Third Party & Independents: Archives

Rhinehold said: “What does this tell us?

Either the majority of people do not like Senator Kerry, or he has been having trouble getting his views and positions out to the voters. “

First, Rhinehold, how old is this data?

Second, you left out the possibility that Rasmussen’s results are tainted or they were obtained with an agenda shaping the results.

The polls since the first debate and especially the most recent ones show Kerry is getting his message out at least as well if not better than Bush, since the gap in the polls between Kerry and Bush have completely closed to a one point lead either way.

I don’t see any pitch here for Michael Badnarik. Isn’t he your candidate? Should we be counting him out?

I stated in the beginning of the article that the data was taken after the second debate and before the third. I started the article a couple of days ago but didn’t have time to finish it before last night’s debate. I don’t imagine much has changed from that last debate from what I’ve seen though.

As for Badnarik, I am a libertarian and did vote for Harry Browne in 2000. And I have run for office as a libertarian in local elections. However, I think that Badnarik, and a large portion of the libertarian party, are on the wrong side of the ‘War on Terror’ issue, especially Iraq. That, and some other issues that I have with Badnarik make me wonder if I will vote for him this year or not, or cross party lines to vote for either Kerry or Bush (sorry, I just can’t bring myself to vote for Nadar for a long laundry list of reasons).

And in a presidential candidate, this is precisely the issue that I feel should be focused on. Ecomonic and domestic issues are and should be largely focused on by the senate and congress, the president, as Commander-In-Chief has the unique position as being responsible for how we respond militarily to specific threats. Everything else, IMO, is secondary and ‘checked and balanced’ by the congress and Supreme Court.

Btw, I just doublechecked the date of the Rasmussen survey as October 9.

As for bias, Rasumssen is pretty highly regarded in it’s survey collection practices. I believe that they are the ones that pointed out the weighting of some other polls a few months ago, this have never been suggested of them that I am aware of.

I think Kerry’s biggest problem in reaching voters is that he speaks about complex problems in a complex way, and most voters simply don’t have the attention span to follow him. That’s why Bush, who essentially says, “We gotta keep going, it’ll be hard work,” and nothing else is seen as having a message. It’s concise and simple, even if there is no real message there.

Thanks for the feeback, Rhinehold. I apologize for missing the approximate dating for the data, I should have picked up on that.

I want to tip my hat to you for being an independent enough thinker to deviate from your party line. In my opinion, anyone who thinks their party is perfect and can do no wrong, displays a rigidity in thinking that I personally find deficient.

Obviously you and I don’t agree on candidates or parties, but, I immensely respect your thinking issues through for yourself rather than copping out to the party line.

Good to have yet another independently thinking writer join the group in this column.

This raises the question. Why does it seem that there is a bias against intellegent thought in this country?
Are we so adapted to the 15 second sound bite?
It would seem difficult to relate a complex thought in that amount of time.

Great article Rhinehold. As you state the election of the President really comes down to his/her capability as a commander in chief. That is, if you are willing to look beyond party politics.

If you throw the parties into the mix, we seem to do better with a minority party President on most issues. Even with all of his shortcomings Clinton made himself into a pretty decent President by being willing to sacrifice his own party’s agenda to become affective on domestic policy. Bush 41, by contrast, had a Congress in transition and I think it hurt him on several economic issues (read my lips). Reagan was great with a both chambers being heavily dominated by Democrats.

In that light I actually do think Kerry would be o.k. as President given 1) his desire to bolster his own legacy, 2) his free trader record and 3) a GOP House and Senate. But his move to the Dean position on Iraq will prevent me from even considering him, because now is not the time in history to flinch. And thats why this election is really only a referendum on Iraq for many independent voters.

“Why does it seem that there is a bias against intellegent thought in this country?”

It is easier, for both parties, to lie and then spin their way out when pressed for facts. If they don’t say to much, they can say they meant something else.
Also, people just don’t care enough. Few people take the time to research voting records, stances on issues or anything else to help them make a decision that truely represents their views. But they will sit in front of a TV for hours. It’s really a sad state of affairs today.

Rocky —

I agree with kctim, but I think there’s more to it. There has been a movement for some time, an active one, to make being or acting intelligent seem like something untrustworthy. The first I remember of it was when the word “liberal” became a bad name to call someone. Along with that came “elitist,” and “intellectual,” which painted those who pursued academic interests as out of touch, interested only in the theoretical world.
It’s easy to think of people who wear bow ties and tweed jackets as unlikable when you’re out there working your ass off, and this movement knows it. This election is a perfect reflection of what the movement’s done to this country, because we have an incumbent president who has put the country in a worse state than when he found it but still manages to be more popular than his challenger because people see Bush as “one of us.”
It is indeed a sad state of affairs.

Alejo,
You bring up a good point about our society and how we look at each other. However, I think you are looking at it in reverse. The movement isn’t focused on those that look intellegent, but the fact that the intellegent people of this country is finally standing up for their rights.

Since the “Nerd Movies” of the 80’s there has been a movement to start holding people responsible for their actions. Now our society don’t hold jocks or macho men up as the supreme beings. Donald Trump, Bill Gates, and other successful members of our society are today’s public heros.

If we look at this movement through the political window, we quickly find that today people want the facts. Bush demonstrates the macho man mentality. “I’ll stay the course” even though every report tells us he is wrong sounds to me like a jock who is about to lose a game. On the other hand, Kerry has shown us that he uses intellegence and reflection when considering a move. Much like a chess player, he reviews the board; looks at the options available to him; and places his piece where it gives him the advantage.

Now, America has a choose this election. We can think that our macho man mentality or our intellegence is the best path to follow into the future. According to the polls of the debates, the Nerds are winning the War.

They feel that Bush has been ‘divisive’ while the reality is that it’s their actions that have caused this situation, not Bush.

Wow. That’s so not true.

“The American people expected genuine debate. Yet Republicans limited floor discussion on one of the most dramatic changes to Medicare in its history to a mere two hours. Two hours. And this behavior was not limited and confined to the vote on Medicare. For some reason, and I think it should be obvious what it is, the Republicans insist on having votes that are of great import to the American people, where they are clearly on the wrong side of the issue, taken in the middle of the night.

“On a Friday in March at 2:54 a.m., the House cut veterans benefits by three votes. At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April, House Republicans slashed education and health care by five votes. At 1:56 a.m. on a Friday in May, the House passed a leave no millionaire behind tax cut bill by a handful of votes. And at 3:38 a.m. on a Friday in June, the House GOP passed a Medicare privatization and prescription drug bill by one vote. At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July, the House passed a Head Start bill by one single vote, and that Head Start bill was to undermine and unravel a very successful Head Start initiative. And then after returning from a summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on Friday in October, the House voted $87 billion for Iraq, an issue that Democrats and Republicans were on both sides of the issue, as were the American people. They deserve to hear the debate in the light of day.

“It degrades our democracy when Democrats have no role in the legislation. This legislation affects millions of Americans — but we had no role in conference negotiations, no chance to offer amendments, no alternatives, and limited debate or discussion.

“It degrades our democracy when secret negotiations — such as those on energy legislation — rip up provisions supported by both Houses and insert new provisions approved by neither House.

“Mr. Speaker, this is not the House our Founders envisioned. Such behavior is unfair. It is un-American. And it is unacceptable. It is not for this that our Founding Fathers sacrificed their lives, their liberty, and their sacred honor, so that we could have government of the few, by the few, for the few, behind closed doors.

That’s the kind of behavior that divides this country. The arrogance and hubris of the ruling party.

This raises the question. Why does it seem that there is a bias against intellegent thought in this country? Are we so adapted to the 15 second sound bite? It would seem difficult to relate a complex thought in that amount of time.

There’s an excellent book written by Neil Postman called “Amusing ourselves to death.” The premise is that “the medium is the message.” I think this premise was first put forth in the book “Understanding Media” by Marshall McCluhan. In “AMOTD”, Postman argues (I’d say demonstrates, but that’s subjective) that the very nature of the television has driven us to this point, where we are really only able to handle a 15 second sound bite.

One of the great examples he gives is that of televising a truly reasoned debate. No one can give an well thought out answer to any question without first thinking about it at least a little. Unfortunately, on TV, during that pause to form an answer, the audience will simply change the channel because a pause isn’t entertaining. Anyone on TV must entertain the audience and thus must speak quickly to attract their attention. It’s like the “hook” at the beginning of a book. But, that’s all we get on TV.

John Kerry is the epitome of “intellectual reflection” and I admire him for it. Such deliberation is probably useful in the deliberative part of the government (i.e. the Senate) It is less useful in the executive branch. The worst president in my lifetime was the most intellectual and deliberative. That was Jimmy Carter. The best president in my lifetime was the most visionary and decisive. That was Ronald Reagan. Franklin Roosevelt was the best president of the 20th Century. When asked about his thinking process, his wife Eleanor said, “the president doesn’t think, he decides.” We can be impressed with John Kerry’s debating skills and still not want him as president.

AP, interesting that you would respond as you have to that one line in the essay. This is an event that took place after Bush was in office, and was a republican congress issue instead of a Bush issue amd I was talking about Bush, not republicans.

As I pointed out he never had a chance to govern by many who felt that he ‘stole’ the election. Impeachment calls, blocking of judicial nominees from being voted upon by use of fillibusters, Nancy Pelosi railing on weekly tirades, the labelling of Bush as stupid, mean, racist, etc. I can pull out a long list of quotes from either side, but from where I have been sitting the past 4 years, going from before the election, it seems to me that the democrats were far more vicious and derisive than the republicans.

Remember, most presidents are given a ‘grace period’ before they are settled in to office and at least a 3-6 month window where the nasty attacks are not levelled to give the appearance of cooperation, this was not done in Bush’s case. As I mentioned before, a web site run by former Clinton members and high ranking democrats at democrats.com had the Impeachment Watch out before he was innagurated and the Clinton staff destroyed equipment (removing the ‘w’ from the keyboards, etc) in order to show their displeasure with the appointed president moving into the offices.

Basically, Bush was never given a chance to unite because most democrats in the ‘Bush the King’ camp want nothing to do with unity. Which is a sad thing to do to a country that really needed people to come together and I shall always be upset about it from those individuals. The only respite to the attacks was a short period of about 6 months after the 9/11 attacks before talk go around to the Iraq situation. But that was over long before Bush started pressing the UN for tougher language on Iraq, just long enough for the dems to appear sympathetic and move on back to the hatred agenda.

Rhinehold,
You need to check the time line of 2002. 9/11 commission, homeland security, and the rebuilding of Afganistan was condemmed by who before public opinion forced their hand?

And all that was before Bush went on his Iraq rampage in 2002. Remember, Rove saying to Bush and the rest of the Reps “Wait until September before we release a new product?”

Rhinehold, while I agree one should vote for the person they think will lead, the rest of this post is pure shlock.

Bush never was given a chance? What a whiney excuse. Leaders don’t wait “for a chance” they lead.

Bush is divisive because his base is the right wing. Will Kerry be? Probably, because the Congress will still be Republican led.

Bush has led us down a bad road. I don’t think he can “lead” us out. Pat Buchanan, that raging, left wing liberal, has an interesting article here

Greg, partisanship aside, the divisive attitude in this country started BEFORE Bush was in office. I don’t know why you have a hard time accepting that, or feel that my article was ‘shlock’, the comments that are being discussed now are based off of *1* line in the essay of about 1300+ words.

You also assume that I’m standing here saying Bush is a great leader. I don’t think that I mentioned that once in my essay, if you can find it please let me know and I’ll retract.

All I said was that the devisiveness that the democrats dump onto him is not, at least originally, his making. He didn’t help it I’m sure, but let’s put the blame where it is due.

I thought Cheney nailed the devisivness issue during the debate. He said that the roll reversal of the parties as to majority status has not been handled well by either side (paraphrased).

Rhinehold & Geogre,
Could it have anything to do with Rush’s daily blasting the “Liberal” point of view on every subject or his endless yelling on how the “Liberals” of this country will somehow cause the ruin of civilization as we know it?

Yes, I know Rush has been on the airwaves for the last ten years and he helped Newt get elected. Yet, I have to laugh at the right wing followers who believe every word he spills out as holy gospel.

If one person or one idea has done more to divide this country along political lines, Rush and Hannity would be on top of the list. And the funniest thing of all is that they have been on the wrong side of history on almost every subject they talk about.

I think people are smarter than they’re given credit for. I think Kerry will win, at least by a slim margin, because all that’s keeping Bush in office is his capacity to stay on message, and even that works against him when people start to lose trust in him. He could have been reelected in a landslide after 9/11, but he’s managed to put a failure to find Osama and the debacle in Iraq between this election and his shining moment.

Also, I don’t think people have to understand or be sure about everything about a candidate to like him or prefer his policies. I think what they want is a gut feeling of whether this guy is smart enough, decisive enough, and wise enough to take the office. You know something? Three times Kerry and Bush have been put in the same room together and three times, the American people have thought Kerry the more effective candidate Kerry may make complicated answers, and stumble over his own stream of thought sometimes, but at least he doesn’t have whole books devoted to his misstatements.

I have trust in the American people that they will not easily let a president be re-elected who so miserably failed his office. And if he is re-elected, I don’t envy him his office because he will have to deal with the aftermath of his misdeeds. I won’t envy Bush supporters or the GOP after this. In terms of political capital, it is quite likely that Bush’s reelection will be pyhrric victory, bought at too high a political cost. He will have to deal with resentment that has no cause to go away, a war that will likely continue far into his next term, whether he likes it or not. If the economy doesn’t pick up or gets worse, we may see Bush’s reputation sink further.

If he does win though, I shudder at what will come to pass.

Stephen, you mention that ‘3 times they felt Kerry was the more effective candidate’. No, that is not true. 3 times they felt that Kerry won the debate. That is not the same thing. On October 11 a Rasmussen Survey was done and found:

* Fifty-one percent (51%) of American voters believe George W. Bush is a better leader than John Kerry. That represents his highest rating since April 26.

* Thirty-nine percent (39%) take the opposite view and believe the Senator from Massachusetts is a better leader than the President. Senator Kerry dropped a point from last week. Last week’s measure was the Senator’s highest level of the year.

The President has been at the 50% or more for five of the past six weeks.

The Rasmussen Reports survey also found that

* Republicans see Bush as a better leader by an 87% to 9% margin.

* Democrats, as you would expect, see Kerry as a better leader. Today, 68% of Democratic voters name Kerry while 21% of those in Kerry’s party see Bush as the better leader.

* As for those not affiliated with either major party, 44% say Bush is the better leader while 37% name Kerry.

This survey did not ask how a candidate did in a debate, it specifically asked the question to the statement you are making. Not too many others out there are doing these kinds of polling and Rasmussen is a widely respected organization.

Btw, the data was “a telephone survey of 3,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is +/- 3 percentage points, with a 95% level of confidence.” A much stronger sampling than done by any organization asking about the debate winner.

This data seems to be in opposition to your previous assertions.

Rhinehold,

You certainly write as if you’re voting for Bush. I’m going to guess that’s who’ll get the nod when you get in the booth. I disagree with the premise of your article, and there are many polls that show different results. But it was well crafted and well written.

I particularly disagree with this part:

We also know that Senator Kerry has many flaws in his Senate record. There is much more bad there than good, including missing a large number of committee meetings, no substantive amount of meaningful legislation authored by him and being named the “Most Liberal Member of the US Senate”, a fascinating label considering the members of the Senate over the past 20 years. President Bush, on the other hand, has had the benefit of being in office for 4 years and establishing who and what he is and stands for. While many may not like it, it’s a known value.

You’re having a “Hannity moment” with your charge about Kerry being the “most liberal Senator.” You’ve been following this race closely enough that you should know that the National Review’s rating is for 2003 only, a year when Kerry missed a high percentage of the votes while running for president. (For the record, prior to his presidential run, his voting attendance record in the Senate was exemplary.) In previous years Kerry has finished in the middle of the Democratic pack. I’ve posted evidence to that effect previously, and I believe you and I sparred on the issue a while ago. So I’m sure that you know how wrong it is for you to say that Senator Kerry is the most liberal Senator over the course of 20 years. That line alone causes me to question the sincerity of your “independent” and “undecided” claims.

This “no-bills-authored” evidence is a phony charge often leveled by opponents of long-time legislators. Tell me how many bills have Bill Frist’s name on them. Dick Cheney’s name.

Kerry is a tremendously effective Senator involved in a number of investigations, committees, and legislation in his 20 years in the Senate. He’s my Senator and I’ve watched his progress closely all these years. I’m proud of his accomplishments; he has done a great job for the people of Massachusetts and the people of this country.

Kerry has sponsored hundreds and co-sponsored thousands of bills. Go to thomas.loc.gov and check it out for yourself. Congress rarely works the way you’re suggesting it does— that a single Senator writes dozens of bills that sail through the process with his or her name on them. Kerry has undoubtedly cast votes that he wishes he could take back and he’s cast votes that I think were wrong. But his record is nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to run from, no matter how the other side spins it.

George:

Why would you say that Kerry took the Dean position on Iraq? Kerry’s position has not changed. Saddam was bad. The resolution was the right thing to do to hold him accountable. Bush used the authority recklessly, breaking his pledge to go to war as a last resort. That’s not Dean’s position.

Kerry’s words from the October 2002 speech that I’ve linked here several times illustrate the absolute consistency he has shown on this issue. (Though I wish he hadn’t briefly used the “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” sound bite…it just fed the fire for the trumped up inconsistency charge.) It’s clear that you refuse to even consider that what I’m saying might be true, but I feel the need to repeat it anyway.

Rhinehold,
Who is Bush going to blame if we get hit by OBL before the election? Want to bet if the polls show Kerry in a 10 point lead in the next two weeks there will be a terror alert?

Henry, I fully expect Ridge to hit the panic button right before the election. But if there really is, God forbid, another attack, I think American’s will blame Bush for dithering on homeland security for three years.

The worst president in my lifetime was the most intellectual and deliberative. That was Jimmy Carter.

Really… I thought Carter was the peanut farmer with the dysfunctional hillbilly family. Nice try.

If you want to play “compare the politician to Carter”, lets talk about Bush telling Americans NOT to get a flu shot. I totally had a flashback to Carter telling us to turn down the thermostat and wear a sweater.

AP,
What gets me on the flu vaccine is that Bush’s administration knew about the problem thre months ago. With a four month window needed to create a batch, wouldn’t of you as president have ordered that some company start a batch?

As far as Carter telling everbody to wear a sweater, Bush better start telling people to go chop some wood. Have you seen how high heeating oil has rose over the last month?

AP, Carter was one of the smartest presidents we had, he was a nuclear engineer in the Navy, and as a former nuclear engineer myself I can tell you that only the top 2% of the country has a chance in hell of making it through the course the Navy requires you to go through.

Of course, Bush graduated from both Harvard and Yale, but is called stupid left and right. It’s another example of how people are easy to put down others, especially politicians they disagree with, without having a clue about what their qualifications are.

Rhinehold,
I do not put down Bush on his education level, but I do hold hin responsable for his own Common Sense Thinking or lack there of.

I have met many of people that think that a piece of paper makes them intellegent, but have found out that they do not have the intellegance to handle simple thinking. The two truck drivers with an 8th grade education that took on DOT in 72 is one of those examples of how common sense out smarted a think tank of people with PHD’s.

Rhinehold, I go by the classic test of intelligence: Those who share my views are intelligent. :)

Henry, I’m curious why Bush is having a Canadian firm mix up another batch of flu shots. Why not an American company? And isn’t medicine from Canada unsafe?

AP,
Actually, America does not have the facility to make the vaccine. Sort of blows away the idea of building high paying jobs for Americans doesn’t it?

Rhinehold,

Politics is divisive. Especially in a two party system. It’s history is long and replete with underhandedness.

As I pointed out he never had a chance to govern by many who felt that he ‘stole’ the election. Impeachment calls, blocking of judicial nominees from being voted upon by use of fillibusters, Nancy Pelosi railing on weekly tirades, the labelling of Bush as stupid, mean, racist, etc. I can pull out a long list of quotes from either side, but from where I have been sitting the past 4 years, going from before the election, it seems to me that the democrats were far more vicious and derisive than the republicans.

Remember, most presidents are given a ‘grace period’ before they are settled in to office and at least a 3-6 month window where the nasty attacks are not levelled to give the appearance of cooperation, this was not done in Bush’s case. As I mentioned before, a web site run by former Clinton members and high ranking democrats at democrats.com had the Impeachment Watch out before he was innagurated and the Clinton staff destroyed equipment (removing the ‘w’ from the keyboards, etc) in order to show their displeasure with the appointed president moving into the offices.

Basically, Bush was never given a chance to unite

Th office “destruction” prank was typical of every administration change over. What was hillareous is that you seem to believe this bordered on vandalism. That was shown to be pure fiction quickly.

What I really have a problem with is your statement that he didn’t have a chance to govern. What kind of crap is that? Did he need training wheels or something? Unbelievable!!!

Rhinehold,

OK now that I got that out of my system, you usually have good posts and even though I don’t always agree with you you provide reasoned arguments.

You complain that I focused on your last sentence, but it seems to me that’s where your post was leading. I said I agree you should vote for the one who leads. My point is that Bush isn’t and hasn’t led. I think you even know that, but for some reason are trying to find excuses for him. I’m not voting for Kerry as a ” anybody but Bush”, by rather as a person who seems to have some intelligence and, while a politician given to posturing, seems to actually have some integrety, in my opinion. Time will only tell if he will be a good president, I don’t have a crystal ball.

By the way, I don’t think Bush is dumb, just bought and paid for. He is comfortable with those that wield power to their own benefit, screw the lowly animals the rest of us are. They brought him to this dance.

I think maybe Kerry is getting his message out and the message is unclear. It’s not a matter of people not hearing the message, it’s a matter of the messege not being understandable. It make Kerry seem to be on both sides of the issues and is probably why he’s got the flip flopper label.

When someone says “I am against abortion, but I will never vote against it.” Or “I am agaist gay marriage but I will not vote against it.” How can anyone say they clearly understand where he stands on the issues. The only way to interpret theses messages are:
1. I’m lying about my stance.
2. I’m lying about not voting against things that I’m against.
3. I have principals but they don’t apply to anything I vote on.

If I understand Kerry’s explanations correctly, he fits into category 3 but I’m not completely sure of that since even his explanations are not all the firm.

Many of his other stances are also phrased in “both sides” ways.

Brian, I thought Kerry was very clear on the issue,

I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith… as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation.

That’s exactly why I think his position is #3.
His principals don’t matter, he’ll vote the party line wether he thinks it’s right or not.