; in America, we deal with them openly.

Is America perfect? Of course not. But its truly the best country in the world in many many respects. That is why so many want to come here, and why so many stay here, and why so many fervently defend her.

David, great topic, although narrowing it down to just kerry and Bush is to simple. Our Constitutional Republic is disappearing everyday and being replaced with a democracy, a form of government that has proven to fail over and over.

Your military idea would never work. 90 some percent of the military are Republican, how could we protect ourselves with a military one tenth its size?

Noel, you do not lose all your rights when you join the military. Sure there are laws and rules to prevent a coup or mutiny, but you do not lose your rights. You can refuse unlawful orders.
When I was told I would be going overseas and would be acting as a peacekeeper under the UN in the 90s, I told my commander that I was an American and would not serve under the UN command. I was lucky, I had a commander who understood my point of view, but I was prepared to be discharged if I had to be.

The changing of America for the worse has nothing to do with Bush and all to do with:
- over taxation
- the loss of our rights
- special interest groups
- our pride of being Americans
- our dependancy on the government
and probably many more, these are just the most obvious to me.

Until we get rid of this notion that we are a “democracy” and start believing we are a Constitutional Republic again, this country will continue to deteriorate.

> 90 some percent of the military
> are Republican

Kctim, that’s the second time I’ve seen you say this, but everything I’ve ever seen shows the truth to be much less dramatic. The 2003 Military Times Poll shows that among active-duty military personnel:

57% (66% of officers) Republican
16% (9% of officers) Democrat
29% independent or undecided

It’s heavily conservative, that’s for sure. But “90% Republican”? You need to adjust your figures.

Among veterans (that is, not just active duty), and despite the lopsided numbers above, Rasmussen in August reported only a 58% to 35% advantage for Bush. This is consistent, by the way, with the Gore/Bush numbers in 2000.

What these voting numbers reveal is that Bush is managing to get most of the military Republicans to vote for him, but that Kerry is getting almost all of the independents and undeclareds to vote for him.

So it appears that the “90% Republican” number falls apart even more when the boots hit the ground in the voting booth (sorry about mangling that metaphor). I hope you stop using that figure.

-Cf

Don’t worry, guys. When I’m President, I’ll make sure to have monthly parliamentary style sessions in front of Congress. So, just wait a while ;)

-D

Cf: 57% and 29% equal 86%.
How about 90% tend to “vote” Republican because they have no viable alternative.
Vets cannot be included into this figure. A persons job effects how they vote also, so some vets, when they get out, they may change their mind based on their current job.

Here is where I think the bottom of my 90% figure comes from.

“It’s heavily conservative, that’s for sure. But “90% Republican”? You need to adjust your figures”
I do not believe the military is heavily conservative, I believe it is made up of average Americans. They do not hold the extreme neocon or liberal views, they are in the middle, that is why they are left with only the neocon party.
I think there are three parties now, neocons, liberals and the middle. The extreme views of the two minority parties have taken control and do not truly represent the majority of our population. The way I look at our political makeup is different than the way you do I guess.
One other thing that polls dont show are personal experiences. Your numbers don’t add up on the bases I have been to. Are your numbers wrong? I doubt it, but I have yet to see it that close of a vote. In fact, just to show how upset many are right now, here is one little saying I have heard repeated at many bases:
“I’m not voting for Bush, I’m voting against kerry” Original? no, but that is the thinking right now.
Those 29% undecideds will either not vote or will overwhelmingly vote Republican.

Like I just said in the post “Baby Killers and Warmongers” ….

What are we letting our ‘leaders’ do to us?

> Cf: 57% and 29% equal 86%.
> How about 90% tend to “vote” Republican
> because they have no viable alternative.

So Independent automatically means Republican? The idea that maybe a third or more of them might vote Democratic, or for neither major party, doesn’t occur to you? Come on. The veteran numbers discredit your theory pretty dramatically. That’s some funny math.

> I do not believe the military is heavily
> conservative, I believe it is made up of
> average Americans.

It depends on how you interpret the part that says “About half described their political views as conservative or very conservative; four in 10 called themselves moderate; and only 7 percent called themselves liberal.” Civilian Americans tend to fall 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 in those three categories, with perhaps some moderates leaning towards conservative. But only 7 percent calling themselves liberal is far from a mirror of American civilians.

-Cf

Looking at the registration rolls is deceptive. I’ve known many Dems who register republican in order to vote in the Republican primaries, and vice versa. Also, many in the military may be uncomfortable registering against their commander in chief, fearing backlash.

By the way, I’m ex-Navy and a registered Republican, and wouldn’t consider voting for a sissy like Bush.

Speaking about what is up with America…

Come on ride the peace train

As if there aren’t enough reasons to be ashamed of Bush. They go on and deport Cat Stevens! Man this is a wild world, I guess Yusef couldn’t get by just upon a smile.

Apparently donating to muslim charities whilst being a famous muslim is grounds for restricted access to the US.

Just another headline I throught was disgusting… Hell, if we can’t trust Cat Stevens with peace who can we trust?

Seems to me, gist of what has been said is what many others have been thinking for some years now about having a third option. That is that we need a genuine influential grouping of what I have termed, Thinking Independents.

Founders were smart, but one change would be away from electing all those hot air attorneys as Reps and Senators with some more basic businesslike processes to even what they do in their own chambers.

We need, not just three options, but EIGHT.

Right now the only alternative to Bush is the prospect of a presidency which will fuel itself by recrimination, flip-flops, and a pie-in-the-sky hope that France and Germany will save our ass. How’s that supposed to be a good thing?

Agree, but possibly too many factions may lead to perpetual problems? Maybe, 3-5.
Would like to see proportional voting though to deal with outdated Elecotoral college votes.

Also, clarification: Am not of Nader type Independents (don’t care for his spending priorities). Fear any of his votes would re-elect Bush. Think voting is the choice for the lesser of the evils —has been for too long.