Third Party & Independents: Archives

The last guy who did this was pursued for a large number of alleged transgressions. His enemies couldn’t make a criminal charge stick so they hounded him on a consentual sex charge. Cornered, he lied about sex on a deposition. THEN his enemies charged him for lying!!!

Posted by: Aldous at July 9, 2005 08:33 PM

Yep Aldous, Bill Clinton, the best president Ireland never had. If he stood for election here, it would be a shoo it for him. If he did nothing else, his engagement, committment and influence in the Irish peace process, should provide his place in history.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at July 9, 2005 09:24 PM

In 1996, 9,676,512 chose not to vote for Clinton or Dole, 10.5% of the voters.

In 1992, 20,409,567 chose not to vote for Clinton or George Bush, 19.55%

As a comparison, in 2000, 3,953,222 chose not to vote for Gore or Bush, 3.74%

In 1988, 898,613 chose not to vote for Bush or Dukakis, .98%

So I don’t think Clinton inspired those who were considering third party. Unless you meant he inspired people to consider an alternative.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at July 9, 2005 09:48 PM

The last guy who did this was pursued for a large number of alleged transgressions. His enemies couldn’t make charges about dodging military service stick so they hounded him with forged documents. He said exactly what they were saying about WMD in Iraq and THEN his enemies accused him of lying!!!

Posted by: sanger at July 9, 2005 10:39 PM

Nice article, Lisa. Well written, interesting, and worth a chuckle.

Welcome to WatchBlog.

Posted by: LawnBoy at July 9, 2005 10:41 PM

Lisa, very thought provoking article.

The only large group of voters who have an organization with a long term plan and repeated adherence and implementation of that plan is the Republicans.

That is why the Republicans are going to control every branch of government. Newt Gingrich and his crew set a long term agenda back in the very early 1990’s and their pursuit of it has yielded astonishing results, both positive and negative.

There simply is no other group of voters with that kind of long term plan to which all of their members can adhere to, and which steadily builds upon short term gains in the implementation of the long term plan.

Actually, their plan was very simple. Tell the people what they want to hear regardless of your party’s intentions or actions, and never, ever, allow an opponent to tell the people what they want to hear without spinning and distorting it into something the people don’t want. And of course, build the communications infrastructure to make that happen.

It has been the most successful political strategy the United States has ever witnessed. It remains to be seen if it will also become the worst results US history has ever witnessed from politics. But, there are signs it could be moving in that direction.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 10, 2005 02:02 AM

Very well written article, Lisa Renee Ward,

But I feel I must tell you, I for one, have never put much faith in the idea of a Political Savior.
I feel there is no such thing, and indeed, those who pose as such, are guaranteed to let you down.

However, I do strongly believe in We, the People — collectively and forcefully putting unrelenting pressure and demands upon all of our politicians — on every side of the political spectrum.

If only more of us would do this very thing, I believe we would be getting far more of the results we all expect.

Third Party Voter (standing firmly on the Left),
Adrienne

PS. Welcome to WB!

Posted by: Adrienne at July 10, 2005 02:13 AM

Aldous,

You keep cracking me up. Seriously.

1) Clinton was not a ‘uniter’ in any respect. The last person who was anything like what has been described was Reagan, and that’s debatable. That was the time of the last great landslide victory halfway through his presidency.

2) He was being questioned under oath for a possible Sexual Harrasment case using laws that he signed into effect. I know that some people are willing to give up a woman’s right to a fair trial if they feel that they’ve been sexually harassed if the person being charged is ‘a friend to women’ but seriously, isn’t that going a bit far?

I guess we’ll just start seeing that defense in sexual harassment cases all over the country, that it was all about sex and now about the power that one man has over a woman in a business relationship… *shurg*

Personally, I think that sexual harassment is a serious enough charge that it should be taken seriously, even by the president of the US.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 10, 2005 02:45 AM

Rhinehold:

Clinton won the South. He ruled from the Center. He managed to bring down spending and keep a balanced budget INSPITE of fighting a War and a Republican Congress. Last time I looked, no one has ever accused his Sexual Escapades as non-consentual.

Also, the Republicans were fishing for anything. Monica was what, the 5th Charge against him?

Posted by: Aldous at July 10, 2005 05:48 AM

Adrienne,

“I for one, have never put much faith in the idea of a Political Savior.”

The last one I remember was Michael Valentine Smith, and we all know what happened to him.

Posted by: Rocky at July 10, 2005 06:10 AM

Thank you everyone for the warm welcome. I do still have hope for a Political Savoir, I have voted third party or independent every election with the exception of my first time, when I voted for Jimmy Carter on his re-election attempt.

Everytime I select a third party name, especially for President, I do it with the hope that I am being joined by others. It still is possible, it’s just a matter of finding and encouraging the right candidate. We deserve better than what we have been offered in the past.

As more and more Americans become discouraged with the two main parties change will come. Granted it’s taking alot longer than some of us, myself included would like, but it will come.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at July 10, 2005 11:13 AM

Let’s see if I have this right. By way of recapping figures already provided :

In the last five (5) Presidential Elections, the percentages shown represent the portion of those who voted, did so for a candidate other than the Republican or Democratic nominee :

1988 .98% Bush vs Dukakis
1992 19.55% Bush vs Clinton
1996 10.50% Clinton vs Dole
2000 3.74% Bush vs Gore
2004 1.00% Bush vs Kerrey

Any reasonable analyst would exclude or at least “asterisk” the 1988 election from having any impact on whatever point he was making due to the fact that Dukakis was arguably the worst Presidential nominee in the history of elections.

In terms of momentum for a movement to develop a third party candidate the trend appears to be in a serious downspin.

What conclusion can be drawn from the fact that the two highest percentage elections involving a third party candidate had Bill Clinton as a common thread.

One possible conclusion has to be that Clinton, despite the almost nauseating praise he is given by those on the left triggered interest of the voting public in seeking another alternative. Of course, convincing arguments to the contrary can be made as well but, not to the exclusion of the scenario I mentioned.

In summary, if a Political Savior is being sought, an awful lot of work needs to be done to alter public opinion/belief that there are only two viable party/choices come election day.

Posted by: steve smith at July 10, 2005 11:28 AM

Lisa Renee,

Welcome to watchblog.

Posted by: Beagle at July 10, 2005 12:58 PM

Lisa Renee,

My last post was a test because of puter problems that blocked posts. The “welcome” is correct though!
Question?…Because we have another “Lisa” that is an editor at Watchblog,would you be offended by my refering posts to you personally as “Renee” ?

As for your article, I would be interested in your opinion of the platform issues for your independant candidate?

Great subject article BTW.

Posted by: Beagle at July 10, 2005 01:11 PM

Adrienne, I hate to be negative, but “we the people” isn’t that much of a better alternative than a Political Saviour. I’ve always been a fan of “mind your own business.”

Posted by: Zeek at July 10, 2005 01:27 PM

What conclusion can be drawn from the fact that the two highest percentage elections involving a third party candidate had Bill Clinton as a common thread.

Two old maxims seem to apply here:
“Correlation is not causation” and “One event is chance. Two are a coincidence. Three or more are a pattern”.

No conclusion can be drawn from that fact, because you have not established causation, only correlation. Further, you offer two events only, which are not really enough to establish a pattern actually exists.

Posted by: Jarin at July 10, 2005 02:08 PM

Beagle, I have no problem with being called Renee, or Lisa Renee, or LR, Lisa is a very popular name which is why I add my middle name most times.

To add to Jarin’s point, on the issue of does what happened in 1992/1996 prove something statistically? I’d suggest it proves that if there is a candidate that appeals to Americans as Ross Perot did, it shows we can succeed in electing someone who is not a Democrat or Republican. If we had a candidate who could stir up more support than Mr. Perot did? It could be done. Interestingly enough when Mr. Perot ran for President the Libertarian numbers held about the same, .28% in 1992, .50% in 1996, .36% in 2000 and .32% in 2004.

I’d suggest the ideal “Political Savoir” would have to also offer more interest to those who consider Libertarian values as well.

If you’d like to further research some of the numbers I’ve found US Election Atlas to be useful.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at July 10, 2005 03:02 PM

In response to my post of 7/10 at 11:28 am…

Jarin said :

“No conclusion can be drawn from that fact, because you have not established causation, only correlation. Further, you offer two events only, which are not really enough to establish a pattern actually exists”

The part of my post his response pertains to is the statement..

“What conclusion can be drawn from the fact that the two highest percentage elections involving a third party candidate had Bill Clinton as a common thread.”

My statement was not an accusation, presumtion of a derogatory nature or, for any reason other than to inspire discussion. When one reads my entire post and gets a sense of the facts presented, it is obvious that give and take dialogue is all that I sought.

Causation : 1. The act or process of causing
2. A cause
3. Casualty

Nor was I drawing a parallel between the events in either a positive or negative way.

If someone chooses not to respond to a post, fine. When the response is to point out that a necessary foundation for one to explore or speculate the possibilities or probabilities has not (in his opinion) been established it is discouraging.

“Just as iron rusts from disuse, even so does inaction spoil the intellect”. Leonardo da Vinci

Posted by: steve smith at July 10, 2005 03:02 PM

Renee,

I think that Ross Perot would had a real chance the first run if he didn’t flake out at the end.

I think that an ind. could have a very real chance in 08 in they would study the issues that turn off the voters of all partys, and gleen a platform from that. One that can appeal to disgruntled rep.,dem., and libertarian voters.

There is a large group out there that cares about issues, votes every election, but is forced to pick the best of the worst, every election cycle.
The “big tent” idea only works untill you allow things in that tent that smells like crap to others in your tent.

If someone ever figures out to adopt the issues that most voters agree on,there is a real chance for a new/independant party to be a force in politics.

Posted by: Beagle at July 10, 2005 04:02 PM

Until the American voter starts to think about the country as a whole insted of their own selfish agendas, this country will remain polorized/paralyzed.
We can’t be democratic because there is this mindset that if I give something up (even if it is for the good of the country), that I will never get it back. Wanting to get it back is the problem.
We need to start thinking nationaly, and give up our parochial attitudes toward our neighbors.

Posted by: Rocky at July 10, 2005 04:28 PM

If someone chooses not to respond to a post, fine. When the response is to point out that a necessary foundation for one to explore or speculate the possibilities or probabilities has not (in his opinion) been established it is discouraging.

I’m sorry if you feel discouraged, but the fact is you were asking for speculation that logically could not be given based on the facts you offered. To do so would be falling prey to the logical fallacies of false cause and hasty generalization, as you did in your speculative scenario that Clinton may have triggered interest by the voting public in seeking another alternative.

If such logical errors in speculative scenarios do not bother you, that is of course your choice, but ultimately any speculation which incorporates such errors would have about as much value as speculation that all the voters who voted for third party candidates in those elections were ordered by aliens to do so. Speculating in that way would only be building a political mythology to explain facts that statistically could easily be coincidence, and not even causally related.

“Just as iron rusts from disuse, even so does inaction spoil the intellect”. Leonardo da Vinci

Yes, it does, that’s why I’m suggesting you take action with your intellect and not with your imagination and emotions. Ignoring logic is not making use of the intellect.

Posted by: Jarin at July 10, 2005 05:01 PM

Part of the reason third-party votes were so low in this last election was because both Democrats and Republicans fought so hard to keep third-partyies off the ballots. I never thought voting third-party was throwing my vote away, but I’ve only had the opportunity to vote in two Presidential elections so far. The first time I voted I went third-party, as did my husband. It was hillarious for us to watch as the red and blue states duked it out.

However, this last election I didn’t have much choice. As a conservative in a variety of senses I want a candidate who:

1) Conserves our rights (which the Democrats love to take away our religious liberties while the Republicans work hard against our free press, so it’s a lose/lose)

2) Conserves our laws (which both Democrats and Republicans love to mangle and reinterpret, again lose/lose)

3) Conserve our families (the Republicans win this hands down as the Democrats try to re-invent what family means to suit the degradation of our society)

4) Conserve our environment (the Democrats seem to win here. The Republicans make nice promises but their follow-through sucks. I don’t know how well the Democrats follow-through on their pretty promises, so I can’t give them a gold star or anything.)

The person who can get America back on track so we can be a righteous nation instead of merely a self-righteous one would get my vote. However, voting third party just because it’s third party would be throwwing my vote away. That’s just not a very convincing argument.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 10, 2005 05:51 PM

Jarin,
Now that you have gotten that out of your system would you care to respond to the real thrust of the post which was to observe that the support for a third party candidate has been statiscally declining. The original piece seemed to indicate a need to search for a viable 3rd party candidate in spite of declining public interest.

As always, you choose to launch into this deep exhibitionist type of intellectual dialogue to avoid having to actually address/respond to a simple common sense opinion/observation.

Your problem has always been and, continues to be that you are unable to recognize an observation that is expressed in a way that requires a straightforward response.

Moreover you continue to select only the parts of a post that you can respond to without any real commitment to an opinion.

If you can look at my original post (which is only expressing the figures that the author and one respondent provided, and organizing them in chronological order) and not conclude and/or render an opinion as to how a declining voter interest in a third party candidate over the last five elections will impact the outcry for a Political Savior or, offer an opinion as to whether or not there is a relationship between 3rd party interest and the Clinton years I strongly suggest that you perfect and refine your debating/discussion skills to be more perceptive and responsive.

Posted by: steve smith at July 10, 2005 06:26 PM

Stephanie

“1 Conserves our rights (which the Democrats love to take away our religious liberties while the Republicans work hard against our free press, so it’s a lose/lose)”

Please help me out here and explain to me which religious liberties the Democrats have been taken away from you.

“3) Conserve our families (the Republicans win this hands down as the Democrats try to re-invent what family means to suit the degradation of our society)”

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

“Main Entry: 1fam?i?ly
Pronunciation: ‘fam-lE, ‘fa-m&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -lies
Etymology: Middle English familie, from Latin familia household (including servants as well as kin of the householder), from famulus servant
1 : a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head : HOUSEHOLD
2 a : a group of persons of common ancestry : CLAN b : a people or group of peoples regarded as deriving from a common stock : RACE
3 a : a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation : FELLOWSHIP b : the staff of a high official (as the President)
4 : a group of things related by common characteristics: as a : a closely related series of elements or chemical compounds b : a group of soils that have similar profiles and include one or more series c : a group of related languages descended from a single ancestral language
5 a : the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their own or adopted children; also : any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family b : spouse and children
6 a : a group of related plants or animals forming a category ranking above a genus and below an order and usually comprising several to many genera b in livestock breeding (1) : the descendants or line of a particular individual especially of some outstanding female (2) : an identifiable strain within a breed
7 : a set of curves or surfaces whose equations differ only in parameters
8 : a unit of a crime syndicate (as the Mafia) operating within a geographical area”

There are quite a few definitions of the word family (your prejudice is showing).

“4) Conserve our environment (the Democrats seem to win here. The Republicans make nice promises but their follow-through sucks. I don’t know how well the Democrats follow-through on their pretty promises, so I can’t give them a gold star or anything.)”

You could at least give them a A- for trying.

Posted by: Rocky at July 10, 2005 07:30 PM

Aldous,

Clinton won the South.

Barely. Mostly because he was from the south. Remember, in both elections he won a plurality, had ‘The Crazy One’ not ran and pulled votes from Bush in 92 he may not have won. His election was hardly a landslide or uniting of the country behind him. He had no mandate and under his watch the democrats lost control of congress for the first time in decades.

He ruled from the Center.

First, I am concerned about the choice of the word ‘ruled’. However, leaving that aside he was unable to push any highly liberal things through, like universal government controlled healthcare, while joining with many on the conservative side on things like NAFTA. Again, I never said he was a horrible president, but not the great uniter and certainly not a ‘black’ president like he would like to be called. He also allowed the threats of terrorism to ramp up during his watch.

He had no real convictions of his own, he ran on what the majority of the country wanted at the time. That left some confusing policy decisions but did prevent the majority of people from despising him.

He managed to bring down spending and keep a balanced budget INSPITE of fighting a War and a Republican Congress.

No, he did not bring down spending. Spending increased and has continued to increase for decades. He did lower the deficit, mostly because of the tech boom that he had little control over. He also modified the way debt was calculated and ended up putting us into a recession that started during his last year of his presidency (though again, not his fault because it was mostly tied to the tech bust which he had little control over).

You also say in spite of the Republicans, but wouldn’t it be better to say with the help of the Republicans since 1) that’s the agenda they ran on and won control of congress back with and 2) the congress has more to say about spending than the president has ever had? The president can only pass or veto the bill in total with little say over what is in it…

Last time I looked, no one has ever accused his Sexual Escapades as non-consentual.

Last time you looked? He has had numerous accusations of sexual harassment against him, including the one that led to his being impeached. He was being questioned during a sexual harrassment trial against him. The ironic thing is that he was asked about a ‘pattern’ of sex with people working under him when he lied, the only way he was able to be asked that line of questioning was because of the expanse of power that he signed into law (amid a nice photo op with the NOW leadership who made sure to stand behind him even though he was being brought up on these charges).

Also, the Republicans were fishing for anything. Monica was what, the 5th Charge against him?

Heh, I’ve never seen anything like that since…

I had a much larger problem, personally, with his admitted obstruction of justice in the Vince Foster suicide and giving vital secrets to the Chineese for possible election contributions. But those couldn’t be proven.

(How can you say it’s not an obstruction of justice to prevent the police from searching the office of someone who has just committed suicide until several hours of tidying up and removal of documents has been done? *shrug* I know, national security, etc. But if you are going to forgive one and condemn the other…)

Basically, Clinton was what he was. Let’s try to not raise him up to a level he doesn’t deserve or drag him down either.

And we should do the same with the current resident of the White House. Seriously, calling for a man’s impeachment the week before he was even inagurated? Maybe the republicans should inherit moveon.org…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 10, 2005 08:14 PM

LR,

Allow me to be among the last to welcome you to WB.

I enjoyed reading about the ideological criteria you posit for your “political savior”. Nevertheless, you should consider adding some pragmatic criteria, as well.

If I may suggest a few, in addtion to possessing telegenic appeal and a personal character beyond reproach, your “savior” has to be a multimillionaire, as well. Until campaign finance regulations have been modified substantivally, a third party candidate of modest financial means stands virtually no chance of winning an election, or even competing effectively.

Large political benefactors don’t contribute to campaigns, they invest in candidates. Personal and institutional investors are notoriously adverse to risk, which is why many will invest in any candidate with a credible chance of winning. Nobody wants to throw away their money, especially affluent individuals and large organizations.

Thus, only competitive candidates are able to attract the financial support from these investors necessary for victory, and the only way to stage a competitive campaign is to generate a sufficient amount of name recognition and popular support, i.e. strong polling numbers, as quickly as possible. Thus, a potentially successful candidate must generate a credible opportunity to achieve victory. Unfortunatley, the only way to achieve tactical credibility, i.e. becoming a “serious” candidate, is through advertsing, primarily on television. Finally, given the cost of producing and purchasing televison advertising, the only way to get a sufficient degree of preliminary television exposure is through self-funding.

You can take the arcane and immaterial previous comments about Dukakis, Bush, Clinton et al. and ignore them. Perot was the only marginally successful third party presidential candidate since Henry Wallace in 1948 because he got exposure the same way that the Republicans and Democrats get it - he bought it.

Don’t get me wrong, however. Private fortunes don’t guarantee popular support. If they did, President Forbes would have run for re-election in 2004. Nevertheless, although they are helpful for Democratic and Republican candidates, they’re necessary for third party candidates who don’t have access to traditional sources of mainstream party funding. In short, having millions of dollars to invest in your own campaign is not a guarantee for a successful third party candidacy, but not having them is a guarantee for failure.

Hence, without systemic and comprehensive campaign finance reform, your finding a contemprary political savior is about as likely as your finding a religious one.

Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at July 10, 2005 08:38 PM

Rocky,

I do give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt as far as the environment goes, but I didn’t want to be lambasted by anyone concerned since I’m under-informed on that issue. All I know is the Great Lakes are nasty, fish are dying, only fools swim in it, and it’s a travesty that such a big body of water that is such an important piece of a large swath of local economies is being ruined by major corporations and the government can’t bother to nail them to the wall for break the law.

As for family, definition 5 is what I was going for. As for my prejudice, yes I am. I believe Husband + wife + children = family. (Note: Husband + wife = family, for those who don’t have children.) Our society pays women to have babies out of wedlock. Our society allows single parents to adopt, excluding role models of the opposite sex. Our society allows homosexual couples to adopt, really excluding role models of the opposite sex. All this leads to dysfunctional, confused children. But again, that depends on your definitions of dysfunctional and confused, I guess.

As far as my 8-year-old step son is concerned (he’s raised primarily by his mother who has never been married) he has three “fathers.” My husband, his mom’s longest-term boyfriend (2 1/2 years) and her current boyfriend. I’d say that’s confused.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 10, 2005 10:14 PM

Part of the point I was trying to make, though looking back I obviously made it poorly is this:

Hot botton issues are hot botton issues for moderates as well as conservatives. I’m on the right end of the spectrum, but not far right. I’m not going to vote for someone who is on the far left just because he’s my only third-party choice on the ballot.

Personally I’d like to see a politician who has a often neglected minority group on his platform. My favorite minority group spans ethinicities, religions, nationalities and even sexual orientation. That is the minority group of individuals (and their families) with special needs. These “disabled” individuals compromise a relatively large body of the population when you include their families and friends. This is a minority group, dispite their attitude of all-enclusive, that the Democrats severly neglect.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 10, 2005 10:33 PM

It doesn’t matter who it is.
Whoever wins, it will be the one who has the most money.
90% of elections are won by the person with the most money.
It’s the money that makes it rotten.
The government is controlled by those with money and power.
U.S. government is for sale to the highest bidder (not always Americans any more).

Let’s just make sure none of them ever have more than one term. Vote out all incumbents ! Every election. Until things get better.
: )

Posted by: d.a.n at July 11, 2005 12:01 AM

Stephanie,

“Our society allows homosexual couples to adopt, really excluding role models of the opposite sex. All this leads to dysfunctional, confused children. But again, that depends on your definitions of dysfunctional and confused, I guess.”

You are entitled to your opinion, though it is one that I don’t share.

A much greater threat to the American family, is a divorce rate amoung hetro-sexual couples that is the disgrace of the civilized world. The right blames much on the “morals” of homosexuals, but fails to look into it’s own house first.

Of the “gay” men and women of my aquaintence, most have been in stable, loving, relationships for more than 10 years, and I know couples that have been together more than 20 years. These are loving, caring, moral, people and both my wife and I are proud to know them and call them friends.

The right needs to get past the sexual part of homo-sexual. Disspite rumors to the contrary, 99.99% gay folks do not hang around outside of grade schools or public bathrooms, trying to steal little boys and girls. these are real people, that hold down responsible jobs, go to church, and pay their taxes just like you or I.
Those that have adopted children don’t raise their children to be gay, they raise them to be compasionite human beings. And you can be assured that they are good homes.

There are far too many children that need good homes, and far too few good homes to place them with. I would say that it is high time for the right to lighten up on this issue.

Posted by: Rocky at July 11, 2005 02:32 AM

Rocky,

You jump on the issue of homosexuality and cling to it. It wasn’t even my primary issue regarding children and safe homes for them. Homosexuality, as I’m concerned, is a personal issue between two consenting adults. If they’re not consenting or not adults, then it becomes other peoples business. We you involve children (in the sense of raising them ASSUMING no abuse of any kind is going on, which I was assuming in this statement) a homosexual couple still has to be very careful to provide rolemodels of the unrepresented gender to their children regardless of the gender of their child. Some couples do this very well and I applaud them for it (whether or not I agree with homosexuality, their sex lives are not my business). However, I have met far too many angry, bitter (particularly lesbians in this case) homosexuals who teach their children to hate and/or distrust those of the unrepresented gender.

I, however, am much more concerned with the legislation we have in place that makes it profitable for unmarried women to have babies. There are women, and I have met some, who get pregnant in order to get paid. And our society encourages this! The children of these women are often neglected and/or abused and become some of the children who need good homes that you mentioned.

But, the point I was trying to make wasn’t about the particular issues. My point was simply that voting third-party for the sake of voting third-party is not a good use of my vote. If there is a third-party that matches most or all of the conservative values that I delineated I would like to hear about it. All the third-parties that I’ve heard about (Green & Libertarian mostly) are far too left for me. If there was actually a middle-of-the-road party, instead of a special-agenda party, a third party may stand a chance (assuming they have or can raise sufficient funding), but again…I know of no such party. But the middle-of-the-road party would still have to be a party of compromises and as irrate as people get over the hot botton issues that just doesn’t seem likely.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 11, 2005 02:58 AM

As for the divorce rate, considering the minority group that homosexuals are, blaming them for our outrageous divorce rate is plain bad math as well as muddied thinking. Lack of communication, me-first attitudes, and the idea that if it doesn’t work then you chuck it is much more to blame for America’s divorce rate. Not to mention the permisibility of extramarital affairs.

Personally I’ve been married for seven years, which isn’t long but alas I’m only twenty-five. My husband and I are committed to a life-long marriage. And we are also committed to raising our children to be compassionate human beings.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 11, 2005 03:11 AM

Stephanie,

Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

Yes I have known angry women, there are angry hetro men and women as well.

Enough if that.

A third party, whether liberal, moderate, or conservitive needs fresh ideas. They also need a candidate that people will actually vote for. A candidate that the people know and trust.
I have said before that a national candidate needs more than money, he/she needs name recognition. Name recognition comes with experience.
Nobody seems to want to start at the bottom, the local level. Name recognition also happens when you do something.
Though for instance, I would have never voted for Perot. You can’t trust a man that will not say what he will do for the country.
“I’m gonna fix it”, just doesn’t work for me.

Posted by: Rocky at July 11, 2005 03:23 AM

It doesn’t matter who you vote for, until you get the big money out of politics. Otherwise, seats go to the highest bidder. 90% of seats go to the candidate with the most money. All that money requires favors, which breeds corruption, graft, greed, pork-barrel, secret and crooked deals. The only way to reduce the corruption and rotting effect of big money, is to vote out incumbents every election, and only vote for non-main party candidates. Let the politicians know we’re sick of main party bigots that limit our choices and sell out our country to the highest bidders with wealth and power, lining their own pockets too, and ignoring the many pressing problems of this nation. Vote for the least known person with the least campaign money that’s not a main-party candidate.
: )

Posted by: d.a.n at July 11, 2005 08:08 AM

Aldous wrote: The last guy who did this was pursued for a large number of alleged transgressions. His enemies couldn’t make a criminal charge stick so they hounded him on a consentual sex charge. Cornered, he lied about sex on a deposition. THEN his enemies charged him for lying!!!

Still, that’s sleazy behavior, and I won’t even go into all those pardons for his felon buddies.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 11, 2005 08:10 AM

However, voting third party just because it’s third party would be throwwing my vote away.

I agree. Voting for anyone who you don’t want to see in the office is “throwing your vote away”. For me, a vote for Bush OR Kerry would have been a throw-away, as I didn’t want either to be President.

Unfortunately, too many people have been brainwashed into thinking that a vote outside the Two Parties is a wasted vote. So, instead of voting for the candidate that supports their views most, they vote for the D or R candidate that threatens their views least.

If my only choices were Democrat or Republican, I’d sleep in on election day. I’d rather keep my vote for myself than throw it away.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at July 11, 2005 10:41 AM

Ross Perot was not ideal, but look how he especially in 1992, did have that many voters go outside of the D or R to vote for him.

That shows it is possible with the right person. If the right Third Party/Independent candidate is found it will put to rest some of the throwing your vote away myth.

I truly believe the only way a vote is thrown away is if you vote for someone that you really do not want in office.

I’d also like to add a quick thank you to all of you for commenting, there have been some very excellent points made.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at July 11, 2005 12:37 PM

We’re all praying for a savior ?
How sad. That proves how vulnerable we are.
We’re going to put all of our hopes and dreams onto one candidate?
It also proves how unrealistic and complacent voters have become.
Voters should realize one person (i.e. president) ain’t gonna make much difference.
And, voting for those backed (i.e. bought and paid for) by a few with money and power (i.e. those really holding the reigns of power) isn’t working, is it?
It’s the entire rotten federal government that needs a wake-up call.

The people (who happen to be the majority and quite simply have the power to change it, but don’t realize how simple it could be to do so) can take back the government if they sufficiently disrupt it (peacefully, that is).

And there happens to be one easy way to do that.
Simply vote only for non-main-party/non-incumbents every election. That’s the only way left to peacefully force government to reform, because they’ll never do it themselves.
Even if 10% or 20% of voters did this, it would change the political landscape significantly, and let the elitist government snobs know their stay in office will be short if they don’t clean up their act.
And, if 50% or more of voters did this, don’t you think politicians will take notice?
Also, you’ll no longer need term limits.
And, why waste a lot of money getting into office when voters keep voting out incumbents.
That will defeat the purpose of spending so much on elections.
While the federal government is irresponsible and unaccountable, the people are equally responsible for not changing it.
This is the one thing that is simple, easy to understand, easy to do, doesn’t need a party, doesn’t need a lot of campaign money, provides the necessary force, and uses the one thing we all have at the moment: our vote

Posted by: d.a.n at July 11, 2005 01:48 PM

Renee,

Your savior candidate is little more that a good salesman. They must have something to sell that people want?

That would be a platform that many/most can agree with?

Lets build a platform that most agree with?

The Kelo ruling would be a good start, few on any side agreed with that.

Rather than gay marriage, go with civil unions for now, most can live with that.

The 2nd amendment? most agree it covers private ownership of guns, go with that one.

Hunting issues? ditto, most agree with that one too.

Fewer taxes, thats always a winner.

Join in folks..add some to Renee’s platform that most agree on.
( be honest, you know the issues that most voters can agree on).

Posted by: Beagle at July 11, 2005 02:30 PM

Zeek:
“Adrienne, I hate to be negative, but “we the people” isn’t that much of a better alternative than a Political Saviour.”

I don’t think I understand what your getting at here. Are you saying you don’t agree that a vast amount of public input over policy decisions that are made by government officials is mandatory in a democracy?

“I’ve always been a fan of “mind your own business.”

What could be more our business than telling them exactly what we expect from government leadership — and getting rid of whoever fails to affect vital changes in order to correct ineffective, harmful or wasteful policies?

Posted by: Adrienne at July 11, 2005 03:14 PM

Beagle, we have had some differences, but, none exist between us on your last comment to Renee. Great comments.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 11, 2005 05:43 PM

David,

You could also offer honest opinion for a platform, of an independant that could win?

BTW, difference of opinion on any issue isn’t personal. We way well agree on another(smile/grin).

Posted by: Beagle at July 11, 2005 06:30 PM

To add to Beagle’s list:

more/better jobs

getting health care costs under control (exactly how I don’t know)

stop/reduce tuition hikes

smaller government/ less red tape (i.e. paperwork)

instead of outlawing abortion, settle for requiring education before abortion (see models of fetuses, an ulrasound or heart beat monitor)

How about these? Are these acceptable?

Posted by: Stephanie at July 11, 2005 06:32 PM

Would you like fries with that?

Posted by: d.a.n at July 11, 2005 07:13 PM

Stephanie,

Your ideas are good too, even if we don’t agree, its something to debate and build on?
(not saying I dont agree).

There are some pretty clever guys and gals that post/read comments on watchblog, if the dumbass pol.’s would , we would all be better off.

There are lots of voters out there that are starved for someone to run for office that can come up with a platform of issues, that most can agree on.

It seems like a simple concept to me, but most pol.’s don’t get it, or just don’t care.

Gleen the freaking issues that most agree on, and let the fringe/stinkie shit in the tent remain on the outside looking in?

Money dont mean sick-em if voters dont want it, if they do like the program/platform, you’ll get the money and votes.

Posted by: beagle at July 11, 2005 07:15 PM

D.A.N.,

What was your last post supposed to mean?

Did you hit the wrong key on the burgerdoodle keyboard?
I didn’t know they used a windows system, ya learn something new everyday.

Posted by: Beagle at July 11, 2005 07:35 PM

Beagle,

If there’s something wrong with my list, please tell me. I thought your list was very reasonable. If mine’s not, tell me what and why.

I think (correct me if I’m wrong) D.A.N.’s comment was meant to imply we’re asking for more than we could receive.

As for our typical disagreements, I respect your positions even if I don’t agree with some of them. You seem like intelligent, well-informed person. While I’m inherently intelligent, I don’t always have the time to be well-informed which is why I’ve started looking at this site.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 11, 2005 07:47 PM

If there are any honest politicians, they’re too few to make any difference, and once elected, have to spend much of their time raising money for re-election, and contract amnesia about all of the campaign promises. Yet, we keep voting for them ?

Some people say insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, and expecting a different result.

I guess the we’re all insane.
That would explain a lot.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 11, 2005 07:55 PM

Stephenie,

I agree with your comments and welcome them, quite valid.
I was trying to “prime the pump” for those that may not agree with all of mine to join in and offer theirs.
I apoligise if you took that wrong.

Posted by: Beagle at July 11, 2005 08:09 PM

Stephanie,

No malice intended.

It’s just that the federal government will continue to ignore our pressing problems as long as they can, because to do something about them would require them to do something they’ve never done before: work

I’ve just about given up on our increasingly corrupt and greedy federal government.

There’s one way to change it, but it requires something we don’t have: a voter population that isn’t complacent, apathetic, and resigned to the futility that they can ever make a difference.

If only they realized the power of the one thing they have left: their vote

Simply use that vote to only vote for non-main-party/non-incumbent candidates, every election.

It would have the following benefits:
(01) SIMPLICITY: An important reason and benefit to “Vote ONLY for NON-incumbents” is because it is simple. Everyone can understand this ONE simple idea. Anything else may be too complicated. Making any exceptions is risky, complicated, and threatens failure. Keep it simple.
(02) PEACEFUL FORCE: This idea provides the necessary FORCE required to give politicians sufficient incentive to do the right thing. Government will not do it themselves, and nothing else seems to be working.
(03) PEER PRESSURE: It gives the politicians an incentive to police their own ranks, and pressure their fellow politicians to be more responsible.
(04) CANDIDATE CHOICES and FAIR ACCESS TO GET ON VOTING BALLOTS: The choice of candidates is not the fundamental problem anymore, because main-party partisan-bigots have limited your choices. So it now matters less WHO you vote for, than whether they will be responsible and accountable after being elected, and whether there is sufficient incentives to force elected officials to be transparent, accountable, and responsible.
(05) A BETTER VOTING SYSTEM: The Approval Voting System would provide a much improved voting system, and it would also allow for more voting choices (candidates). The Approval Voting System is a more democratic voting system, that not only provides more choices (i.e. candidates), but also increases voter turn-out, provides minorities better representation, increases chances of the strongest candidate, eliminates the “Spoiler Effect” and the “Wasted Vote Syndrome” , reduces negative campaigning, and focuses more on issues than geographical areas. http://www.approvalvoting.org/benefits.html
(06) BALANCE OF POWER (not simply shift it): Politicians don’t have any power except for the power voters give them. We must stop empowering them to continue the abuse and corruption.
(07) REDUCE CORRUPTION: It would reduce or eliminate Pork-Barrel spending, pandering, false promises to buy votes, waste, and it would reduce or eliminate graft and special-interest groups and lobbyists from gaining influence, favors, and power via bribery and illegal unethical campaign contributions. Especially, if we get a “ONE item per bill” law passed, so they can’t hide pork-barrel in those 20,000 page bills.
(08) TERM LIMITS: It eliminates the need for term-limits.
(09) FRUSTRATED VOTERS: The people are frustrated. They’re searching for answers, because they can see what we’re doing now is not working. Most voters are hard working Americans that are paying the majority of taxes, and they are not receiving money or benefits from the government. Perhaps, this ONE idea may be the one thing that is simple enough to resonate with voters.
(10) FREEDOM and ABUNDANCE: Many other subsequent improvements will naturally follow, and the country would flourish and prosper knowing it has a plan, and is on a better path. Perhaps, taxes could be lower, while still providing for the truly needy, a strong national defense, better law enforcement and protection, and equal opportunity for all citizens.
(11) IS WHAT WE’RE DOING NOW WORKING ?: Some say the definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing, and expecting a different result. Is what we’re doing working? Isn’t it about time for the people to be responsible and do one simple thing that may peacefully bring about a more transparent, accountable, and responsible government by giving it a jolt, to temporarily disrupt the corrupt system with which politicians are currently all much too cozy with? Nothing else seems to be working.
(12) UNTIL when ? WHEN DOES IT END ? Only, when things get much better.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 11, 2005 08:16 PM

D.A.N.,

I agree whole heartedly with the corruption angle and the anit-pork barrell issues. I even agree with your insanity angle. However, getting enough of the populace to follow this pattern seems impossible. I, personally, am not complacent, that’s why I’m here. I want to find out how to use what limited power I have to improve things in this country. On the local level, I know of some few politicians who actually do their job. I’m disgusted with ALL politicians who don’t, obviously the majority.

What this country needs is not a “chuck it all” mentality. This country is a great nation. It can be a LOT better. But we’re human. We’re frail. We have faults. The solution is to get the best people in the positions of power. My best guess at how to do this is not to wait for the people with political asspirations to come to us, but for a significant group of motivated people to go out and find the people who would best run our country.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What we need is someone who is NOT politically motivated or politically ambitious. Basically someone who doesn’t want power. We need a good, solid citizens who are convinced to run for office because they are the best people for the jobs. Voters have that power. All we need is enough organized people to use it.

As Beagle said, there are clever people on this weblog that the politicians should listen to, but obviously don’t. We have the power and the venue to determine what we want here. Then we need to use the contacts we have to go out and find the person(s) that fits what we decide.

I don’t know how likely this solution is, but it’s possible. It could happen. We could do it, if enough of us got together and did the work. Short of that, all we’re doing is talking, which is great, but won’t change anything but ourselves.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 11, 2005 08:49 PM

Beagle,

I took no offense. I was just checking to make sure my “platform” wasn’t out of line or incompatible with yours.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 11, 2005 08:50 PM

Beagle,

If mixing threads is taboo, I apologize, but…

How about for the middle-of-the-road platform we say yes to vouchers but no to charter schools and other similar experiments? Is that enough of a compromise for everyone?

Posted by: Stephanie at July 11, 2005 08:56 PM

Stephanie wrote: I agree whole heartedly with the corruption angle and the anit-pork barrell issues. I even agree with your insanity angle. However, getting enough of the populace to follow this pattern seems impossible.

Not really; not since it’s simple, doesn’t need money, it’s easy to understand, and easy to do, and only requires people to vote for non-main-party/non-incumbent candidates. Why? Because it matters less who you vote for, than what they do after they’re elected. How do you control what they do? Show them their career will be short.

Stephanie wrote: I, personally, am not complacent, that’s why I’m here.

I was speaking in general terms.

Stephanie wrote: I want to find out how to use what limited power I have to improve things in this country.

Letting main-party-bigots take turns isn’t working, hasn’t worked yet, and never will. Money controls government; not the people. If people want to make a difference, they should start voting for non-main-party/non-incumbent candidates that aren’t bought and paid for by big money for those that really control government.

Stephanie wrote: On the local level, I know of some few politicians who actually do their job. I’m disgusted with ALL politicians who don’t, obviously the majority.

Yes, it’s definitely the majority. The poetic justice for that majority is that they will reap what they sow.

Stephanie wrote: What this country needs is not a “chuck it all” mentality.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what it needs. But the people are too complacent and apathetic, and dependent, and brainwashed. It will happen eventually; it will get all chucked, but it won’t be the easy way. It will be the hard way:

Stephanie wrote: This country is a great nation.

It was a great nation. Now, it’s a country that controlled by a gang of over two million in the Executive branch (that is neither seen nor heard as it throttles our freedoms and prosperity), and the relatively smaller 435 in Congress and their hundreds of thousands employees.

Stephanie wrote: It can be a LOT better.

Yes, it could much much better. But where is it now, considering our many pressing problems that are going to soon culminate into the perfect storm, that could possibly be our final downfall?

Stephanie wrote: But we’re human. We’re frail. We have faults.

Yes, we have faults. One of our worst, most fundamental, basic faults is laziness. It is human nature to be lazy, but immoral to surrender to it. Why is it human nature to be lazy? Because the opposite of laziness is work, and work is painful. So, some people search for ways to plunder the fruits of others’ labor. Some people succumb to greed and corruption, especially when many temptations exist. As time goes by, some politicians eventually find ways to pervert the laws to legalize plunder. When does the plunder end ? Only when plunder is more painful.

Stephanie wrote: The solution is to get the best people in the positions of power.

That is not working. Our choices are limited. Third party candidates are blocked from the ballots and debates. Ask Ralph Nader.

Stephanie wrote: My best guess at how to do this is not to wait for the people with political asspirations to come to us, but for a significant group of motivated people to go out and find the people who would best run our country.

No need to wait. There’s always third party candidates. Let’s give them a chance for a while. Let’s see what someone that’s not bought and paid for by big money can do ?

Stephanie wrote: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What we need is someone who is NOT politically motivated or politically ambitious. Basically someone who doesn’t want power.

Someone like George Washington ? Unfortunately, that type of man is one in a million.

Stephanie wrote: We need a good, solid citizens who are convinced to run for office because they are the best people for the jobs.

Unfortunately, voters only pay attention to who the media shows them. The media goes to the highest bidder, with the most money to buy air-time. Poor candidates don’t stand a chance as long as the sheep (uhh….I mean, the people) ignore the 3rd party candidates that aren’t bought and paid for by big money and power that really hold the reigns of power.

Stephanie wrote: Voters have that power. All we need is enough organized people to use it.

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. But, it has to be simple. It must: (1) be simple (2) be easy to understand (3) be easy to communicate (4) be easy to do (5) provide the peaceful force required to balance power (not merely shift it) (6) not require a main-party-candidate (they’re part of the problem) (7) not require a lot of money (that’s what makes candidates rotten) (8) not require labels (9) not require divisiveness (10) tell government we’re sick and tired, and ain’t gonna take it anymore (11) enforce term limits each election, until politicians start really doing the work to solve problems (12) discourage negative campaigning (13) discourage influence for sale; government should not be for sale (14) end 90% of seats being won by those with the most money (15) use the one thing we each still have (at the moment; until they take it away from us): our vote

Stephanie wrote: As Beagle said, there are clever people on this weblog that the politicians should listen to, but obviously don’t. We have the power and the venue to determine what we want here. Then we need to use the contacts we have to go out and find the person(s) that fits what we decide.

People say my idea is too complicated? What you’re suggesting is even more complicated, and it’s already been tried, and it’s not working. We’re empowering politicans to use and abuse us. We empower them to take turns (Republcians and Democrats) using and abusing us. They vote themsevles raises regulary, and give themselves perks and multi-million dollar pen$sions, all at the expense of the voters. If there’s one thing we can convince most voters to do, it’s simply this: vote for a non-incumbent/non-main-party-candidate, every election, repeatedly, until things get better. That’s the most simple thing that has any chance of working, and has one thing all other ideas don’t have: peaceful force

Stephanie wrote: I don’t know how likely this solution is, but it’s possible. It could happen. We could do it, if enough of us got together and did the work. Short of that, all we’re doing is talking, which is great, but won’t change anything but ourselves.

What we can all do is spread the word, talk to our friends and family and associates. We first need to understand the problem, and how ingrained it is, and how hard it is to reverse the steady decay into more corruption, graft, greed, and ruin:

PROBLEM: Government is irresponsible and unaccountable, and lacks transparency required to let people see what’s happening.

SOLUTION:
VOTE only for a
NON-incumbent / NON-main-party candidate.
NO exceptions. Repeatedly , EVERY election.
UNTIL things drastically improve (until 9 Point Plan is implemented; see below), because this is the only way to peacefully force government to start doing real work to solve our many pressing problems, stop the partisan crap, and quit running this country into the ground. And, until they do, they will all have very short political careers, all of them !

Posted by: d.a.n at July 11, 2005 09:57 PM

Per Beagle’s posts, to the wish list of what I would like my ideal candidate to believe in, he or she would not believe in underfunded or unfunded Federal mandates. If the Federal government is going to demand a State must follow something they should either fund it completely or not require it.

We as citizens of a State should be able to have more options as to what we really want our State tax dollars spent on. Especially when it comes to Education. It’s not one size fits all. I do not feel vouchers or charter schools should be a Federal issue, that should be for each State and the School Boards/voters within that State to decide.

I believe the Republicans were on the right track when they wanted to eliminate/reduce the Department of Education, however under this current administration it has grown even larger.

Having sat in local School Board meetings and hearing the budget details and how little discretion was available in a large part due to the Federal requirements that are not fully funded? It was quite an eye-opening experience.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at July 11, 2005 11:22 PM

Yes, federal government likes to meddle in everything, and be accountable for nothing.
The federal government grows and grows uncontrollably, meddling in more and more, and usually messing up what ever they touch.
But, it’s all about control. They try to create dependencies, not solutions. Looking to the federal government for solutions or funds is one sure way to eventually have it totally mismanaged to the point that no one will know what is going on. All you’ll know for certain is that a lot of money is being wasted.

The federal government is not in the business of creating solutions. It creates problems, dependencies, and then ignores them thereafter.

That is why we have these many pressing problems that go unresolved decade after decade, growing worse in number and severity.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 12, 2005 01:25 AM

d.a.n.,

Your argument seems to make sense, but there’s a major flaw. Your method does not give any politician incentive to do good. If s/he’s getting booted at the end of his/her term anyway, why should s/he care what the people want. The people who work hard to do some good wouldn’t get re-elected under your mentality because it would be too little too late and they would be a “no exceptions.” To me this idea seems to create MORE reasons for the politicians to be corrupt…take what you can while you can, because you’re not getting another chance.

Third party candidates as they stand now don’t fall under my description of people not looking for power (Ralph Nader included) because they ARE seeking election. Unless I know differently (which would take posting it on their web site or putting it in one of their neat little pamphlets) I’m going to assume they’re looking for the power because they are running for office.

Saying George Washington was one in a million is not a discouraging figure. We have, what, 260 to 280 million people in this country. That gives us 260 to 280 reasonable candidates, which would be enough if they were put in the right places.

Funding is something of a problem, but there are venues, such as this, that don’t require money. With sufficient effort, including fund raising efforts, people could get a none-rich candidate the necessary funding. We’d just have to look farther into the future. Don’t aim 2008, aim for 2012 or 2016. Afterall, we’ve already waited this long and your idea seems like it would take a lot longer to actually work if it could work at all.

As for your idea being too complicated…that’s not the problem. The biggest problem with your idea is that it is an act of despair. It lacks hope. The nature of the thread is a Political Savior. We’re looking for hope…not despair.

While I do fear that if our highly polarized society continues the way its going we are heading towards a civil war that will destroy this once and future great nation.

A “chuck it all” mentality will only hasten that destruction. Despair by its very nature breeds anger and desperation. When people feel angry and desperate they revolt…not peacefully, but violently.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 12, 2005 03:42 AM

Perhaps things can’t get better until they get worse. Worse is here, and it’s going to get much worse. The perfect storm is approaching, and politicians in the federal government don’t see it coming as the root and burrow like the greedy pigs they are, and the people ignore it. Time is running out, if it hasn’t already.

Just consider these many pressing problems and the impact they can have as they all grow worse in number an severity. Where can it lead?

Any one of our many serious problems could be the catalyst that triggers it; an economic melt-down. Run-away government spending and borrowing is at nightmare proportions. And while only one of these pressing problems may never do a great deal of harm, the culmination of all these problems, all occurring about the same time, have the potential to unravel society as we now know it.

Merely consider the effect that 9/11/2001 had on the nation, economy, commerce, and moral of the nation.

Now, add the following occurring all about the same time: energy shortages, black-outs, high unemployment & falling incomes (like after 9/11/2001), failure of Social Security & Medicare, plundered and bankrupt pensions, unaffordable & unreliable health care, 30% of each tax dollar going to interest only on the National Debt, worsening election fraud, and increasingly restricted access to voting ballots for independent and 3rd part candidates by main party bigots, ever increasing taxes and increasingly abused tax system, increasingly worse corporate investor fraud & stock fraud, declining public education, crumbling infrastructure (i.e. failing mass transit railways, airlines, etc.), globalization & the race to the bottom, unsecured borders, increasing alienation of foreign allies, increasing poverty, potential blackouts followed by riots, looting, civil unrest, terrorism, and war.

The revolution, civil war, depression, or worse is coming, and it is all our own doing. One thing is for sure. Keep ignoring it, keep spending like there’s no tomorrow, keep using and abusing the people, keep alienating our allies, keep taking people’s property via eminent domain, and keep taxing them unfairly, and you’ll have that revolution (or worse) soon.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 12, 2005 08:16 AM

Oh….and I didn’t even mention the $40 trillion of personal and bank debt. The U.S. is a debtor nation.

And, did I mention the GPBGG and U.S. pensions are $1.6 trillion in the hole. Like the S&L bail out, guess who gets to shoulder that burden? Yes, as always…the unwitting, complacent tax-payer. Politicians muse and ponder in amazement at how much abuse the tax-payers will take.

So, you think I’m alarmist ?
OK, the sky isn’t falling yet, but give it 10 or 15 more years, as the long list of pressing problems grows increasingly worse in number and severity.

OK, I’m “Chicken Little”.
But, what is the person that ignores all of those pressing problems as they go ignored decade after decade?
And, what is the person in government that’s using and abusing the people all the while it’s happening, lining their own pockets, and taxing and spending like there’s no tomorrow? National Debt is approaching GDP and paying off the National Debt would take 127 years….it’s not going to happen…it’s going to lead to an economic meltdown, because we live in an era of greed, graft, government for sale, control by a few with power and money, and a complacent voter population that sits idly by and allows it to happen.

At the very least, we’re looking at something more severe than a recession, and something that could be as bad as civil war. Don’t believe it? Wait until people, like in the Great Depression, have no job, no home, no food, and no hope.

Now, if it’s not already too late, is the time to addressing our pressing problems, or stick our heads in the sand and wait for history to repeat itself. It always does:

Posted by: d.a.n at July 12, 2005 09:08 AM

d.a.n,

You do a very good job of defining the problem, but your solution is lacking. It fails to solve, and even encourages, one of the biggest problems in our political system — fear-based voting.

The two-party system thrives on fear-based voting. Instead of promoting an agenda, each party attempts to discredit the other party’s agenda to scare people away from it. Instead of PULLING voters to their side, they PUSH voters away from the other guy. And, by convincing everyone that there is no third option, each party becomes the “only hope” for voters.

When voters go to the polls, they rarely vote for the candidate that supports their agenda the most. Instead, they vote for the candidate that threatens their agenda the least. Or, put differently, they vote AGAINST one candidate instead of FOR the other.

Your system adds (somewhat random) support for third parties, but still lacks a fundamental PULL for voters. You give us nobody to vote FOR — only people to vote AGAINST.

As much as I hate political parties, a strong third-party appears to be the only viable solution. The last time we had a strong third-party in this country was in the 1850s, and that party (the Republicans) eventually took over as a main-stream party. Every attempt since then has been a cult of personality. We hear a lot about Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000, but we don’t hear a lot about the Reform Party or Green Party. The Libertarians have done a good job of creating party identity, but few people buy into their platform.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at July 12, 2005 10:38 AM

Beagle,

In my ideal party platform, I would want to see a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but with willingness to amend it when necessary.

As a country, we’ve gotten into the habit of ignoring the Constitution (or explaining our way around it) whenever it gets in the way. Instead of changing the document to reflect our principles, we “re-interpret” the document:

“freedom of speech”
is interpreted to mean
“freedom of expression”

“no laws respecting an establishment of religion”
is interpreted to mean
“separation of church and state”

“interstate commerce”
is interpreted to mean
“anything that might cross state lines”

“armies” and “navy”
is interpreted to mean
“any military force we want”

etc.

I’m not arguing that these are bad things to want. We NEED Separation of Church and State, Freedom of Expression, an Air Force, Drug-Trafficing Laws, etc. But, in getting them, we shouldn’t set a precident that the Federal Government can ignore it’s founding document in the process.

Let’s follow the Constitution properly, and change it if we don’t agree with it.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at July 12, 2005 10:48 AM

Rob,

I agree 100% with that.

Posted by: Beagle at July 12, 2005 11:36 AM

d.a.n.,

I didn’t say you’re an alarmist. Pessimist, yet, but I see the potential reality of what you’re talking about. However, you also say we have 10-15 years to exact meaningful change before our sky comes crashing down on us. If your solution would work at all, which is very questionable, your time-line wouldn’t. Change via protest on this magnitude would take a LONG time. Decades at the least. It’s something that would have to build momentum with the populace. Then take several election terms for the politicians to realize “we the people” mean it. Then it would take several more election terms for enough positive to be done to stop the protest. Patience is another thing that is greatly lacking in the American populace. And our situation is too dire, by your own reckoning, to afford patience.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 12, 2005 12:59 PM

Rob, Stephanie,

I’m not all about pointing out problems, and not offering solutions.
See the solutions section of my web-site (e.g. 9 Point Plan). Also, I’m a realist, not a pessimist (and, just because one may be a pessimist doesn’t mean the sky isn’t falling).

: )

Yeah, I get that a lot. It won’t work and will accomplish nothing. That’s perfectly OK.

But, lets compare the proposed solutions:
(1) as you recommend, the usual approach: find a responsible person to elect
(2) my approach: vote only for non-incumbent/non-main-party-candidates

(a) Which of those two is more complicated?
(b) Which of those two are backed by big money?
(c) Is the current method working?
(d) Which will get the attention of politicians?
(e) Which provides the force required to oust and enforce term limits?
(f) Which discourages corruption?
(g) You say: they’ll just get more corrupt and get as much as they can while they can. However, aren’t they already doing that?
(h) Which elminates the need for term limits?
(i) Which will be faster?
(j) Which will encourage politicians to police their own ranks?
(k) Which will reduce the usefulness of spending big money on any candidate; it will discourage the big money in politics, since politicians will have trouble predicting which candidate will be most likely to get elected.
(l) Which will increase the choices, since those without access to big money and power will feel like they now have a chance.
(m) What makes you think it won’t give politicians any incentive to reform? If firing them every four years, and voting only for lesser known non-incumbents wouldn’t work, what makes anyone think doing what we’ve been doing will work better ?

So, perhaps the idea shouldn’t be dismissed too quickly. The idea is simple, which is why it could work. And, it’s less important who is elected, than what they do after they’re elected. Afterall, can you say that what we’ve all been doing is working? No it isn’t. We’re just empowering them to take turns using and abusing the people.

We should keep voting only for non-incumbents/non-main-party-candidates, and vote out all incumbents.

And, if we don’t do something soon, the economic melt-down is not just probable. It is quite likely. Especially in view of the:
[X] $8 trillion National Debt,
[X] $40 trillion personal debt,
[X] $1.6 trillion GPBGG pension deficts,
[X] social security shortfalls
[X] medicare short falls
[X] health care crisis
[X] energy vulnerability
[X] election fraud; 90% of elections won by person with most money
[X] legal plunder; abused eminant domain laws
[X] a dysfunctional legal system that requires the president to pardon hundreds of felons
[X] alienation of allies
[X] war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran?, N. Korea, etc.)
[X] wide-open borders; national security
[X] irresponsible, unaccountable, arrogant government controlled by a few with power and wealth; elitist controlled government
[X] corporate/investor fraud
[X] absurd and unfair tax system
[X] crumbling infrastructure (roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, etc.)

Posted by: d.a.n at July 12, 2005 02:30 PM

DAN,

With all due respect, I’ve seen many on this site(right, left, and center), say the same exact thing; NOBODY is going to vote their party out of office or control in congress!

Even a party without control isn’t going to reduce their vote futher down from what it is!

What you are asking is like, everyone should quit their job in protest, It aint gonna happen.

Perhaps a political SCI class ??

Posted by: Beagle at July 12, 2005 03:09 PM

Never say never.
And, where’s the science in political SCI class?

I agree, it is unlikely.
What’s more likely is a great depression (or worse) before people get mad enough to do something. The problem is, it won’t be the peaceful way that I recommend.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 12, 2005 03:59 PM

The U.S. is wallpapering the planet with U.S. dollars, that are becoming increasingly questionable as government continues to spend and spend like there’s no tomorrow.
There are limits to everything.
National Debt ($8 trillion) will exceed current GDP in a few years (about $11 trillion).
Personal Debt is approaching $40 trillion.
I own my my two houses free and clear, got money in the bank, and have no debt. When the s#!+ hits the fan (10 or 15 years, may be less), 90% of Americans will not be prepared. They will be deep in debt. It could get nasty. You may want to put some assets in foreign banks (in foreign currencies and assets).

Posted by: d.a.n at July 12, 2005 04:06 PM

Dan,

I’m glad your homes are paid for, and have money in the bank.

Rather than buying foreign stocks, you could invest in canned goods, bottled water, candles, generators, guns and ammo, and tinfoil.

Lots of people did before the Y2K distaster, and it worked out great for them!

Posted by: Beagle at July 12, 2005 06:09 PM

Good idea!
Actually, we already got all of that.
One house (our cabin in the mountains) also has a water well and solar panels to generate electricity, and store it in 12 large batteries.

: )

I am one of those that prevented a Y2K disaster (i.e. programming to update software to use a 4 digit year), and I wasn’t one of those that ever created software with only a two-digit year.

OK, OK, I know I sound like Chicken Little.
But, I’m good at math, and I can see that it’s getting out of control. The problem is more serious than people think. That much, crushing debt, will eventually catch up to you. The U.S. is wall-papering the world with U.S. dollars, that may not be worth much if government doesn’t stop borrowing, stop spending too much, and start paying back some of the National Debt. It will also adversly affect many foreign nations that have been investing in the national debt. It’s getting out of control, and it may already be too late, and the discipline (or lack of) of Congress doesn’t reassure me. If the U.S. government started 1-Jan-2006 to stop borrowing $1 billion per day, and start paying $1.003333 billion per day on the National Debt, it would take over 127 years ? And that doesn’t even take into account the problems with Social Security, Medicare, GPBGG and pensions, and other pressing problems.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 12, 2005 06:45 PM

d.a.n.,

I’ve looked at your web-site. You’ve thought this through. I see that. I respect what you’re saying and what you’re trying to do. I agree that the problems you’ve delineated are valid and all too real. It’s you’re solution that’s unconvincing. This is not intended as an insult. You’ve obviously thought about this a lot. You care. You’ve taken action. You have my respect.

But, (and this is a big BUT) the action you propose, however logical, doesn’t make sense. You’re not factoring in people’s EMOTIONS which is what many, many people use to determine who to vote for. You might as well say, “Chuck it all, we have to go back to the Constitution and start from scratch.” Erase the last 200+ years and try re-inventing America.

People aren’t going to go along with that. As angry and polarized as “we the people” are they’d RATHER go to war then to say nothing (politically and patriotically) they’ve cared about throughout their lives is worth a damn. And that’s the emotional reaction to your plan that I feel. You’re saying “we the people” are all complacent idiots that need to wake up and realize you’re right. The arrogance of that statement outlook is profound.

You like the insanity bit. I’ll take it one step further. Perhaps we are all insane. Douglas Adams’ Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy comes to mind. We’re still going to follow our traditions, trying to improve upon them, not chuck the all and hope for the best.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 12, 2005 09:26 PM

Sorry about the extra underlining.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 12, 2005 09:39 PM

Stephanie,

The people will chuck it all.
Just not the way I’m proposing.
They’ll do it via revolution, or civil war.
Some states may secede from the union.
Or worse.

It will happen.
It’s not a matter of if.
It’s a matter of when.

By the way, saying Americans are too complacent (generally speaking) it not arrogance on my part. It’s a fact. That’s why less than half of eligible voters bother to vote. It was not always that way. It’s part of the historical cycle:

I realize the people may never realize how easily they could peacefully force a change in the political landscape, if they simply voted for a non-incumbent/non-main-party candidate every election, for every seat (until things improve drastically).
But, it still appears to be the easiest way to avoid doing it the hard way.

But, rest assured, it will all get chucked out, eventually, one way or another. Do we have to keep doing it the hard way ?

Posted by: d.a.n at July 12, 2005 10:35 PM

d.a.n, your prophet of doom angle doesn’t convince. It turns off. NO ONE, has a crystal ball who can credibly say with apparent certainty for everyone else that America’s demise is inevitable. America’s demise has a large number of “if’s” preceding the conclusion and you do your arguments a disservice stating with certainty that demise is inevitable.

Let me give you one huge if scenario that guarantee’s the US does not fail. If there is a global event and North America is largely spared the destructive consequences, America will reign as the preeminent nation stronger than ever before both domestically and internationally.

You have no crystal ball on the universe. Your certainty lacks credibility; postulated as it is without the all important logical “if’s” necessary to bring readers to the same conclusion.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 12, 2005 11:15 PM

OK, point taken. Of course I can’t know for certain. Because an asteroid might hit the planet, and all of this won’t matter.
However, the odds of some thing happening can become greater and greater, as steps and circumstances are created to leave but only a few probable outcomes. That’s very likely where we’re headed. And, history repeats itself. Each cycle is a little different. But, it has repeated many times. It’s probable that it will again.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 12, 2005 11:36 PM

At what point does posting the same exact thing to every thread(reguardless of the topic), become just spam?

Posted by: Beagle at July 13, 2005 07:54 AM

Beagle,
It’s not regardless of thread.
This thread is about a political savior.
You want me banned?
Just because I persistent, doesn’t make it spam.
If you don’t like it, you don’t have to read it.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 13, 2005 08:38 AM

Or, not just persistent; consistent.
The topics I pick are usually related to government, government dysfunction, and corruption.
Everyone here has an angle, or axe to grind, or idea to float.
Mine is simply focused and consistent.
Also, not every post is about the government. Every post is new, each is different, and evolves in content. Some even present potential solutions. So, what’s wrong with that?

Posted by: d.a.n at July 13, 2005 08:45 AM

David Remer wrote: You have no crystal ball on the universe. Your certainty lacks credibility…

Likewise, those that say with little or no uncertainty that voters will never decide some day to vote out many (or most, or all) incumbents, have no crystal ball either, and are equally in error, since none of us can know for certain in advance, but can only predict based on probabilities, history, circumstances, and experience. My predictions of something like a “Great Depression” may in fact be optimistic. The consequences of what we’re doing could be much worse (e.g. civil war, revolution, riots, power outages, fuel shortages, people freezing in their homes, etc.). It’s hard to see how near total fiscal and moral bankruptcy can not lead to serious consequences, as the National Debt ($8T) and personal debt ($40T) continue to grow and grow to nightmare proportions.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 13, 2005 12:22 PM

d.a.n,

If you don’t like it, you don’t have to read it.

For the record, many of us don’t.

It’s unfortunate, because you make some really good points. They’re usually hidden in the infomercial, though, and not always worth the trouble to dig out. (Those of us with limited time to invest on this web site tend to skip the large posts anyway.)

My recommendation would be to practice brevity.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at July 13, 2005 04:32 PM

d.a.n.,

You can bludgeon us with the same exact material until your fingers cramp. That’s not going to change anyone’s mind. If you LISTEN and think about what it is we’re saying, you too may discover the flaws in your argument. Until you do, you have NO chance of adjusting your argument so that is more convincing and acceptable. That doesn’t take a crystal ball to know, it merely requires common sense.

If the height of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, then you are just as insane as the rest of us. You think you can say “look at what I’ve got” enough times so we’re finally convinced. I’ve looked, I’m not convinced. It doesn’t sound like anyone else here is, either. Looking again isn’t going to change the material or making it more convincing.

So far Lisa Renee, Beagle, David Remer, Rob Cottrell and myself have suggested ideas we can agree on, even if we don’t agree on other issues. The art of compromising is sharing ideas, understanding your opponents, and meeting in a middle that each side can live (and hopefully thrive) with.

And, by the way, I said you seem arrogant not because you’re calling voter complacent, but because you keep stating that YOUR way to accomplish change is the only way and anything else with lead to utter disaster and the distruction of the United States of America.

Try working with us and compacting your new improved government into part of a party platform for Lisa Renee’s political savior to follow.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 13, 2005 04:33 PM

Thank you for the tip Rob. I’m new at this.

Posted by: Stephanie at July 13, 2005 04:35 PM

Stephanie, Rob,

Point taken. I see the error in my ways.

However, you, and some other regulars may be forgetting one thing. You are not the only people that visit this weblog. Some only occassionally visit. So you’re not convinced? Fine. It is supposedly a free country after all? You don’t have to keep repeating that you disagree.

Besides, many here (if not most) are grinding their own axes here, one way or another, some more subtly than others. Blogs are a good place to communicate ideas, evolve solutions, float ideas and solutions, etc.

And, I’ve yet to hear many new ideas that will work, that haven’t already been tried, but haven’t worked either. Stephanie, you say “try working with us and compacting your new improved government into a part of a party platform …”. Stephanie, the main parties are part of the problem. A good cause doesn’t need a party. Change doesn’t need a party. Change only needs people that want change, a need for change, and the easiest way to do it.

And Lisa Renee’s hope for a political savior is putting a lot of hope on one (or a few persons) to fix everything. It’s even more unrealistic than hoping that voters will get fed up and vote out all the incumbents (which happened to a lot of politicians in 1992, as you may recall; i.e. it’s not a far fetched idea).

Rob Cottrell wrote: d.a.n

If you don’t like it , you don’t have to read it.

For the record, many of us don’t.

Rob, so you speak for everyone else now? You know that for a fact, do you? Did you take a poll? If so, I didn’t see it. And, if you (or most) don’t read what I’ve written, then why do you comment on what I’ve written? Posted by: d.a.n at July 13, 2005 05:19 PM

Bush didn’t unite this country because half of this country doesn’t want to be. Simple as that. We’re at the point where I don’t think a Republican or a Democrat can get more than half the vote. Maybe we need to build up a viable third party and disallow the previous administration’s party from running after a second term in office for one election cycle.

Posted by: Eric at July 13, 2005 05:26 PM

d.a.n,

I stand corrected. To rephrase: I have begun to frequently skip your “non-party, non-incumbent” posts. Not that I don’t agree with many of the points you make — I just don’t have time to keep reading the same thing over and over. I would suspect that others do the same.

I’m aware that others on this site have their own axes to grind. I suppose I do, too. But most don’t do so with such repetition.

You add a lot of good comments to our discussions here. Personally, I’m glad to have you aboard. I have no desire to see you “banned”. I do scroll past anything that looks like it was cut-n-pasted from your website, or appears to be a repeat of your previous posts. But, when you post actual conversation — dialog within the thread, responses to other posts, etc. — I pay attention to those, because they’re usually worth it.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at July 13, 2005 05:41 PM

Eric,

That’s an idea that might go well in the term limits thread. Change term limits so that no PARTY can serve more than 2 consecutive terms!

I LIKE IT!

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at July 13, 2005 05:43 PM

Wouldn’t that give the individual politician the incentive to run under a different party or as an independent, or would that be disallowed as well?

Posted by: Stephanie at July 14, 2005 12:51 PM

Stephanie,

That would be fine with me. It would reduce the importance of party affiliation, and turn the focus to the individual candidate.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at July 14, 2005 02:18 PM

I’d be worried that a popular politician would continue getting into office, by doing what whoever tells him/her without actually having a plan of his/her own. If the person is charismatic enough would our complacent voting populace actually care that the pretty person on the screen is merely a puppet of A, then B, then C political interest groups? Is that what we want? A puppet?

Posted by: Stephanie at July 14, 2005 07:33 PM

Just vote ‘em all out every election, until they do this first, and solve some of these pressing problems.

: )

What could be more simple?
It solves the dilema of term limits completely.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 15, 2005 08:20 PM