Third Party & Independents Archives

$9.8 Billion Dollars per month?

And, the loss of life. Iraq’s civil war should be their own affair. They will have their civil war with or without us there. Should more Americans die and be maimed for that?

You also have to wonder about ulterior motives of the pentagon?

The cost in human lives and misery is staggering.

The fiscal ramificaitons are just another straw on the sagging camels back.

• $8.4 trillion national debt


• $12.8 trillion in the hole for Social Security


• $450 billion in the hole for PBGC and pensions


• $??? trillions in the hole for Medicare?


• $32 trillion in personal debt.


• $54 trillion in total nation-wide debt.


• The Feds are printing too much money


• Growing trade deficits.


• Median incomes falling 6 consecutive years


• inflation and interest rates climbing


• … more …

Young, slumbering voters had better wake up.
They are the ones getting the bill which will take 140 years to pay off by the most optimistic esitmates.

More likely, a total collapse of the economy will occur, wiping the slate clean. Who will suffer most? You. Not the irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians. They already got theirs and their golden parachutes.

But, as long as we get to vote, we still have a government Of / By / For The People. Even if it is curently by default due to lack of interest. The level of interest will increase later, but probably after it is too late.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 24, 2006 11:57 AM

Forgive me if this is a repeated comment related to the Iraq conflict but it just sounds so accurate IMO :

Quote attributed to somebody which tells a huge story….

“We have won the war but, we are losing (or have lost) the peace”

Posted by: steve smith at April 24, 2006 12:12 PM

Forgive me if this is a repeated comment related to the Iraq conflict but it just sounds so accurate IMO :

Quote attributed to somebody which tells a huge story….

“We have won the war but, we are losing (or have lost) the peace”

Posted by: steve smith at April 24, 2006 12:15 PM

As far as I can tell, there is no difference between winning a war and losing a peace and just plain losing. Yes, we beat Saddam militarily, go us, he was using our old weapons that we sold to him, so why should he have won?

Iraq was a mistake, we went in incorrectly, wasted billions of dollars all over the place, including money which didn’t belong to us. But the whole thign was based on lies. It was not our business to go into Iraq, they were no threat to us, and realistically were no threat to Israel, whos interests are NOT the same as the United States.

One of my professors has a theory, that the reason we invade Iraq was related to both oil (duh) and more importantly, getting our troops out of Saudi Arabia. Only pulling our troops away from Mecca put them closer to other important holy sites, and Osama Bin Laden did not withdraw his fatwa, which was ONLY due to United States military presence in Saudi Arabia. Anyone who gives you any reason for 9-11 besides supporting brutal dictatorships in the middle east and keeping our troops outside Mecca is lying. Radical Islam’s role in the middle east was a reaction to the dictatorships abusing the people there. Al Queda exists to help overthrow dictatorships in the Muslim world, ironically supposedly the same goal as the United States in the region. Of course, they actually fight the oppressive governments, which gives them popular support, whereas we represent the foreign meddler who’s right hand doesn’t know or care what the left is doing.

We don’t belong interfering with the lives of other nations with our military, all it does is get Americans killed. Anyone who can provide a argument against the notion that any Iraqi has the right to defend their nation and resist any and all invaders i will listen to, but if it was justified for us to revolt against the British, how is Iraqis fighting American soldiers any less justified. If a military power came to the United States, deposed our government and came to our homes to “secure” them, while blowing up our cities, I guarantee there would be violent resistance, and it would be justified, because a nation does not have the right to invade another unprovoked.

Posted by: iandanger at April 24, 2006 02:43 PM

I see you all favor retreating and giving Al Queda a victory in Iraq. Al Queda is working hard to make a Civil War happen. Its nice to see you all support Bim Ladin in his goal.

I also see you all support keeping the GOP in power come November. Anyone calling for the Third Party Vote supports Bush and his Agenda.

What a bunch of hypocrites!!!

Posted by: Aldous at April 24, 2006 02:47 PM

Aldous,

The PEOPLE of Iraq are fighting us, we do not have a right to kill them, because we are INVADERS. A nation does not have the right to invade another and kill the people of that state. Period. Every person has the right to rebel against an illegitimate power, this is a founding concept in liberalism. How can we justify our military intervening in other countries to bring democracy? It cannot exist that way, because a democracy cannot be an occupied nation.

If Bin Laden wants the United States out of the Middle East militarily, we happen to agree on that point, and i believe we should provide material support to the efforts of individuals in oppressive nations to overthrow their dictators and form governments the people of that nation wish to see. But this starts by no longer buying their products. Saudi Arabia is one of our closest allies in the region, and even posses a massive amount of US government bonds. The first step to bringing democracy to the middle east is not invading nations and killing leaders, it is to stop supporting nations like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other oppresive dictatorships. If we are going to spread democracy around the world, we have to do it through the power of ECONOMICS not the power of FORCE. Democracy by force just plain doesn’t work.

If you think Al Queda can win in Iraq, where we haven’t even succeded, you have far less faith in the Iraqi people than I. Iraq should be allowed to split into at least two nations (Kurdistan and Iraq, the Sunni/Shia dispute might result in another split, or it could be resolved, we’ll have to see). The Kurds already have a military force of their own, the can handle their region, its their business. The south should be handed over to the Iraqi Parliament, and they should administer and enforce their laws there, because all US occupation is doing is fueling the insurgency. The Iraqi people have military forces and weapons, they are fighting us because they want us gone. They’ll deal with Al Queda when we leave.

Posted by: iandanger at April 24, 2006 03:12 PM

David,

Please permit me to correct the following:

“Iraq could easily cost the U.S. more than WWII or Viet Nam in 2006 dollars if we remain there another 10 years.”

If you check out the historical tables of President Bush’s new 2007 budget, you’ll find out that the financial situation is actually much worse than that. Here are the amounts spent by the Department of War from 1942 to 1945 and by the Department of Defense from 2003 to 2007 in constant Fiscal Year 2005 dollars:

World War II: $2,489 billion

Iraq War: $2,415 billion.

In other words, from 1942 to 1945 the United States expended approximately $2.49 trillion in 2005 dollars to mobilize twelve million citizens in a struggle for national survival to defeat the two most proficient armed forces in the history of the world simultaneously: Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Today, from 2003 to 2007 the United States either has spent or is planning to spend approximately $2.42 trillion in 2005 dollars to defeat an impotent tin-pot Middle Eastern dictator, quell a crude and amateurish insurgency, and neutralize a handful of retrograde religious fanatics.

We won’t have to wait ten more years to exceed the cost of WWII. Another ten months or so should do the trick.

Posted by: Chuck H at April 24, 2006 03:14 PM

But Mr. Remer,

Isn’t the insurgency in it’s “Last Throes?”
Aren’t we just about to “Turn Another Corner?”
Don’t we simply need to “Stay The Course” in order to secure a grand victory?
Isn’t “Freedom on the March?”
Haven’t “Major Combat Missions” been “Over” for quite a long time?”
Somehow I’m getting the feeling that what you’re trying to say is that our “Mission” shouldn’t be “Accomplished”, because Iraqi Democracy ultimately won’t be obtained at the point of our guns, and that all we’re really doing is bankrupting our country and our childrens future for no good reason!
What are you sir, some kind of “Traitor” and “Bin Laden Conspirator?”
And finally, one last query:
Could my sarcasm get any heavier? :^/

Posted by: Adrienne at April 24, 2006 03:33 PM

What is the cost of doing nothing? For three decades, the children of the middle east have been taught since birth that you and I are the evil satans of the world. That it is glorious and wonderful to kill all of us and drag our corpses through the streets. If the US does not have a presence in the middle east, Iraq or elsewhere, this cancer will continue to grow unchecked. What then will be the price our children and grandchildren will have to pay?

It is irrelevant whether or not you agree with the republicans or democrats. What is relevant, is that there are millions of people that hate YOU beyond what you could possibly imagine. They don’t just hate our military, our leaders, our policies or our way of life. NONE of these were killed on 9/11. They hate YOU. Americans. And given the chance they will kill you, your children and your grandchildren.

If we don’t try to promote change amoung this group of people, we will suffer the consequences. Sooner or later we will be hit again. Everyone agrees on this. Only by convincing them we are not the satans they have been taught to think we are, can we expect them to not want to kill us. This is best done by being there, not by what we pump out on the airways of satellite TV.

Posted by: jwl at April 24, 2006 03:34 PM

jwl,

There is a reason the Iranians say death to America in their speaches, his name was Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. He was a brutal man, quite similar to Saddam Hussein, only he had full United States support for his entire reign. He was so brutal a dictator that the people of Iran rose up and deposed him, which led to the government they have today. But wherever did this gentleman come from? He was put into power due to a joint CIA-British Intelligence opperation, and they even had the courtesy to train his secret police for him.

The reason people in the middle east hate us is because we support dictators and tyrants, which we could easily change if we are to actually live up to the ideals of a liberal foreign policy, the way the republicans want us to. I am not against having a presence financially in the middle east, I am against using force there, because it is not our right. I am against giving money and selling bonds to dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, because their style of government is what led to the creation of Al Queda. It is high time we stop playing the region like a chess board, because in the long run it is getting us killed. Peace in the middle east is possible, and democracy can happen, you just have to make a true commitment to democracy, instead of the half hearted stance we have now.

Posted by: iandanger at April 24, 2006 03:49 PM

iandanger;

You are 100% correct. We did create many of the problems that now exist in the middle east. But how many of these people (middle easterners) know the facts as you just laid them before us. I doubt very many do. I don’t think the facts matter to them. They just hate because they have been told to hate.

BTW…We have been there financially for many, many years. Why aren’t the palestinians asking where all the money went, instead of putting Arafat and his like up on a pedestal. Arafat stole billions from the very people he claimed to represent, leaving them in poverty. You see its much easier to pocket the money and tell your people that American isn’t doing enough and then teach them to hate us for it.

The people of the middle east have a lot to hold their own people accountable for, rather than use the US as the easy scapegoat for all their problems. There is plenty of blame to go around.

They also support their own dictators and tyrants. We are not the only ones to have done so. I do think we have the right to use force if we are convinced of a threat to our security. But the threat of force needs to be uniform in its application. We may have been mistaken about WMD in Iraq, but I don’t think Iran leaves much question about it. Iran has threatened the US and Isreal. Bush said that any government that supports or harbours terrorism shall be considered our enemy and at war with the US. Where do you think that leaves us with Iran and Syria, both of which have supplied weapons to kill our soldiers and harbours terrorists as well as providing them funding.

Posted by: jwl at April 24, 2006 04:40 PM

Aldous wrote: I also see you all support keeping the GOP in power come November. Anyone calling for the Third Party Vote supports Bush and his Agenda. What a bunch of hypocrites!!!

Aldous, anyone (not necessarily you ; )) who blindly toes the party line is a mindless, brainwashed, jar-head, without an original thought or inclination to think out of the box (I used to be one of those).

Also, how some one votes is more likely misguided instead of hypocritical. To imply voters who refuse to vote the way you want them to are hypocritical implies they are voting in direct contrast to their values, which you can’t possibly know. Also, what justification can you provide that defends your claim that a vote

“for the Third Party Vote supports Bush and his Agenda. What a bunch of hypocrites!!!”

I commend those voters that vote their conscience, instead of merely voting for the mostly likely to win. Especially if they do not like either of the front runners. You call that hypocritical? You call the right to vote for a candidate of your choice hypocritical? Perhaps voters are getting tired of repeating history? Personally, I hope a lot more voters start looking to alternative candidates, because the bought-and-paid-for bunch that we have now, many of which have been there for decades, aren’t doing their job. They have mismanaged just about everything they touch (all parties). Voters need more choices.

So Aldous, who should we vote for?
I’m sure you want us to vote Democrat? Right?

You are wasting your time trying to get Third Party and Independents to come over to your party. Most of them been there and done that.

Aldous, How does voting like you say (i.e. for a Democrat) make anything better? After all, Democrats and Republicans take turns at being the “In-Party” and the “Out-Party” for centuries, but both merely abuse their power, and duped voters, trapped in the circular pattern, keep empowering both main parties to simply keep taking turns.

Why should voters continue to do that?

I used to be Republican, but am no longer with any political party.
Tell me why I should be a Democrat?
Not that I’m knockin’ Democrats or Republicans.
Personally, I don’t see any vast difference between what each do … only what they say.
Parties are not the problem or the solution.
That is all a clever distraction used to seduce voters into a circular pattern of thought, to fool the voters, to distract them from the fact that the incumbents are using and abusing the voters, and to secure their incumbency.

Voters will figure it out some day.
The sooner, the better.

Just vote out irresponsible incumbents, always. Keep the good ones (if any). That’s all. Nothing fancy or complicated. Just the plain old simple, common-sense, responsible thing we were supposed to be doing all along. How can you argue against that? Oust the irresponsible, and keep the good ones? Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work?

It may be a very long time before voters figure it out, but it is truly the only solution, and it is right under their nose.

__________________________

jwl wrote:
If we don’t try to promote change amoung this group of people, we will suffer the consequences.

I’m not sure promoting change is worth the American lives and money. It could be our constant meddling is a big part of the problem.
Iraq has 26 million people.
We have a mere 120,000 soldiers there.
It’s time Iraq stand or fall on their own.
We’ve been there since 2003.
There’s no need for the U.S. to be there until 2013, unless we have ulterior motives, which is suspiciously starting to look that way. The pentagon may have different ideas?

And, if Iraq descends into civil war, that’s their own problem. Not ours. That sort of thing has been going on for centuries and will continue for centuries.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 24, 2006 05:01 PM

Adrienne, nice job of sarcasm. You could spend weeks at it on this list.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 24, 2006 05:04 PM

But what you don’t hear about Iran is that the Iranians elected a reformer by 70% and 80% margins BEFORE the words Axis of Evil came up. The man who was president until the most recent elections clashed so often with the Supreme Leader and the Guardians that they eroded the power the president has down to nothing. Iranians wanted to modernize and have more freedoms and liberties. It was United States aggression that led them toward a reactionary, the nut we currently deal with. As it stands, the Ayatolla has a fatwa against the creation of nuclear weapons in the country. Until he changes his mind, Iran wont develop nuclear weapons. Iran is not Iraq, and it would be foolish of us to assume we can push them around the same way. Intelligence failures (combined with lies) led us to believe that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, but I don’t see any evidence that the situation has changed. Iran says they are developing a peaceful nuclear program, unless we have irrefutible proof that this is false, there is no way we can justify attacking them. If we do wish to take out Iran’s nuclear capabilities, we can ONLY use air strikes to destroy the technology, because if you think toppling Iraq left us with a mess, imagine what going into a significantly more wealthy, larger, and much more metropolitan nation would mean. The Iranian people have a political culture, they have universal suffrage, and a high rate of voter turnout. We are talking about a democratic country that does not follow the tenants of liberal democracy (the idea of separation of church and state being central therein), that has a very real and unpleasant history of realtions with the United States. If you think they don’t know about what we’ve done in the middle east, you’re wrong. They have media and history and all these other forms of education, and more and more the internet, and they are aware of our involvement in their country’s past. You’ll find the world keeps better tabs on us than one might realize.

Posted by: iandanger at April 24, 2006 05:20 PM

I LOVE THIS POST.

Posted by: Max at April 24, 2006 05:51 PM

David R. ,

Great post.
I have a question I have never been able to get addressed anywhere I have posed it so here it is.
The constitution grants the ability to declare war to the congress, and PLEASE if I am wrong correct me quickly, but since the end of WWII they have abdicated this resposibility to the executive without fail. All we hear from them is a whimper, a sigh, and then “Do as you see fit.” This seems to me to be the most disturbing slide toward dictatorial control you could ask for. This is most definatly not meant as a partisan swipe as the trend includes both D and R administrations.

Posted by: Ted at April 24, 2006 09:09 PM

Why why why cant we pay for this mess with oil from Iraq? Wasnt that the plan going in to this. We are told its their freedom we are fighting for.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 24, 2006 10:34 PM

David:

This is over 100 billion dollars a year, or a trillion dollars over 10 years. That cost shows no signs of slowing its growth in the seeable future. Iraq could easily cost the U.S. more than WWII or Viet Nam in 2006 dollars if we remain there another 10 years.

For this to be accurate you would need to add the cost of keeping troops in Germany and Japan for 60 years. It is possible to offset. We could simply move our troops from other deployments to Iraq. The costs would then be transition costs.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 24, 2006 10:55 PM

d.a.n:

There is no way a 3rd Party Candidate can win at this time. To vote that way is to take a vote away from the most winnable contender. That’s the Democrats, fyi.

You are indeed hypocrites. You all say Bush must go or balance must be restored or accountabilty must return, etc but you are not willing to admit what would bring these to pass… THE DEMOCRATS.

You can vote your choice AFTER we put some semblance of sanity in government. Otherwise, you are just part of the problem.

btw… We cannot leave Iraq while Al Queda is still in there. I do not surrender to Bin Ladin.

Posted by: Aldous at April 24, 2006 11:31 PM

Ted wrote: David R. Remer, Great post. I have a question I have never been able to get addressed anywhere I have posed it so here it is. The constitution grants the ability to declare war to the congress, and PLEASE if I am wrong correct me quickly, but since the end of WWII they have abdicated this resposibility to the executive without fail. All we hear from them is a whimper, a sigh, and then “Do as you see fit.” This seems to me to be the most disturbing slide toward dictatorial control you could ask for. This is most definatly not meant as a partisan swipe as the trend includes both D and R administrations.

Ted, I don’t speak for David R. Remer, but please allow me to answer your question …

According to the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, is states:

Only Congress has the authority to declare war.

However, spineless, do-nothing, irresponsible incumbents in Congress did everything they could to avoid making such a declaration of war with Iraq, because they lack the spine and courage to do so.

Hence, irresponsible incumbents in congress would rather give that duty to the President than ever risk making any tough decisions that may possibly risk their re-election. Thus, you can’t even get a YES or NO out of them.

Congress, almost all 535 of them, refused to officially declare war, which is exactly what it is. Not just a police action. We invaded and are occupying Iraq. And, the longer we stay there, the more suspicious the motives appear.

Irresponsible incumbents n Congress want to straddle the fence and be on all sides, so that, if the war goes badly, they can weasel out of it, and if it goes well, they can take credit for it. They accomplished that with a nebulous half-assed vote, and purposely confusing “authorizations” that they can back double-talk their way out of later if necessary.

So, Congress effectively transferred its authority to declare war to the President. Congress not only violated the Constitution, but also sold out the American people by doing so.

Only Congress should decide whether to go to war. Not the President. Therefore, if Congress believes war is justified, Congress should provide the means to prosecute the war effectively.

The fact is, Congress failed to understand and follow the Constitution.
Some day, soon I hope, slumbering voters will wake the _ _ _ _ up and start holding these irresponsible incumbents accountable. If not, voters have only themselves to thank for it.

In World War II, Congress declared war against Japan and Germany. There was none of this irresponsible-wishy-washy-cowardly nonsense like our congress today, as it shirks one of its most import duties. Shame on them, and shame on voters for tolerating it.

So, you are right to be disturbed by what we have witnessed in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. Congress is simply irresponsible and ignoring the Constitution.

There are dangerous imbalances.

Our irresponsible and unaccountable government has decayed into:

• (1) a vast structure of the Executive Branch that is a bloated gang of over two million persons that are neither seen nor heard as they irresponsibly throttle our freedoms and prosperity; subtly growing and securing more and more power; one of the first steps toward totalitarianism, is the destruction of the parliamentary/legislative branches of government;


• (2) a relatively smaller 435 in Congress and their hundreds of thousands employees, mostly a fumbling and stumbling group that is too busy piling on pork-barrel, corporate welfare, and subsidies to special interests, gathering $millions while trying to get re-elected, voting themselves raises and cu$hy perk$, and far too preoccupied with seducing voters and fueling the the perpetual petty partisan warfare.

Both branches lack honesty and transparency, which leads to irresponsibility and unaccountability. They have, over time, hidden and over-complicated things to keep the voters from really knowing what is happening much of the time. There is increasing secrecy. It is part of a historical cycle that’s been seen before:

Posted by: d.a.n at April 24, 2006 11:40 PM

Aldous wrote: d.a.n: There is no way a 3rd Party Candidate can win at this time. To vote that way is to take a vote away from the most winnable contender. That’s the Democrats, fyi.

Aldous, your logic is flawed as usual. First of all, you seem to think Democrats are what

Aldous wrote:
You are indeed hypocrites.

Careful Aldous. Critique the message. Not the messenger.
That’s what got you banned previously when you blatantly called people idiots.
Is that always your approach when your lame logic is getting trounced?
Hypocrites! Hypocrites! Hypocrites!

So, according to you, Aldous, everyone that voters for an independent or third party is a hypocrite?

Aldous, that is very revealing.

Would you be so kind as to tell us what you think of people that vote for Republicans ?

At any rate, just because some one votes for a independent or third party in no way makes them a hypocrite. That’s just plain nonsense. Surely you can come up with something more compelling than concluding everyone that doesn’t vote for a Democrat such as you is a hypocrite?

So, why do you think someone who voted for Nader in 2004 is a hypocrite?
Do you have the guts to answer any of these questions, or will you ignore them as usual and go into another chant: Hypocrites! Hypocrites! Hypocrites!

Aldous wrote: You all say Bush must go or balance must be restored or accountabilty must return, etc but you are not willing to admit what would bring these to pass… THE DEMOCRATS.

Nope. That hasn’t worked and won’t work now.
Irresponsible Democrats and Republicans are just taking’ turns.
Congress needs some house cleaning, regardless of party, because parties are not the problem, nor solution.
Too many irresponsible incumbents exist within both parties.
That’s the simple problem.

Aldous wrote: You can vote your choice AFTER we put some semblance of sanity in government.

Sorry Aldous, but you don’t have that power. We will vote with or without your permission.

Aldous wrote: Otherwise, you are just part of the problem.

Irresponsible incumbents in both are the problem. No, Aldous. You, ironically, are part of the problem. You words reveal how completely you have been seduced into the partisan warfare, and you also seem far too fond of wallowing in it; fueling it. That makes you part of the problem, while you have the audacity to call everyone else hypocrites and part of the problem. Such blind partisanship is simply brainwashed ridiculousness.

btw… We cannot leave Iraq while Al Queda is still in there. I do not surrender to Bin Ladin.

That’s really easy for you to say from behind you keyboard in the comfort of you home. Who died and put you in charge? Heil Aldous !

Posted by: d.a.n at April 25, 2006 12:09 AM

d.a.n:

Apologies for the “You” reference. I was refering to “you” the entire world and not to any specific person.

Perhaps “hypocrites” is the incorrect word. Voting for change by helping maintain the status quo is certainly your right as citizens.

I apologize for any offense the word has caused.

Posted by: Aldous at April 25, 2006 12:34 AM

Aldous wrote: Voting for change by helping maintain the status quo is certainly your right as citizens

OK. That’s sort of a left-handed apology, but I’ll accept it. However, I do not want to maintain the status quo. Not at all. And I may not vote for a third party or independent. Here’s the simple strategy and logic. It involves voting for candidates of all parties. Why? Because parties are neither the problem or solution, and the proof of it is that nothing gets better (over the long run), regardless of which party is currently the “In-Party”. Also, voting for a third party or independent is not necessarily a vote taken away from a Democrat. If that were true, then you’d certainly have to wonder why? But, that’s not how it is. I used to be Republican. But, from now on, I might vote for a candidate from any party. I would vote for an incumbent if they are responsible (which is very unlikely these days). I most certainly will not be voting for my current Republican Senators (Cornyn and Hutchison) or District 26 Representative (Burgess). So, you should be delighted that I’m not voting for them any more (all Republicans). But, it’s not because they are Republicans. It is because they are irresponsible. After studying their voting records and deeds, they do not deserve to be re-elected. In fact, I most likely will be voting for a Democrat or Independent when their elections come around. So, the point is not to merely vote independent or third party. Not at all. The objective is to oust irresponsible incumbents. If that can be achieved by voting for a Democrat, then so be it. If it means voting for a Republican or Independent, them so be it. The thing is, irresponsible incumbents, regardless of party, should be voted out always. Anything else is helping secure the incumbency of too many irresponsible incumbents. They already have it too cushy already, which is why they don’t take the voters serious … they are arrogantly confident of their incumbency.

If you want to see lots of problems finally getting resolved, start voting out all irresponsible incumbents (keep the good ones, if there are any), always. They’ll get the message fast. As it is now, irresponsible incumbents are possibly not only no net benefit to society, but quite possibly, a hindrance.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 25, 2006 01:07 AM

d.a.n:

I would agree with your plan and might even implement it were I not terrified of the GOP White House, GOP Senate and GOP Congress right now. As for today, my plan is to vote Democrat everywhere in the hope that at least one area turns non-GOP!!!

Time is a luxury none can afford. I advocate War with Iran. I DO NOT want the GOP to have unlimited control over that too.

Let us hope Diebold goes bankrupt before November, eh?

Posted by: Aldous at April 25, 2006 01:39 AM

Aldous, probability theory says the odds are that anti-incumbent voting will result in a win for Democrats anyway, because a majority of incumbents are Republican. Statistically, it is possible anti-incumbent votes could, unevenly distributed, result in the GOP keeping control, but, the probability is small.

But, what many of us are doing is taking the long view. It really doesn’t matter if the corrupt machine that perverts and twists the integrity of incoming freshman remains under Democratic or Republican control. What does matter is whether or not politicians, especially incumbents, come to realize that to protect their incumbency, the voters, the people, and the nation, must be their first priority and duty, above party, above special interests, and above wealthy donor’s demands and desires.

If and when that happens, both the Democratic and Republican parties will be far better for it, and the people far better served by both. It is about voters taking back control of politicians and their government and ending the victimization of half of the population, and our children’s future, in order to reward the other half, or quarter, or less.

Time is running out, if voters don’t take back control, the political machines will finish killing off our nation’s future and the quality of life we all desire to pass on to our children and theirs.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 25, 2006 03:27 AM

Adrienne wondered:

Isn’t the insurgency in it’s “Last Throes?” Aren’t we just about to “Turn Another Corner?”

No sister, but there is “Light At The End Of The Tunnel” and “Peace, With Honour.”

Just ask 2,390 Dead American Troops: they’ll tell you how Honourably Peaceful it is in the Light At The End Of The Long Tunnel…

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 25, 2006 05:50 AM

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 25, 2006 05:51 AM

All

Now comes the Mighty Sicilian Eagle who sees that Aldous is outnumbered and offers these comments in an effort to even the playing field as a voice of reason.

Have you people neen reading the papers lately?Have you noticed that a new government is forming in Iraq?

Have you noticed that the prime-minister designate actually could be something?That he will put competent people in the Interior Ministry and is talking of disarming the militias plus calling for a real unity of all?

Maybe you missed that.

Maybe you are so busy frothing at the mouth this morning that you don’t realize what is happening there these last few days.

Could it be that the peace could also be won?

Why would you acknowledge that?After all,is you did,then you would be forced to admit that progress..unbelievable progress has been made there…throwing yout fondest hopes of,what,impeachment,Congressional change,party change out the window?

What is the result of this government taking hold?Do any of you want that?Or do you hope that discord rules the day in order that Republicians get the boot in November?

I sometimes feel that many here like it(politicially that is) that hardship has occurred there.Not for patriotic reasons(we all are patriots,I think) but rather for politicial gain.

We have posters here skewering the president no matter what he does,and cheerleaders lauding those posts.Hasn’t this guy done one thing right?

Your collective hatred sometimes blurrs your thought.This is a war…a war of survival..a war pitting Salafist who have highjacked a religion and now threaten to not only control that religion but to make war globally against those who do not adhere to their thought.

Why can’s you see that?…This isn’t a Bush issue..never has..neither is it a politicial issue…never was…this is a war..a religious war that was declared decades ago,with the first battles launched on the early 09’s and a devestating assualt early this century.Do any of you acknowledge that?

Seriously.

P.S Adrienne Notice I write in paragraph form just for you?(Although I noticed you have adopted my writing style..bravo!)

Posted by: Sicilianeagle at April 25, 2006 07:32 AM

“Why why why cant we pay for this mess with oil from Iraq? Wasnt that the plan going in to this. We are told its their freedom we are fighting for.”

If you remember, we were told, in no uncertain terms, that this Iraqi war would cost taxpayers no more than $1.7 Billion.

“We have posters here skewering the president no matter what he does,and cheerleaders lauding those posts.Hasn’t this guy done one thing right?”

I haven’t seen a sinlge thing he’s not screwed up. Not one. Can you post some suggestions? I’ve been trying for months to find a REP (or Bush supporter) to post a single shinning moment from the past 5 years. I’ve never had a response.

Posted by: tony at April 25, 2006 09:40 AM

Tony

Sure.But just watch….within one hour some of our friends here will say they atr “talking points”.Eagleshit,I say.Here goes:

1.On September 12,2001 he picked up this nation which was realing from the attack.He looked into the camera,and with steely-eyed determinationb,he grew balls on millions in this country who were cowering.

2.That son of a bitch’s determination proved decicisive as we blasted the living shit out of the Taliban.He motivated our military,he galvanized the country as we destroyed those bastards.Today Afganistan is free,with a democratic leadershio friendly to America,a beacon for all to see.

3.Right or wrong,he blasted the shit out of Saddam,freeing a counrty from a ruthless dictator who gassed 300,000 of his own people.Within 3 years that country held elections.Within 5 years,it will be a bastion of democracy in a troubled area.

4.He cut taxes,jump starting a moribound ecomomy.Despite the howling of the left who say only the rich benefit,his tax cuts added hundreds of thousands of jobs to our economy.If the taxes were as disatterous as predicted,no jobs would have been created.

5.He has addressed the immigration problem by moving it into the nationial spotlight.

6.Like it or not,both Homeland and FEMA grew.Homeland was created from nothing.In 5 years it will be fully operationial and prevent further attacks to our country.We want things done yesterday but bueracies take time to grow.

7.He put balls back into the CIA and NSA.They actually are producing intelligence now.

8.He is a fighter,a relentless fighter against terrorism,a stubborn,mean son of a bitch exactly what is need in war time.

9.He has made a billion mistakes.But balancing the harm against the good,I support the guy and will continue to do so even if his poll numbers go to 2 %.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 25, 2006 11:05 AM

We must begin the process of anti-incumbent voting immediately. This in itself will likely not produce the sweeping change that will be more of a “long term” development but will start the wheels rolling.

The problem we cannot predict in advance of the mid-term elections is that even though existing incumbents may be up for re-election and be voted out, have the irresponsible actions of those incumbents been put into motion with an expiration period well beyond their departure from office.

We may have to ride out a few storms while we are attempting to prevent similar ones from forming. voidnow.org is committed to doing everything possible to address this challenge.

Posted by: steve smith at April 25, 2006 11:47 AM

Steve Smith,
Yes, voters must pay closer attention every election. There most likely will always be some irresponsible incumbents that abuse their power, and should be ousted.
____________

SicilianEagle wrote:
Hasn’t this guy done one thing right?

A couple of things maybe.
You be the judge.
Bush is just one person in a vast, bloated executive branch of two million. He’s in over his head, and either wondering where he screwed up, or why so many Americans could be so wrong?

Congress is in trouble.
Corruption continues to grow, and members can’t seem to accomplish anything anymore, for fear of risking re-election. Therefore, problems go ignored for decades.

Democrats will regain the majority in the coming elections, and that’s better than letting the current “In-Party” grow more corrupt, but, that is only a minor, short term improvement (if any), because the new “In-Party” will most likely abuse their new found power, as they always do. How do you think Democrats lost their majority in the first place?

The problem is, this entire process of parties taking turns being irresponsible escapes most voters, and they still believe that one party, or the other, is the solution, when in fact, parties are neither the problem or solution.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 25, 2006 01:44 PM

Sicilianeagle,

You’re wrong about Afghanistan, that country is a mess, the government barely controls anything, the warlords still have huge militias and fight each other, the Taliban is still present, burning down schools and attacking security forces. Afghanistan was a half done job, we left early, and are now in Iraq.

Iraq, the “central front” of the “war” on terrorism is a liability to us because the people do not want us there. Iraqis are fighting us, we are making things worse. Iraq is not under control of Al Queda, and whatever atacks we deal with now are the result of people collaborating with Al Queda in order to help fight against United States occupation. Kurdistan should be allowed to leave and form their own nation, and the rest of Iraq should be allowed to deal with itself. Whether or not we wind up with a single Iraqi state or a Sunni and a Shiite doesn’t really matter, it should be up to those nations (a nation being an ethnic group, not a state). If the Iraqis form a government, its time for us to leave, they need to establish a military and police forces, and take care of their own nation. People always compare the Iraq war to the American Revolution, well, once the British were gone, we formed a government (The Articles of Condfederation were adopted during the revolutionary war, it did not take us 7 years to form a government) and enforced the law. Its time for Iraq’s government to take control, which means we leave, and let them take care of the country. Its self determinism, its every nation’s (and by nation i mean group of people, not state) right. I am not against continuing aid economically to the new Iraqi government, they are going to need help until they get the oil industry off the ground, but our military needs to be out of Iraq, and then out of the middle east completely. No permanent bases, no occupations, no further military actions, etc.

Posted by: iandanger at April 25, 2006 01:48 PM

iandanger,
Good point. Afghanistan is a mess.
It’s only a smaller mess than before.
Iraq is a mess, and a mistake.
And, it’s difficult to ignore how much more attention Iraq received, than Afghanistan.
But, who’s got the oil?
The longer we stay in Iraq, the more suspicious it looks; are we there for the oil?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 25, 2006 02:45 PM

Aldous wrote: Time is a luxury none can afford. I advocate War with Iran. I DO NOT want the GOP to have unlimited control over that too.

Was that a type ? Do you mean: “I do not advocate War with Iran.”? Posted by: d.a.n at April 25, 2006 02:49 PM

Was that a typo? Do you mean: “I do not advocate War with Iran.” ?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 25, 2006 02:51 PM

iandanger

Afganistan is light years ahead of where it was prior to the invasion..despite it being a mess.

Women actually have rights too.

Your response is typicial though.

I point out something positive….clearly Afganistan is much better off without Taliban rule,and you “Ya but…” me.

Same with Iraq.Better or worse with or without Saddam.I say better,most here will say “Ya but…”.

However,in both cases,the initial response “ya” is dispositive.

Then you make it politicial.

I answered a poster question about one good thing Bush has done…and I responsed with several

By the way,it took 6 tears AFTER the revolution was over to ratify the Constition,so you are wrong,my friend

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 25, 2006 03:55 PM

How about some potential solutions?

It seems to me that everyone has some valid points about some of the issues. There is a lot of criticizm of each others point of view and and a whole lot of criticizm about US policy. You can agree or disagree about Afganistan and Iraq. You can believe or disbelieve the whole WMD mess. It is all a mute point now. We are in Afganistan and Iraq, for better or for worse, but how to we get beyond our current position and maintain security for the US? How do we NOW defeat terrorism?

I think that most of us would agree that leaving Iraq immeadiately would produce a vacuum most likely to be filled with the influence of Iran, Syria and Al Qaida. Not quite the vision of peace on earth, is it? To remain will cost American lives. Is it worth it? Critics will say that the potential gains are not worth a single life. That we have no business there in the first place. That we were all lied to and that Bush did all this just to amuse himself.

Well here are some facts:

More people in the Us die every day from tobacco and alcohol related diseases and accidents than have died in the entire conflict in Iraq. No one is screaming to abolish or outlaw these products.
The honorable men and women who have given their lives in Iraq, Afganistan and elsewhere have done so for a chance of a better world, free of terrorism, and where people have the priviledge of self determination that we enjoy in the US. While every single death is tragic, if we are successful and create a more stable middle east, then the cost would be minuscule in comparison to past conflicts.

While we have failed to find WMD in Iraq since our invasion, it is undeniable they used WMD (chemical weapons) against their own people. It is the Iraqis that evicted the UN weapons inspectors from the country. These two factors in of themselves would lead the average person to believe they were hiding something.

There was more than enough time for Iraq to dispose of or ship out of the country any weapons systems they did not want discovered or confiscated by an invading army. They used this same tactic during the first gulf war by sending their mig jets to Iran.

The Iraqis had well established terrorist training camps in the country. Whether these camps were used by Al Qaiada is irrelevant. A terrorist is a terrorist and it is not likely that Saddam was using these camps to train forces friendly to the US.

To be honest, I too think that invading Iraq was a big mistake and I don’t think that our attempt to form a stable democracy will succeed in the long run. But how do we now exit Iraq without creating an even bigger threat to the US and the rest of the world? If the vacuum is filled by terrorists and others who chant for the destruction of the US and the west, would we not be in a worse position than we were before 9/11? A country wealthy in oil, run by those who want us all dead, is not a peaceful scenario.

I am curious to hear what you think.

Posted by: jwl at April 25, 2006 03:59 PM

Sicilian,
“… I support the guy and will continue to do so even if his poll numbers go to 2 %”

With a margin of error, that could actually be a negative number. But it would be unkind to think of you as a margin of error.

Sorry Sicilian, couldn’t resist…

Afghanistan:
When Karzai can trust his own countryment to provide security, I’ll be impressed. When a leader of a country depends upon foreign troops for his protection, and cannot trust his fellow Afghans, I dunno, it just doesn’t look good.

The Taliban government escaped our bombings nearly intact. We waited to form a coalition before attacking. That gave the Taliban & Al Qaida time to disperse, but it allowed us to form an effective coalition afterwards. Slowly but surely, the Pashtun tribes are reasserting their control over the country. Some Taliban actually serve in the current government. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” It hurts, but it is the best we can hope for, a gradual recreation of Afghanistan as it stood before the invasion… ‘The New Afghanistan, now with 10% more democracy!’

But you know, processed democracy may not be good for you. Organic is much better!
I’d be more interested in seeing the Afghans introduce a westernized version of Human Rights to their cultural mix… They’re working on it, but that will take a long time.

Iraq:
Saddam Hussein never gassed 300,000 Kurds. You’re thinking of the Shia uprising after the First Gulf War. Bush #41 encouraged them to revolt against Saddam Hussein, then abandoned them. They were brutally put down, with hundreds of thousands dead. Why did Bush #41 leave them to their fate? Why would Bush #41 prefer the secular Saddam Hussein in power rather than the fundamentalist Shias?

Posted by: phx8 at April 25, 2006 04:00 PM

jwl, Here’s some suggestions:
(1) VOID
(2) The Problem and Solution
(3) Specifics

Posted by: d.a.n at April 25, 2006 04:14 PM

phx8

Hey,I’ve been a negative number all my life,no sweat.

I agree with you though…what we have is a Democracy….Eastern style.

I was saying a few months ago here,that their form of democracy will never resemble ours…never.

We have to hope for though is a form of government that doesn’t export hate..I’d be happy with that.

But again,old friend,in both cases,despite the shit that they are presently covered in,both are better off post invasion than pre-invasion.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 25, 2006 04:39 PM

“By the way,it took 6 tears AFTER the revolution was over to ratify the Constition,so you are wrong,my friend”

But the articles of confederation were a working government, we were not in a state of anarchy. We had government here during and immediately after our revolution, the Iraqis had anarchy for 3 years. We later ratified the constitution to change the structure of our government due to problems with currency, tax, and military issues, but we had a national government with a president long before the constitution. The first president was John Hanson of Maryland, so, sorry my friend, you are incorrect.

Afghanistan is not any better off now than it was under the Taliban (with the exception of the capital) simply because the Taliban hasn’t left and the warlords are still in power. All we did was displace them, we didn’t get rid of any of the problems the Afghanis had in the first place. They still have no economy (well, except the opium), the country is still dangerous and full of land mines, the warlords still control most of the country, and things aren’t getting better because we worked through the warlords in order to take over, and gave them legitimate power in the process, now they wont go away. You refered to it as a shinning beacon. If Afghanistan is the model for what the Middle East will become, I don’t think anyone in that region would support us.

Iraq is NOT better off than it was under Saddam because of how much damage our occupation has done. This is why I advocate a staggered troop withrawl, and an establishment of a peacekeeping force under the authority of the Iraqi parliament. United States soldiers are not police, its not what theyre trained to do, its not how our military acts tactically, and it is not helping Iraq to have us destroy cities the way we do.

This is not a case of “Ya, but” this is me saying NO. US military action which is not defensive does not benefit us, it makes our ideological intentions much more difficult. If we want to spread democracy, we cannot do it with the barrel of a gun, and if we don’t, then we need to get out of there quickly. I don’t care either way, liberalism (aka neoconservativism AND the foreign policy espoused by the Democrats) and realism (which no one seems to support) are both feasible, but we can’t have it both ways.

jwl,

Yes, Saddam had a great deal of weaponry, a nuclear program, and stockpiles of chemical weapons. Yes he used them in the 80’s against the Kurds and against the Iranians (he believed they were planning on gasing his troops). Yes, those weapons can be traced back to a number of places, including the United States. Israel blew up Saddam’s nuclear facilities, so that was the end of his nuclear program. He was then placed on sanctions, and durring the sanctions he sought to appear to have WMD’s so as to prevent Iran from attacking (he was constantly worried about Iran retaliating for the Iran-Iraq War that he started), but at the same time he froze his chemical program and abandoned his biological program. Most of the chemical and biological weapons Saddam had possesed limited shelf lives, this means that they would cease to be effective after weeks, months, or years of production, depending on the chemical agent. Iraqi sarin would only last for a period of a few weeks because it was poorly produced. This is why we didn’t find weapons of mass destruction, Saddam froze his program and didn’t produce more weapons while under the UN sanctions. Our belief that they had restarted these programs was prompted by bad intelligence, and thats why we invaded. Our invasion had absolutely nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi people. We invaded because we believed that Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to the United States. No other reason could justify a deployment of American military to war. The question of whether or not the intelligence was just bad or a lie is something other people can fight about, the fact of the matter is that our reason was wrong. Saddam Hussein, it turns out, was scared of us, but did not view the United States as an enemy. For many years he had been trying to improve US-Iraq relations because he wanted sanctions lifted and wanted oil money to resume. He was always primarily concerne with Iran. Now, he was opposed to the existence of an Israeli state, but who in that region isn’t. It doesn’t really mean anything to be against Israel, just look at Iran, Iranian leaders end their speeches with death to America, death to Israel, but durring the Iran-Contra scandal, we were giving weapons to Israel to sell to Iran. Iran had no problem buying American weapons from Israel, despite being “violently” opposed to Israel’s existence. The goal of liberating Iraq from Saddam and establishing democracy didn’t become the “true” reason for going in until after it was becoming clear the WMD’s we feared weren’t turning up. Thats the Bush administration’s style, they change the terms of an argument so they’re always right. This approach, also known as “flip-flopping” or “waffling” is especially useful if you stay on the offensive against people who try and point out what you are doing.

Now, terrorist training camps. Saddam Hussein wasn’t collaborating with Al Queda, thats really what matters. There were Al Queda operatives in Kurdish territories Saddam had no control over, but we didn’t do anything about them, they were working against Saddam. Any camps you hear about in the northern portions of Iraq were not under any control of Saddams. Saddam in fact had ties to the PLF and Hamas, which had nothing to do with Al Queda or 9-11-2001, and which were the previous and current leaders of the Palestinian people.

I am no defender of Saddam, but I do not believe it was the right of the United States to invade, and I believe our occupation is eroding the chance of a government taking power, due to the damage our attempts to quell insurgents does collaterally. Saddam is gone, and Iraq has a chance at democracy, but as long as our military is there, the people of Iraq have a right to rebel, as any nation does. Every nation of people has the right to its own government and the right to resist occupation. Every person has the right to defend their home. If this is not the case then the American Revolution was illegitimate, and we are a rogue state of terrorists who should be beholden to our true government, that of England. By occupying Iraq the way we do, we galvanize the Iraqi people and make the situation worse. Thats why it is time to come home.

Posted by: iandanger at April 25, 2006 05:07 PM

d.a.n.

Thanks for the info.

Some very interesting ideas, but the one world currency managed by the UN scared the crap out of me. I’ll keep reading.

VOID is an interesting concept but I think most people think the problems lie with someone elses congressman or senator. Not their own. Exception being SD. Kudos to them for knocking off Daschle. I think we could effect more change by voting for people that are not career politicians and lawyers. Elect your local auto mechanic, grocery store manager or small business owner. Vote for people that haven’t made a living digging for money in other peoples pockets and we might have a chance. Given most peoples opinion of attorneys it should be more of a disqualification than a prerequisite.

Posted by: jwl at April 25, 2006 05:21 PM

iandanger

I don’t understand. You say Saddam was in a constent state of worry about retaliation from Iran and then he suspends or freezes his weapons programs leaving himself less able to defend against such retaliation. That just doesn’t add up or is completely illogical. If these programs were indeed suspended, frozen or shutdown, why did Saddam refuse or delay inspections. If it was his desire to normalize relations with the US, it seems counter-productive to dis-allow weapons inspectors access to sites under suspicion.

Posted by: jwl at April 25, 2006 05:37 PM

jwl, I have pondered that concept too of electing regular folk to office. But, in the end, I rejected it for the following reason. Our representatives must be especially bright and educated folks in order to grasp the economic, global strategic, and long term domestic consequences of their votes on the House or Senate floor. A mechanic or store clerk would not usually have the educational background to grasp these complicated and interwoven decisions of consequence. A law background is an excellent background for a Congress person, as are degrees in economics, management, history or philosophy, or science.

Being a successful business person is usually, but, often not, a recommended qualification. Of course a college degree often does not qualify one’s integrity and ability either. But, if vocational background is to be a standard, I will take the college educated over non-college educated any day, as a better predictor of ability. But, not necessarily of integrity or honesty of intent or motivation.

Lawyers, get a bad rap. Words are what laws are made of. Carefully crafting those words to minimize unintended consequences or interpretations is what Law School prepares one for. There are many, many lawyers out there with integrity and service as motivation. It is too bad some give the whole profession a bad rap, but, its understandable, since the the bad apples are capable of doing great harm as the tools for their misdeeds is the law itself.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 25, 2006 05:37 PM

David,

I do agree that education may better prepare an individual to serve as a senator or congressman. But what we now have is an elite group of self serving egomaniacs who care little for the people they are supposed to represent. I believe it was the intention of our founding fathers to make government accessible to the “average joe”. An infusion of common sense, integrity, honesty, and a sense of duty to the constituents would be a breath of fresh air.

Posted by: jwl at April 25, 2006 05:47 PM

d.a.n.

Thank you for the response, I have just been more and more disheartened when I watch our military become a tool of executive political will.

David,

You said something that caught my intrest here, a personal pet peave of mine so please forgive me if I sound illogical about it. You spoke to a legislators need to be able to consider long term cosequences of their actions. I have never seen one address any thing more than next election cycle expedience, not one thought to a 7 or even 10 year ramification. Now I’m not saying that average Joe Dieselmechanic, like me, is qualified to hold office in congress ( in my own case my platform would be stolen from Bloom County…. “This time why not the worst”), but the current criteria only rewards short sight and malability.

Posted by: Ted at April 25, 2006 06:17 PM

Ted,

“Now I’m not saying that average Joe Dieselmechanic, like me, is qualified to hold office in congress ( in my own case my platform would be stolen from Bloom County…. “This time why not the worst”), but the current criteria only rewards short sight and malability.”

Everyone is qualified to hold office.

This is supposed to be a government “By The People” and the only qualifications are those that are in the constitution.

Hey, Truman was a shoe salesman. DeLay was an exterminator.

What makes them more qualified than you?

Posted by: Rocky at April 25, 2006 08:07 PM

Ted,

Just as an asside, and no offence meant, but, it is an attitude like yours that have allowed the “Ruling Class” to take over this country.

America belongs to all of us, not just those that have the money and the friends that allow them to seek political office.

Posted by: Rocky at April 25, 2006 08:19 PM

“I don’t understand. You say Saddam was in a constent state of worry about retaliation from Iran and then he suspends or freezes his weapons programs leaving himself less able to defend against such retaliation. That just doesn’t add up or is completely illogical. If these programs were indeed suspended, frozen or shutdown, why did Saddam refuse or delay inspections. If it was his desire to normalize relations with the US, it seems counter-productive to dis-allow weapons inspectors access to sites under suspicion.”

Read the Duelfer Report, it specifically outlines everything I said above, and explains that Saddam did not want to risk the United States intervening again, so he froze his weapons program. He wanted sanctions off, so he was not producing chemical weapons. He didn’t want Iran to know this, so he was trying to play both sides, puff out his chest, while not offending the biggest threat, the United Nations.

Saddam Hussein isn’t crazy, he’s an asshole. He was doing what he could to stay in power.

P.S. its all in here: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

Posted by: iandanger at April 25, 2006 08:37 PM

HELP

When I made my earlier post I had not seen the local paper with the selection of candidates running against my incumbent.
D)
A former lobbyist
A nut job that ran last time in a different district
A man who torched a planned parenthood office,and possible antisemite
An unknown
R)
A man convicted of weapons charges and has multiple drug arrests
A car salesman
A shoe salesman
I wish that I could say that my confidence in the selection process was restored but…
That said I will still not vote to return my incumbent to DC.

Posted by: Ted at April 25, 2006 09:05 PM

Rocky,

Truman, acceptble refference
DeLay, kind of makes my point doesn’t it.
In all seriousness I wish that we would begin to hold accountable those we elect.
I am very guilty of looking the other way and pulling the party knob. NO MORE. I hold myself to blame as much as the ones I voted for.
You are right to refference the constitution on this and I don’t subscribe to any ruling class and take no offense at that.
We have a chance to make DC take note this fall but I fear that business as usual and pettiness will prevail.

Posted by: Ted at April 25, 2006 09:23 PM

Aldous:

Anyone here arguing for the war in Iraq is a hypocrite! Go sign up! Go fight! Get your kids to sign up and fight!

Chickenhawks! I know your kind… Bush… Cheney… Gingrich… always ready to call someone else’s patriotism into question, but never ready to serve others… only themselves.

I want to vomit on Republicans every time I think back to the 2000 election and the Republican crusade against Kerry… not against his vision for the future… but called his bravery and patriotism into question…

I’m typically a mild mannered person… but surely there be is a special circle of Hell awaiting these types of cynics and hypocrites!!

Wish I hadn’t read some of those responses. It shakes my faith in the goodness of people.

Sicilianeagle:

You have blinders on. This nation is coming apart at the seams due to the misguided, John Wayne, ‘we need balls’ attitude and policies of the current administration and the Republican Congress. Who can you possibly blame for the situation we find ourselves in?

LibRick

Posted by: LibRick at April 25, 2006 09:36 PM

Ted wrote: HELP

When I made my earlier post I had not seen the local paper with the selection of candidates running against my incumbent.
(D)
A former lobbyist
A nut job that ran last time in a different district
A man who torched a planned parenthood office,and possible antisemite
An unknown
(R)
A man convicted of weapons charges and has multiple drug arrests
A car salesman
A shoe salesman
I wish that I could say that my confidence in the selection process was restored but…
That said I will still not vote to return my incumbent to DC.

Ted, they ought to fit in nicely with our congress:
_____________________________________
7 that have been arrested for fraud;
19 have been accused of writing bad checks;
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses;
3 have done time for assault;
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit;
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges;
8 have been arrested for shoplifting;
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits;
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year;
_________________________________
That was originally published in CapitolHillBlue in 1999. If you were to update the list, it would be even worse now, with all the arrests, indictments, and such.

The problem is not just who we vote for.
It is what happens to them afterward.
A new crop is needed since the current one will not allow any common sense reforms.
But, transparency is also needed to keep the same thing from happening again to the new crop.
We have to account for the human factor.
Expecting Responsibility is futile without understanding why Education and Transparency are so important.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 25, 2006 10:47 PM

d.a.n

Thank you, and yes I am sure they will fit nicely indeed. I failed to mention the Undertaker, perhaps the most appropriate choice.

My qaundry is this, the first offenders I listed on each side are also their parties favored sons. I demand more, but the ones that get the nod are the ones that are most corruptable?, malable? Hell I don’t know the word I’m looking for.

I do know that I will not hesitate to vote against them the second time.

Posted by: Ted at April 25, 2006 11:07 PM

Ted,
You’re in a fix much like the rest of us.
We don’t have a lot of choices.
The main parties are limiting our choices; sometimes blocking access for third parties and independents to the ballots … a disturbing trend.

Perhaps the unknown or shoe salesman?

President Truman was a shoe salesman at one time.

Not sure, but if the incumbent is irresponsible, it’s best to give someone else a chance, rather than keep what you know is bad.

None of my senators or representative is going to get my vote. Nor the governor. They are all irresponsible, vote on pork-barrel, resist common-sense reforms and transparency, and look the other way.

Sooner would be better than later, but voters will get fed-up eventually, when their pain and misery reaches a certain threshold. We may not be far from the threshold now.

The bad part is senators have 6 year terms, staggered every 2 years, so incumbents always outnumber newcomers. Newcomers would like to pass some badly-needed, common-sense reforms, but incumbents won’t allow it. So, the incumbents have an advantage. Thus, the voters must continue to vote out irresponsible incumbents, always; not just once in a while.

But, voters could make an example of the House of Representatives, which might send a message to the Senate.

Other than voting out irresponsible incubments, like we were supposed to, all along, voters have little other leverage.

Voters must stop worrying about securing a party (the sinister result of partisan warfare), because that simply empowers incumbents to continue to be more irresponsible. We are simply empowering those that use and abuse us, to do it some more and more effectively every year. There’s a lot of main-party bigots that will never agree with that, but the largest group of voters is neither Democrats (59 million) or Republicans (62 million). It’s the 78 million that have tuned out or aren’t interested. Just a few million of that 78 million can significantly change the political landscape, should only a small portion of them get fed-up enough to start voting out irresponsible incumbents.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 26, 2006 12:40 AM

jwl, couldn’t agree more. The founding fathers insurance was to give the vote to land owners who had the most to lose at the hands of a government gone mad with the power to tax and rule.

Today, we have somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 million people who know next to nothing about how their government works, how their representative voted on the last 6 bills put before them, and cannot recall what was the last bill sponsored by their representative. An informed consent at the ballot box cannot take place with a population this ignorant of the workings of their government and representatives.

Consent without being informed is precisely how politicians get away with all that they do. Education and civic duty training are the key to recapturing the American ideal of government. But as we have seen, our government officials are moving in the opposite direction of private schools teaching private value systems, and private and separate curricula. And trust me, it is not by accident, but design, that we have this hybrid federal local education system which focuses on funding and administration far more than educating our young. That is how you keep the education system divided, distracted, and preoccupied so the masses will graduate divided, individualized, and lacking trust or faith in public systems. Without trust or faith in them, why would one ever presume as an individual to change them?

End result, a disinterested electorate sold a bill of goods about specialists in government taking care of government, leaving them and their feelings of helplessness and apathy free to pursue more mundane and pleasurable daily consumer activities.

Politics has become a career for specialists. That is the underpinning of our eventual downfall. For in a living and functional democracy, politics is the duty and job of every citizen, not just at election day every two years, but, on a weekly basis of catch up and review on what your politicians and government are doing in your name.

That is a concept lost to most Americans today. We had better get it back and damn quick, or we will find ourselves in the truly ironic position of being personally bankrupt in a bankrupt nation which had the greatest potential for prosperity, peace, and liberty of all nations on earth.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 26, 2006 12:50 AM

David R. Remer:

You do know that as a matter of American History, everytime the current administrators become corrupt it is the next generation immigrants who take over? That’s what happened to the Irish long ago.

Maybe our hope lies with the Latin Immigrants flooding into this country. Perhaps they will restore honesty in government!!!

We should therefore elect Latino Candidates to hasten this!!!

Posted by: Aldous at April 26, 2006 01:13 AM

Ted, long term peace, prosperity, and liberty are very expensive concepts. Not necessarily in terms of dollars, but, in terms of time, effort, delayed gratification, sacrifice today for greater return tomorrow, and risk. Long term plans require constant vigilance, adjustments, maintenance, and periodic renewal of committment. If the people demand long term solutions by voting out short term gain politicians, long term solutions we will have. Absent that demand and holding politicians to account, short term next election spin, band aids, and PR Firms are what we will get.

This ideological debate between left and right is a hoax. Neither side really believes we should abandon capitalism for socialism or vice versa. Neither side ideologically wants the U.S. to become a religious theistic government which will create another civil or revolutionary war in our country. Neither side wants to see the great middle class driven into poverty. The ideological debate between the left and right is their political tool to divide and conquer the electorate, preserving both parties hold on the power machinery that funnels billions of dollars into their careers, and trillions of dollars under their management.

The dirty little secret is the political parties are now so addicted to this schema, that despite their own fear of the fact that this country is about to enter a tailspin because of their game with the public, they cannot give it up. They are truly addicted to it. Only the voters have the power to break their addiction to the game of dividing and conquering the electorate. Only the voters can unite themselves and take back government for their and the nation’s future peace, prosperity, and liberty.

It can be done; won’t be easy; will require inordinate leadership, dedication, vision and perseverence to make that vision a reality. And most of all, it will take a truly gifted spokesperson for the people’s and the nation’s cause with the ability to access mass media.

I have seen part of the plan, I have seen the vision, I have seen the dedication, I have seen the perserverence, and I have seen the inordinate leadership. I just haven’t yet seen all of these in the same people dedicated to that vision. Nor have I seen the spokesperson who subscribes to that vision with mass media access.

I hope, for my daughter’s sake, that before I die, I do see come forth a spokesperson with the organization skills of Bill Gates, vision of ML King, the persuasiveness of Bill Clinton, the tenacity of GW Bush, the compassion of Mother Theresa, and the charisma of John F. Kennedy. But I will settle for a dedicated group of committed Americans who find among themselves these traits and share them with each other and the nation.

I know of a group of Americans which may one day fit that bill. I hope, anyway. I am doing what I can to help that group grow. And perhaps one day, maybe after I am gone, that group will have grown to represent the majority of American voters, and our nation will be placed back on its path to shining as a beacon to all the world’s people as the greatest nation mankind has ever seen, for all other nations to emulate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 26, 2006 01:21 AM

iandanger

The problem with the articles of confederation(and no they weren’t a constition ratified by the people) was that they created such divide within the colonies(especially the pull between a strong central government and one giving power to the individual state..a point you seem to have omited…the MAJOR point,by the way) that they ultimately were one of the major reasons that led to a civil war 6 decades later where 500,000 Americans were killed.

THAT is what we are trying to avoid.Thus,I am correct.

I laud you at answering the question on is Afganistan is better off or not.For obviuos reasons I disagree,as do most of that country’s residents except the Taliban.

Ask the women then we’ll talk.If you are correct then 1/2 the population (women) are better off being left out of government,having zero rights,and being a chattel object for the men.That’s 50% of the population there,thus,again I disagree.

David

In your younger days did you read the book “Stranger in a Strange Land” by Micheal Velentine Smith?
In the book,a class of people,professionially trained “Fair Witnesses”,were professionial jurors in the legal sysyem.
I have always thought a professionial class of people trained in ecomomics,law,language and world culture would do a better job in certain legislative posts that politicians.The threshold criteria was blind testing then.I still like the idea.

Of course in those days I enjoyed the book while smoking pot.Since I haven’t done that in 35 years,I must be just as zonked now to believe that we can change the pressent politicially entrenched crooks without a seismatic shift someplace.

You also wrote in part:

” long term peace, prosperity, and liberty are very expensive concepts. Not necessarily in terms of dollars, but, in terms of time, effort, delayed gratification, sacrifice today for greater return tomorrow, and risk. Long term plans require constant vigilance, adjustments, maintenance, and periodic renewal of committment.”

I couldn’t have said it better…except that is my view on the war on terror,and why every so often I butt heads with folks here.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 26, 2006 07:41 AM

OK - you put many things done, and you are the sole person to have attempted to do this, so my hat off to you for your effort… however…

1.On September 12,2001 he picked up this nation which was realing from the attack.He looked into the camera,and with steely-eyed determinationb,he grew balls on millions in this country who were cowering.

- OK, aside from the overtly macho BS, he did PR work for a mistake that happened on his watch. I know there are many who attributed to the blunders that lead to 9/11 - but it was on his nickle. Even if he started down the right path here, his follow through completely failed and so, NO - I do NOT see this as anything other than momentary feel good fluff.

2.That son of a bitch’s determination proved decicisive as we blasted the living shit out of the Taliban.He motivated our military,he galvanized the country as we destroyed those bastards.Today Afganistan is free,with a democratic leadershio friendly to America,a beacon for all to see.

- Yes - and the single person at the heart of those attacks is still alive and free. No matter gow big the explosion is, if you miss, it count for very little. Afg. is run by war lords… not much of an improvement there.

3.Right or wrong,he blasted the shit out of Saddam,freeing a counrty from a ruthless dictator who gassed 300,000 of his own people.Within 3 years that country held elections.Within 5 years,it will be a bastion of democracy in a troubled area.

- Well, the proof is that me made major mistakes started and following through with Iraq. Again, is it all about balls and explosions, or does accuracy and results come into play at some point?

4.He cut taxes,jump starting a moribound ecomomy.Despite the howling of the left who say only the rich benefit,his tax cuts added hundreds of thousands of jobs to our economy.If the taxes were as disatterous as predicted,no jobs would have been created.

- At best, the jobs created are staying even with population growth. Tax cuts may have helped, there are far too many factors involved to say for sure - but I’ll give you this one. One condition thought, for you to tkae credit, you need to cover the interest on the loans we had to tkae out to cover the government shortfalls.

5.He has addressed the immigration problem by moving it into the nationial spotlight.

- Really, to me it seems like he and his party haven’t addressed anything - as of yet. I hope they do, but they run every part of the government needed to quickly solve this problem - we’ll see how the do. This could be the single item I see as a positive - but it’s not there yet.

6.Like it or not,both Homeland and FEMA grew.Homeland was created from nothing.In 5 years it will be fully operationial and prevent further attacks to our country.We want things done yesterday but bueracies take time to grow.

- FEMA is 0 for 1. Homeland security will be an unknown for quite some time. We’ll see on this one, but if you look at the 9/11 commission report, they get an F.

7.He put balls back into the CIA and NSA.They actually are producing intelligence now.

- CIA still has failing grades and the NSA is in the middle of legal scandles. I don’t see either as positives… not even close.

8.He is a fighter,a relentless fighter against terrorism,a stubborn,mean son of a bitch exactly what is need in war time.

- I’ll agree with the “mean son of a bitch” but I see it more driven by economic class - besides I thought he was the compassionate conservative. Also, he was the one who picked the fight with Iraq, so you can hardly say the traits have served anyone well. Being “a mean son of a bitch” while throwing punches wildly and failing to hit anything important can only be seen as a negative.

9.He has made a billion mistakes.But balancing the harm against the good,I support the guy and will continue to do so even if his poll numbers go to 2 %

- I will not argue that this is the way you feel - and if that makes you happy, then go ahead and count the euphoria as a positive - but I don’t think that matters much to others.

Sorry, but you haven’t made the point. I don’t see a single thing that Bush can claim as success. He might actually accomplish the immigration item, and maybe one day OSB will be captured - but given the absolute control Bush has had for the past 5 years… are you happy with this track record?

5 years, 2 wars and $3 trillion more in debt… + a record trade deficit with China…

Posted by: tony at April 26, 2006 08:48 AM

iandanger

I appreciate your response, however I am still having trouble getting my head around the logic. You say that he (Saddam Hussein) was trying not to offend the biggest threat the United Nations. Since when has the United Nations been a threat to any nation? The UN is the laughing stock of the entire world. If Saddam was trying not to offend them how does throwing their weapons inspectors out of the country jive with that. It just doesn’t add up.

David

You’ve hit the nail on the head. If our country and constitution is to survive, it is the citizens that MUST demand change. The corruption that permeates our government has our constitution circling the drain. Education is the key. But I am disheartened when most people don’t have a clue what the constitution or the bill of rights is all about. Hell, most people think we live in a democracy and couldn’t tell you the difference between it and the representative republic that is our form of government.

I am interested in the group you mentioned and would like to learn more about it. Can you provide any additional information?

Posted by: jwl at April 26, 2006 10:11 AM

Tony

No need to take your hat off,as I get it knocked off here daily.

However,most of your answers were of the “ya,but” variety did you realize that?

I posted that list in response to someone who asked me one positive thing the president did…I see many things.

However,there is a vast group out there still pissed off from the Gore defeat,compounded by the Swift Boat?Kerry defeat,who fight tooth and nail against ANYTHING this administration has done or is trying to do.

My prediction:Both senate and House still stay in Republician hands this november and McCain/Guilliani or vice-versa in ‘08.

“The more things change,the more they stay the same”

P.S Does anyone know how to say that in French,the original way?I forgot two words and am curious al

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 26, 2006 10:26 AM

“However,most of your answers were of the “ya,but” variety did you realize that?”

I was simply trying to seriously look at your posts and absord what you are saying, but every single success you pointed out is a vague or “Kind-of-sort-of” good if you look at it from a certain point of view. I was the one who asked for a single thing Bush can call a succeess and I still don’t see one.

My point: Bush was given a blank check to do whatever he felt should be done. He cashed the check, but can anyone tell me what we bought with it?

It’s very easy to dismiss the critism as simple Bush-hating or revenge… but look past that and it see it the way we see it: every single action this Administration has taken has ended (and most time started) with failure. Stop trying to rationalize our outrage… there is substance behind it.

Posted by: tony at April 26, 2006 01:06 PM

c’est la vie

Posted by: tony at April 26, 2006 01:07 PM

tony,
I can’t think of any of Bush’s successes, but what ever they are, they are obliterated by his (and the bloated federal government that he grew by 140,000 more employees since 2000) blunders.

In all fairness though, Congress deserves as much (or more) of the credit for the growing list of ignored problems.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 26, 2006 03:20 PM

Well… it seems like the entire government has been on vacation - or screwing things up. I plan on sending them a report card this November.

Posted by: tony at April 26, 2006 04:15 PM

Me too!
My senators and representative aren’t gettin’ my vote any more. There’s a Libertarian and a Democrat challenger running for incumbent Senator (R) Hutchison’s spot. Hutchison likes pork-barrel and abuses the tax payers tax dollars.

____________________________
$107,433,000 for projects added in Texas (state of Senate TTHUD Appropriations Subcommittee member Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)), and the districts of House TTHUD Appropriations Subcommittee member John Culberson (R-Texas), and House appropriators Henry Bonilla (R-Texas), John Carter (R-Texas), Kay Granger (R-Texas), and Chet Edwards (D-Texas), including: $1 million for compressed natural gas buses; $1,000,000 for the University of Texas Flywheel Bus and Truck Program; $500,000 for the Midland County Board of Commissioners Connection; $250,000 for Odessa for the renovation of the Historical Globe Theater; and $200,000 for Nacogdoches for renovations to the Fredonia Hotel and Convention Center.
______more__________________
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, the first woman Texas has ever elected to the U.S. Senate, has gone from stardom to scandal in four months. Last week, she was indicted for misconduct in her former job as Texas state treasurer—an indictment she calls a “political witch hunt” by Democrats against a Republican. The issue is not whether her staffers performed political chores while she ran for the Senate—she admits they did—but whether the abuses were flagrant and whether she tried hard to hide them. She now faces the prospect of a trial during a bid for re-election next fall.
____________________________
Testimony from employees, former coworkers, and others, stated that Hutchison noted her abusive behavior around the office. She literally threw a book at a subordinate and kept her office in a state of fear while she was Treasurer. These employees testify that when she told them to start destroying documents that showed her using state-paid staff, offices and other taxpayer-funded resources for her own political activities, those employees made copies behind her back.
____________________________

Remember, those are your tax dollars too.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 26, 2006 05:07 PM

S.E.

I hate to bring this up, but do you grok that Robert Heinlein wrote Stranger in a Strange Land, and Michael Valentine Smith was the lead character in the book?

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 01:01 AM

SicEagle. Thanks for the comments. All I remember about Heinlein’s book was that he was a college buddy of the founder of Dianetic Scientology, and the idea of looking at our world as if we just came from Mars was a very useful tool, one I still use today. Other than that I was not real impressed with the Mike’s character or the plot which never suspended my disbelief the way Frank Herbert’s Dune, or Tolkein’s The Hobbit did.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2006 02:27 AM

jwl,

I can’t explain Saddam Hussein’s thought process, but thats what the data shows, take a look at the CIA’s findings and you’ll see where I am getting this. Saddam simply had not reconstituted his weapons programs, thats what the evidence shows. Saddam did not want to risk foreign intervention, so he was not developing weapons of mass destruction. He wanted sanctions lifted, so he was not developing weapons of mass destruction. Thats what happened.

Eagle,

Yes, there were major problems functionally with the Articles of Confederation. There were major problems with the 3/5ths compromise as well, and that was included in the constitution. Arguably that and other concessions to slave states sewed as much seed for the civil war as the articles of confederation did. The Constitution was a maliable document, and because of this it survived, thats good, but you can’t say the colonies didn’t have a government during the articles, because they did, they had a government and a president and everything, it just wasn’t the same structure.

And on Afghanistan, I’m not saying its not possible for things to get better in Afghanistan, but the necessary steps weren’t taken, none of the underlying societal issues there were addressed, they still have rampant unemployment and no real economy besides the drugs, they still have the Taliban and the Warlords fighting the government and each other, while women have rights on paper, you have to have a government to protect those rights, and there simply isn’t any order in that country. Why is that? Well, we gave far too much power ot the warlords going in, and now they don’t want to relinquish it. In time, centralized authority may grow out of Kabul, but for now, I see anarchy with guns, which is, in a Hobbesian sense, worse than no government (even the most oppresive government).

Posted by: iandanger at April 27, 2006 11:10 AM

Rocky
Yes,of course you are right…I told you that I was in a fog back then!

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 27, 2006 02:52 PM

At this moment, using the most optimistic scenario, our children are going to be paying for 140 years:

And that’s based on only 4.5% interest rate, and nothing bad happens during those 140 years.

What ever happens, it is going to be ugly.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 28, 2006 12:07 PM

Aldous wrote: d.a.n: I would agree with your plan and might even implement it were I not terrified of the GOP White House, GOP Senate and GOP Congress right now.

Aldous,
That is exactly what some politicians are hoping for. They try to divide the voters between the two parties. They know the split will be close. That’s OK with them. The important thing to them is that voters do not catch on to their game of fueling the partisan warfare, and hope the voters can never form a majority that finally sees the truth and votes out all of the irresponsible incumbent politicians (which is what they were supposed to be doing all along).

The solution is right there under the very noses of the voters. Unfortunately, too many voters have been fooled into thinking they need to pick a party. It is very powerful. The only thing that will finally recognize the scheme is after things have been so severely mismanaged, and the resulting pain and misery becomes bad enough to create an incentive for voters to act.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 28, 2006 12:34 PM