September 21, 2006
The Things Voters are Saying
MSNBC has an article about the anti-incumbent sentiment which includes a number of quotes from voters. MSNBC’s article, Anti-incumbent Sentiment Widespread, projects a stage set for another rout at the polls on Nov. 7, as anti-incumbent poll numbers at this time are greater than in 1994, which swept Republican challengers into the majority of Congress.
The following voter's quote from the MSNBC article pretty much says it all, and repeats what Vote Out Incumbents Democracy has known since its inception in Oct. of 2005:
Across the park, Curtis Kelley, 62 and "mostly a Democrat," was down on the president and his opinion of lawmakers on Capitol Hill was almost as negative.
"I don't have any confidence in them either," Kelley said, as he worked at the dock on the park's 188-acre lake. But, he said, voters share some of the blame. "We don't hold them accountable."
The polls indicate, more voters than ever will be holding them accountable on Nov. 7.
Posted by David R. Remer at September 21, 2006 01:06 PMDavid,
You have convinced me. I voted against Clinton in the primary in favor of Tassini.
I had hoped more than 18% of New York Democrats would have joined me. It still felt good to write her and tell her I voted for her last time but had no intention of voting for her in November due to her lack of stance on so many issues and support for the war. She has continuously put her career in front of New Yorkers needs and has demonstrated her willingness to stand back and not confront on Democrats behalf so that she can increase her appeal in 06 and possibly 08.
We have more than enough “do nothing” elected officials in Washington. I’m not helping her keep her place in line.
Andre’, exactly the proper reasoning. When politicians put politics first, and the issues and needs of the nation second, third or last, voting against them by voting for a challenger, is the only sensible, responsible, and dutiful course of action for a voter to take.
Bravo! Andre’. Bravo!
Things to hold incumbents accountable for:
- Porous borders 5 years after 9/11 leaving us all vulnerable.
- National Debt grown far beyond the cost of Katrina and the invasion of Afghanistan and war on terror.
- Health care costs spiraling out of control
- Job growth numbers filled by illegal foreign nationals
- Net export of good paying American jobs
- Ever spiraling costs of education
- Billions of tax dollar lease subsidies to oil companies making the highest profits of their entire history
- Total and complete neglect of the issue surrounding 192,000 Americans dying of malpractice in our hospitals each year
- Turning violent criminals out of our prisons to make room for drug users
- Insider trading on the stock markets by politicians making trades based on forehand knowledge in Committee of what legislation is forthcoming and going to pass
- Selling of Congressional votes to lobbyists and wealthy campaign donors.
Care to add some more?
Bah…
These “Anti-incumbents” generally sound like the typical American Voter who doesn’t have a clue in the first place. Rather than developing a sound philosophy and demonstrating a grasp of the issues with which to accurately judge our politicians, the anti-incumbents often strike me as whining naysayers, who perpetuate a cycle of political futility as they then vote for different, but equally inept politicians….ironically, the next generation of incumbents.
“Mostly a Democrat”?
Although the 2 parties have morphed into a single, self-preserving tyranny, the actual core philosophies are so polarized that no reasoned, educated voter could claim to be “Mostly” one or the other.
Political Football..pick a team and root for it I suppose!
Posted by: Matt at September 21, 2006 04:05 PMMatt, the anti-incumbents have a wisdom your comment appears to lack. The anti-incumbent vote is the power our Constitution provides the people to control their elected representatives and process of government. The anti-incumbent vote is one by voters who recognize Government is not living up to its responsibilities and tasks set before it.
Matt’s comments seem to suggest that he doesn’t mind if his inevitable hospital stay will carry a risk of death many, many thousands of times greater than that of being killed by a terrorist.
Matt’s comments seem to suggest that there is no limit to our national debt, until there is, at which point it will be the kids of all those stupid parents who decided to have them to worry about it.
Matt’s comments suggest their is no merit to the issues I raise above which voters feel give them reason to vote anti-incumbent.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 21, 2006 05:02 PMSeems, David, that you’re assuming here that the “anti-incumbents” share your political views. Some undoubtedly do, but others certainly don’t, so it’s never as simple as just voting against incumbents.
Voters are anti-incumbent for a variety of mutually exlusive reasons. The reason that elected officials don’t address the problems you name is that VOTERS themselves don’t agree on how to address them, and in many cases think that we should do nothing at all about these issues or the exact opposite of what you think.
Some think we spend too much. Others think we spend too little. Some think that hospitals are overregulated as it is, and others think they’re underregulated.
What would you do if an oil company lobbyist is running against your congressman because he wants the power to deregulate the oil industry, drill in Alaska, and give additional government handouts to the oil companies? What if your congressman is steadfastly against all of these things? Do you vote for the oil lobbyist because he’s not the incumbent? At a certain point, just being anti-incumbent makes no sense.
Posted by: Pilsner at September 21, 2006 09:10 PMI’m sorry David, but I agree with Matt
Everyone with the courage to run for office seems to be “incumbent in waiting” or they learn what it’s really like when they get there or something…
I evaluate incumbents by what they try to do. It seems that as time goes on, they get discouraged.
Christine
Posted by: Christine at September 21, 2006 09:46 PMAnother thing is that the majority of those running against incumbents are themselves also incumbents in different positions or former incumbents.
You’ve got former governors running for the senate and vice versa, state congressmen running for national congress, former high level government appointees running for elected office, and on and on.
Seems the only sane thing to do is be an informed voter, vote for those who share your views, incumbent or not, and hope for the best.
One of the major problems we face today is a congress that is non-responsive to the needs of the people. Because we dont have any way of stopping the election fraud, corporatist buying elections, lobbyist with to much influence and dismal performance by those currently in power a necessary first step is to clean house and put those entering the congress on notice. David I am with you on this one.
Posted by: j2t2 at September 22, 2006 12:21 AMI think the anti-incumbent vote will send a stronger message than some may think. Although the incumbent may still win, the percentages will matter. Pollsters, party statisticians, and the winner (and losers) teams will go over the results very carefully. Here in Tampa, we had a stromgly conservative person win the primary in what should have been a rout. She only received 49 percent. And they are worried now, because she could lose, despite overwhelming name recognition. So a protest vote could send a very clear message to the winner and affect their performance in their job.
Posted by: synecdoche at September 22, 2006 02:43 AMPilsner said: “Some think we spend too much. Others think we spend too little. Some think that hospitals are overregulated as it is, and others think they’re underregulated.”
Framed just like a Democrat or Republican politician would frame it. That is why you and they are out of touch with the American public. Because that is not the issue at all. The issue is 192,000 Americans dying in hospitals directly from malpractice. That is the issue. And voters would like to see that number drop to maybe 192 per year instead of 192,000.
Examine the causes, and fix it. That is what voters want.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2006 04:01 AMChristine, you mistake incumbents for holding them responsible for good governance. Incumbents are not by defintion bad for America. They are bad for America just now, since they have allowed politics to supercede the nation’s and the people’s right to good, honest, transparent, accountable, and responsible governance.
The anti-incumbent vote is the means to an end, not an end of itself. The anti-incumbent vote is the means to force those who replace incumbents dropping like flies at election time, to put the nation and the people’s interests ahead of their own, ahead of their campaign donors, ahead of their future multi-million dollar lockboxes as lobbyists, and ahead of their party’s partisan belief that doing nothing is better than doing anything the opposition wants.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2006 04:07 AMsynecdoche understands the power of the anti-incumbent vote!
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2006 04:09 AMDavid:
I found the following excerpt in an article this morning. It talks of how Congressional approval ratings are down, but won’t matter since 90% of incumbents will be elected anyway. Now, I’m truly with you in hoping that doesn’t happen, but I’m asking ahead of time this question: If it does happen, what does that portend for VOID?
“Yesterday, the New York Times offered an analysis of their most recent poll — asserting that Congress’ horrible marks are signs of major trouble for Republicans.
The implication of the poll is that it reflects an anti-incumbency feeling — and a very great one at that. However, we can rest assured that 90% of incumbents will be reelected in November. Accordingly, the fact that so many people (a) are voicing disapproval of Congress and (b) will eventually vote for their member anyway is a sign that whatever phenomenon it is picking up is not, in itself, necessarily actionable. At the most, we can only conclude that congressional job approval sets up some kind of context for a vote against the incumbent. This begs the question: are the other factors there, and to what extent are they there? That is what really matters.”
I hope voters act to get rid of some of the incumbents. I think the gerrymandering of districts won’t allow that to happen. But I hope it does.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 22, 2006 08:25 AMj2t2:
“One of the major problems we face today is a congress that is non-responsive to the needs of the people. Because we dont have any way of stopping the election fraud, corporatist buying elections, lobbyist with to much influence and dismal performance by those currently in power a necessary first step is to clean house and put those entering the congress on notice.”
And there is the irony. We will never clean house when our votes can be manipulated, changed or flipped on electronic voting machines and/or optical scanners.
The powers that be, being non-reponsive to the people, and who are instead to responsive to the corporations and the lobbyists, has lead us to the point where no matter what we try to do with our vote, they can change it at will to empower and benefit those entities.
Please, wake up my friends and fellow citizens! We The People really don’t matter any longer — and we haven’t for a long time now. If we want anything to change, we have to first fix the problems with our elections.
Adrienne:
I don’t see fraud as the biggest issue here. I think its gerrymandering, through which the incumbents cement their positions. By doing so in a legal manner, they don’t need to resort to cheating. The outcome is the same, but there is less risk in it, because the voters feel that their votes have been cast fairly.
Problem is that due to gerrymandering, the incumbent starts the race with a huge headstart. Only in a few races is the incumbent so bad or the challenger so good that the pre-race headstart can be overcome.
Let’s say we have a voting system that all agree is 100% fail-safe. My statement is that the system would still be “rigged” in favor of the incumbents and nothing would have changed.
That said, we need to have a voting system that we can trust. I have no problem with creating a system that works, but I don’t see the widespread fraud that some attest to. We can agree, though, that we need a system we can trust—-whatever it may look like.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 22, 2006 11:22 AMjoe, I agree that gerrymandering is a big problem also.
But go down one article in this column and read the latest article regarding electronic voting machines. Between the two problems, it’s crystal clear that we no longer live in a country by, and for the People.
JBOD AND ADRIENNE:
A system we can trust, to be sure. But the jokers we vote for have to be people we can trust as well.
I’m a recovering Republican. My eyes are open and so is my mind. I am liking a particular candidate who, unfortunately, does not stand much of a chance to win. Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. I am perhaps a bit biased in that I am from Wisconsin, but Russ’ record stands on it own. I really think he is the kind of elected official we need more of. He is not afraid to fight party leadership, take a “maverick” stand, fight popular opinion (the war at it inception), or stand nose to nose with Republicans. He can be equally cooperative with people from either side of the political aisle on issues of need.
I don’t agree with him in every respect. But I do respect the fact that he is among a very few in Washington who have a back bone and the cajones to use it.
Posted by: Chi Chi at September 22, 2006 11:51 AMChi Chi,
I’m with you 100%, believe me! I’ve been singing Senator Feingold’s praises for a long time now in this blog. I’m hoping he runs for president — and I’d be more than willing work my tail off to help get him elected. For all the reasons you’ve listed, and plenty more, I think he’s exactly the kind of leader this country desperately needs.
JBOD asked: “If it does happen, what does that portend for VOID?”
My reply is: “The anti-incumbent vote is the power our Constitution provides the people to control their elected representatives and process of government.”
Unless they rewrite the Constitution to eliminate elections, it will remain true, and therefore, VOID’s mission will remain, and remain the same. To educate, motivate, and organize voters disenchanted with government and/or the politicians who run it. A much larger effort to solicit funds will be in the cards however. The polls show the sentiment is out there, but, our reach to organize as a newly formed PAC is limited this election cycle. 2008 will find VOID far more powerful and with a much wider national reach. We spent half this year just complying with government regulations and bureacracy. The biggest share of that is now behind us. Outreach is where our efforts and time will be focused from this point forward.
The Gerrymandering is a major obstacle. But, the frustration of the anti-incumbent sentiment through no change in incumbency election rate this November, will serve to motivate voters to act differently in the next election cycle.
All politics boils down to one vote. Yours. If you don’t vote differently, why would the next person? If you will vote differently, then the next person will also be far more likely to do the same. That is the nature of statistical group behavior. If one person doesn’t, the group cannot. If one person does, the group can. The group here refering to voters disappointed by the results of government and, or, its office holders.
All politics boils down to one vote. Yours, or mine, or his, or hers. One must act before many will. That is Vote Out Incumbents Democracy’s role.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2006 01:55 PMAdrienne and Chi Chi, count me in too on the Feingold respect wagon. I have contributed to his campaign in the past and will do so again if he keeps to his principles and clear headed thinking about government reform.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2006 01:59 PMDavid:
Thanks for your answer. While I sometimes question whether your mood strikes the proper balance between optimism and pessimism, I never have questioned your love of country and committment to improve it.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 22, 2006 02:08 PMYup! I have up and down days. But, the mission remains the same! On my up days, I appeal to one audience. On my down days I appeal to another. Might as well make this roller coaster ride called life count for something, eh?
In every life there so much to be done, and so little time to make a positive difference. Some look at the little time and ask, what’s the point? A few look at their little time, and ask, What am I waiting for?
I respect immensely your role as constructive nemesis, prodding me and others to reevaluate, and course correct even, from time to time. You’re a very bright and intelligent person JBOD, with a keen ability to question underlying assumptions and premises. That makes you a worthy debater, and a role model for WB and its purpose.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2006 02:19 PMDavid:
Shuuuut uuuupppp!! I can only imagine what dear Adrienne will think if she reads this. She’ll be forced to assume that I’ve paid you for such kind words, being that I’m part of the vast right-wing conspiracy (By the way, the check is going in the mail…. right after I finish the one to Diebold for fixing those pesky elections). :)
Seriously, thank you.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 22, 2006 02:57 PM“I can only imagine what dear Adrienne will think if she reads this.”
She thinks this is an outrageous statement:
“While I sometimes question whether your mood strikes the proper balance between optimism and pessimism, I never have questioned your love of country and committment to improve it.”
Because David Remer doesn’t have to prove to anyone whether his moods strike the “proper balance.” His moods are his to have, and his intelligence shines through in all of them.
And no one on this blog deserves to have their love or committment, or wish to improve our country questioned. Just the fact that we come here day after day to discuss American policies, both foreign and domestic, should speak for itself.
Adrienne:
Thank you too. And I agree with you that no one’s committment to improving our country should be questioned (with the exception of those who straightforwardly call for its demise, and there are few of those), which is why I stated that I’ve never questioned David on that issue.
The other issue that you consider so outrageous is part of a conversation David and I have engaged in in a different thread. You probably didn’t see it, so the context of my statement may have been foreign to you.
But nice to see that you have as high a praise for David as I do. Considering that you come from a different political ideology than I do, and that we both have praise for David, I’d say that says a lot for the estimable Mr. Remer!
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 22, 2006 04:47 PMPilsner said: “Some think we spend too much. Others think we spend too little. Some think that hospitals are overregulated as it is, and others think they�re underregulated.”Framed just like a Democrat or Republican politician would frame it. That is why you and they are out of touch with the American public. Because that is not the issue at all. The issue is 192,000 Americans dying in hospitals directly from malpractice. That is the issue. And voters would like to see that number drop to maybe 192 per year instead of 192,000.
This response makes no sense to me. Obviously, unnecessary deaths is the “issue,” but equally obvious is that if you’re looking to new political leaders for a solution, you’re talking about creating new regulations and/procedures for hospitals and medical personnel.
And there’s the rub. There is vast disagreement about how to address such a problem; it’s not as though there’s some easy politically-based solution staring us all in the face. The danger is that in trying to solve one problem, you create others.
To continue with this example, if you increase malpractice sanctions, you risk making healthcare less affordable and less therefore less accessible, thereby lowering the overall quality of healthcare. If you DISAGREE that this is a risk or believe that risk can be managed, then you’re still making my point. In that case, you hold a view on policy that not everyone else agrees with and you’re gonna have to duke it out in the arena of policy. Just blindly voting anti-incumbent ain’t gonna deliver the goods.
Simply pointing out problems is not the same thing as solving problems. Solving problems requires policy solutions, which requires making hard choices, which means seeking out and supporting those candidates that hold your views—whether those views are held by incumbents or non-incumbents.
There’s something very simplistic and naive in this attitude that real life problems can be solved with a political silver-bullets, and that political stalemates are the sole fault of politicans instead of the divided and competing interests represented by the voters themselves.
Weary Willie, when I questioned whether a new Constitution was in our future and ventured some thoughts to pass on to my daughter in that event. It would be helpful if got your facts straight and presented them accurately.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2006 06:57 PMJBOD and Adrienne, thanks and shucks!
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2006 06:58 PM“JBOD and Adrienne, thanks and shucks!”
Now get back to work, dammit—there’s a country to be saved.:-)
Posted by: Tim Crow at September 22, 2006 07:01 PMPilsner said: “This response makes no sense to me. Obviously, unnecessary deaths is the “issue,” but equally obvious is that if you’re looking to new political leaders for a solution, you’re talking about creating new regulations and/procedures for hospitals and medical personnel.”
Let’s dissect your last sentence. “if you’re looking to new political leaders for a solution”. Let’s see, the problems lie within the adminstrators, physicians, and nursing staff, as well as the physical premises of the hospitals themselves. That too is obvious. So, If NOT political leaders, who should the public look to for a solution. Certainly not the Hospital Staff, they are part of the problem and not objective about their own job performance. The Public itself is lost on the word acetimninophen, so the public cannot look to itself. Many survivors look to the courts after losing a loved one to malpractice, but, that is not preventative or prophylactic in terms of the high growing volume of malpractice.
So, give me an objective answer to the “if” in your statement. If not political leaders, who should the public look to? Without a viable response to this question, the choices are to accept such losses or, look to political leaders to seek an investigation as to the causal behaviors and hospital characteristics and force their correction should voluntary correction not immediately commence.
But if the public wants a legitimate investigation, the panel conducting the investigation must not have prejudiced interests toward or against the hospital system. That would mean demanding that those politicians who have received substantial campaign or party donations from, or been heavily lobbied by the various medical lobbyists, should not be conducting the investigation. Nor should the investigation panel of Congress have lost a loved one to malpractice in a hospital.
And there’s the rub. The Congress has the power and ability to conduct hearings and come to impartial conclusions as to the causes of rampant and lethal malpractice, but, how likely is it that the bill that would come out of that investigation would not be heavily influenced and reshaped by the politicians in the hip pocket of the medical industry? For the purpose of correcting the problem, our politicians will quickly alter the issue from being malpractice deaths in hospitals to many others such as rising costs of health care, the effect on government entitlement spending, the potential effect of reducing through prosecution or injunction health care practitioners responsible for malpractice in fields already experiencing a shortage of personnel.
Voila! The issue is no longer the deaths and their prevention. Politicians morph the issue into all manner of others. It does not have to be this way, and it definitely should not be this way. The only way voters are going to get responsibility out of Congress is if they demand it and results in exchange for their vote for incumbent. If, absent positive results and responsibility for preserving the issue, incumbents fail to get reelected, it very logical and historically safe to presume that the next lot of politicians who will also want to seek reelection, will make responsibility and preserving the integrity of voter’s issues one of their top priorities in order to be reelected.
That is the power of the anti-incumbent vote in the hands of the people, should they choose to exercise that power.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2006 07:26 PMWeary Willie, the power of the government to tax, is not the heart of the problem. Do away with the 16th Amendment, and you immediately destroy the fabric that holds our current system good and bad, together. Anarchy is no prescription for improvement, nor is reinventing the wheel which contains incredible opportunity costs.
And finally, until the Constitution Party or one with a similar agenda, grows large enough to threaten the Republocrats, repeal of the 16th amendment is a dream without hope. What are you going to do today to improve the situation? What are you going to do with the rest of your time in this life to improve the situation? Don Quixote was noble indeed in his dreams, but not a windmill was halted from turning in the wind.
The reality is: More than 90% of Americans believe in federal government and paying federal income taxes. More than 60% believe politicians are not making the best use of those monies. The reality is, we must address the politicians. They are the source of frustration and disappointment felt by voters, not federal taxes in and of themselves.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2006 07:36 PMAnd there’s the rub. The Congress has the power and ability to conduct hearings and come to impartial conclusions as to the causes of rampant and lethal malpractice, but, how likely is it that the bill that would come out of that investigation would not be heavily influenced and reshaped by the politicians in the hip pocket of the medical industry?
Again, I think this is being grossly oversimplified.
It’s not just the interests of the medical industry that have to be dealt with here and overcome—though I personally don’t think that those interests are totally illigimate.
There are also the trial lawyers. So now we’ve got trial lawyers vs. the medical industry. But wait! That’s not all. You’ve got the demands of consumers, of researchers, insurance companies, the unique needs and problems of literally thousands of city, county and state governments. You’ve got patients who are hypocondriacs on one hand (and who demand every experimental and/or expensive procedure possible), and on the other you have people who don’t seek the medical treatment available to them. All of these people have competing and sometimes contradictory interests.
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not disagreeing with you that there’s a problem here. What I’m saying is that the reason quick solutions aren’t forthcoming is that THERE IS NO PUBLIC CONSENSUS about what to do, and new politicians alone isn’t going to change this dynamic.
But what makes no sense to me still is how you can say that absolutely everybody—including the public—is completely unable to solve such problems, but somehow still think that a bunch of as of yet unnamed politicians are going to do it. Who are these superheros?
Won’t the public, who you already consider too ignorant to make these decisions, going to have to first demand and then AGREE to any solution anyway? We don’t live in a place like Cuba where we just assume that Big Brother knows best. Or to put it differently, that unelected politicians know best simply because they are unelected politicians.
Posted by: Pilsner at September 22, 2006 08:37 PMPilsner said: “There are also the trial lawyers.”
BUll Crap. Lawyers don’t kill people in the hospitals. They also don’t conduct the surveys which produce the 192,000 dead each year statistic.
Lawyers have nothing to do with Congress addressing this issue, which so far, they have not been want to do.
The public lacks the knowledge and authority to address this problem. Congress has the authority and can acquire the knowledge if they so choose. So far, they haven’t chosen to.
Let’s assume we reduce that 192,000 down to 100,000 by eliminating all the extraneous causal factors, (remember we are talking DEATH by wrong procedure, medication, or patient, here). That is still in the last 5 years, that is still 160 times the number of people who have died from terrorist attacks in the U.S. (or 16000 percent more).
If our government is willing to spend 5 years and over a trillion dollars on preventing another 3000 deaths, how does it make sense they are not willing to even look into the problem of 160 times that number of preventable deaths over the same period?
Answer: This is a congress which has lost its capacity to prioritize and deal with America’s problems. Malpractice deaths should be considered negligent homicide. They are in fact under our laws. But, our laws are not being applied fairly and equally as is Constitutionally required.
If I accidentally reach for map on my car seat and veer off and kill a pedestrian, I am guilty of negligent homicide with a vehicle. So, why hasn’t a single medical practioner been put behind bars in the last year for medical malpractice when 192 thousand such deaths have occcured?
Congress and our law enforcement systems are broke due to incompetence, lack of responsible priorities, and gross mismangement. Let’s stop putting Willie Nelson in jail for pulling his vehicle safely off the road and sleeping off a marijuana high, and start keeping violent offenders from having to be released early and start applying criminal justice to medical mal-practitioners.
BTW, the large percentage of those medical malpractice deaths involve a small set of hospitals and the same repeat medical malpractice personnel. But, when incumbents get reelected regardless of how bad our government’s results are, the people lose, up to and including their very lives at the hands of such neglect and misappropriation of government time, priorities, and funds.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2006 09:36 PMDavid:
“JBOD and Adrienne, thanks and shucks!”
You’re welcome. Now, do me a favor and go read that article I put up in the “HAVA Problems with Electronic Voting” thread below, and make a comment so that the most important issue surrounding our democracy doesn’t stand forever at a lousy six replies, when I was hoping for at least a lucky seven… :^/
Tim Crow:
“Now get back to work, dammit—there’s a country to be saved.:-)”
Nice J. Jonah Jameson impression! I’m assuming you watched Spiderman cartoons when you were a kid? :^)
Posted by: Adrienne at September 22, 2006 09:42 PMAdrienne, I did comment there, demonstrating that this election is already being hacked via the appearance of lack of preparedness and incompetence.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2006 09:48 PMAdrienne,
I agree that we the people dont seem to matter much to our representatives in the Congress. New blood in Congress would be a good step, one of many needed but a good step. I also beleive we should have elections every year. Our elected officials would constantly have to pander to the voters and not to the corporatist and their lackeys. Oil prices would stay down, more job opening would be created, the stock market would trend up more often, all because its a constant election cycle. Contant turnover would keep the lobbyist from developing bonds with those sent to represent us. If we added “free speech zones” for the lobbyist it would only get better.
“Nice J. Jonah Jameson impression! I’m assuming you watched Spiderman cartoons when you were a kid? :^)”
I was never a kid—I was born an adult in full body armor out of my mother’s forehead.
Which explains the periodic outbursts I’m prone to, from the splitting headaches.
Posted by: Tim Crow at September 22, 2006 10:03 PMDavid, you are completely missing the point that I seem to not be getting across here.
I’m not saying that trial lawyers are responsible for medical malpractice in any way. But do YOU want to say that trial lawyers don’t have an interest in the subject of medical malpractice and try to influence legislation accordingly? What I AM saying is that if you want to institute reform of medicine, you’re going to have to juggle the conflicting interests of many different groups who have an interest in this matter, including trial lawyers, doctors, coporations, state, federal and local goverments, AND patients.
My point is that this is HARD stuff, and everybody’s interests have to be looked after to make the system work at all. Cut out the interests of doctors, insurance companies, lawyers, medical researchers OR patients in favor of just one group, and you’ll make a troubled system even worse. That’s what I’m saying.
What you seem to be saying, as best as I can understand it, is that there’s a panacea: just elect non-incumbents to office and they’ll just break through the log-jam like magic. As easy as sprinkling fairy dust. Now THAT is “Bull crap.”
Just out of curiosity, David, who DOES do this survey which says that 192,000 people die each year from medical malpractice?
I tried googling it, and the only source I could find naming such a large number was one David Remer who posts on a site called “Watchblog.” Perhaps I’m not looking in the right place, but would love to see a source somewhere on the net beside you.
I saw speculated numbers around what you mention for “potentially preventable medical errors,” but a first year law student could tell you that a potential medical error is not the same thing at all as malpractice.
If this is all you’re talking about, you’re simply way off base with your “malpractice” numbers. And further, there’s not a legal or political formula in the world that can eliminate “potential human error” from medicine. Or any profession, for that matter, including yours and mine.
I’ve had everybody from plumbers to auto mechanics to exterminators make errors which they “potentially” could have avoided and saved me a lot of trouble and expense. But, in some cases, their mistakes were understandable considering all the circumstances and data they had to go on, and none of them were dealing with something as complex as the human body. Not every mistake is an actionable offense. In fact, not every mistake is even the result of incompetence. In hindsight, there would be no mistakes in life at all and all errors are “potentially avoidable.” No politician or law is going to make the world perfect.
Posted by: Pilsner at September 22, 2006 10:19 PMMatt,
You’re in for some surprises in the 2006 and 2008 elections. And, even if most Americans are still too complacent in 2006 and 2008, it’s only a matter of time before the massive irresponsibility of incumbent politicians finally becomes apparent to a majority of the U.S. population. Why? Because they will have a good teacher. It is called “pain and misery”.
- Stop Repeat Offenders.
- Don’t Re-Elect Irresponsible, Bought-and-Paid-for Incumbent Politicians !
D.a.n., the only “pain and misery” I see is that being suffered by America’s out-of-power socialists, pacifists, and media.
For the rest of us, the economy’s booming, interest rates and unemployment is low, unemployment is low, gas prices are falling, and we’re feeling pretty darn good. We’re feeling so good, in fact, that the “pain and misery” of our political opponents is worse than ever!
Posted by: Pilsner at September 23, 2006 12:20 AMSee D.a.n, Pilsner is the kind of voter I talk about alot. A snapshot in time which supports their political team is all the information they want, no other information need apply. These are the folks who make up the cheerleading section of loyalist partisans to the Dem and Rep parties. They are the problem and haven’t the slightest desire to become part of the solution. They have theirs, that’s all that counts.
Parents however, look to their children’s futures when they vote, and a snapshot today does no justice to their future with the national debt doubling, safety nets due to collapse, and the 800 lb. gorilla in the middle of the 21st century called China, not to mention the former Eastern European block countries and many Pacific Rim nations including India which are poised to make the U.S. a debtor second world nation. But, screw the future, I have mine.
Pilsner has no interest in the polls either dismissing them for an “everything looks great” scenario. But, that also means voters like Pilsner will be blindsided and unprepared to deal with some real facts like the rapidly growing Independent voter roles and diminishing Republocrat loyalists.
Pilsner’s comments reflect no desire to do a google search for facts - his comments present all the “facts” he needs to make his point.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2006 02:18 AMPilsner, here are some quotes from the very first page of listings in a google search on the topic. If you want the facts, look them up. Or you can pay me and I will get the links for you.
Each year many Americans die as a result of medical errors. According to an Institute of Medicine report, between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans die in hospitals each year due to medical errors and the annual cost to society for such errors ranges from $17 to $29 billion. These figures only take into account hospital deaths. Medical errors can and do occur in every setting where health care is administered: in doctors’ offices, hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, and patients’ homes. Further, according to the Institute of Medicine, more people die from medical mistakes each year than from highway accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS.
No one really knows how many people are injured or killed as the result of medical error because no government agency, state or federal, tracks them. And while the American Medical Association and federal and state health agencies are trying to reduce the number of medical errors, it seems the medical profession finds it hard to police itself.
—————
Here is another from the 1st page of google listings.
An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company.
The HealthGrades Patient Safety in American Hospitals study is the first to look at the mortality and economic impact of medical errors and injuries that occurred during Medicare hospital admissions nationwide from 2000 to 2002. The HealthGrades study applied the mortality and economic impact models developed by Dr. Chunliu Zhan and Dr. Marlene R. Miller in a research study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in October of 2003. The Zhan and Miller study supported the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) 1999 report conclusion, which found that medical errors caused up to 98,000 deaths annually and should be considered a national epidemic.
————
And one more dispelling the myth of lawsuits and medical malpractice.
A long-awaited study of malpractice in New York hospitals, perhaps the most comprehensive ever conducted in the United States, concludes that thousands of hospital deaths and tens of thousands of injuries are tied to negligence each year but that relatively few victims seek recourse in the courts.Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2006 02:22 AM
A long-awaited study of malpractice in New York hospitals, perhaps the most comprehensive ever conducted in the United States, concludes that thousands of hospital deaths and tens of thousands of injuries are tied to negligence each year but that relatively few victims seek recourse in the courts.
Pilsner,
Things are good, eh?
Hmmmm … well, things are much better here than some places.
But, things could (and should) be much better.
And, many things are worsening.
But, to see the real picture, you have to look closely at the big picture.
A few cherry-picked economic indicators are not even remotely convincing.
Have you not noticed:
- rising foreclosures for over a year ?
- falling median wages for the last 6 years ?
- increasingly unaffordable healthcare ?
- 6 cases per day of eminent domain-abuse (supported by the Supreme Court)?
- increasing inflation ?
- the $8.5 trillion National Debt ?
- the $12.8 trillion Social Security debt ?
- the PBGC $450 billion in the hole ?
- the massive unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Medicaid ?
- energy vulnerability ?
- the U.S. (a mere 4.5% of the world population emitting 28% of all CO2 ?
- increasingly unaffordable health insurance ?
- 83% of all money from political campaign contributions come from a mere 1% of the U.S. population. How is that fair to the remaining 99% of the U.S. citizens? Our government is FOR-SALE. Incumbent politicians are bought-and-paid-for. But, we keep re-electing them ! ? ?
- worsening civil war in Iraq ?
- etc., etc., etc. ?
Not even most optimists would taint their own credibility by trying to paint things as rosy as:
- “we’re feeling pretty darn good”,
- “We’re feeling so good…”,
- “the economy is booming”
That is not reality.
And, who is “We” ? that are feeling “so good”?
As for the booming economy, anybody can provide the illusion of prosperity while maxing out their credit and running up massive debt. That massive debt will eventually have serious consequences.
It is interesting and revealing that most rose-colored conclusions come from the rose-colored column (i.e. the current “IN-Party”). But, it is not just a Republican affliction. The “IN-Party” always wants to believe things are rosy while they have the majority.
That is reality.
Pilsner,
Your statements …
- the only “pain and misery” I see is that being suffered by America’s out-of-power socialists, pacifists, and media.
- We’re feeling so good, in fact, that the “pain and misery” of our political opponents is worse than ever!
… reveal a clear partisan motivation indicative of many that have also been seduced into wallowing in the blinding, distracting partisan warfare that prevents voters from seeing reality. I also used to wallow in that same sort of petty partisan warfare (not too long ago), but it finally become too difficult trying to rationalize and explain the blunders, irresponsibility, incompetence, and corruption. It is much easier to see reality when one is not blinded by petty partisan warfare (which irresponsible incumbent politicians love to fuel because it is a wonderful distraction). Of course, some are all too fond of wallowing in the petty partisan warfare, instead of choosing reality. The partisan warfare is a powerfully effective detractor.
Pilsner,
Let me guess. You see the current Republican majority as a good thing. Well, you may be very dissappointed in the coming 2006 and 2008 elections, because the tiny lead Republicans have had for a few years is quite likely to dissappear. That’s probably a good thing, despite being a Republican, myself, until about 2 years ago.
But, the real problem is NOT with parties. The real problem is too many irresponsible incumbent politicians of BOTH parties.
So, those few cherry picked economic statistics are vastly overshadowed by massive debt, borrowing, spending, money-printing), huge foreign trade imbalances, corporatism and corpocrisy, a shrinking middle-income-class, $42 trillion in nation-wide debt, an increasingly FOR-SALE and corrupt government, selective enforcement of the laws (e.g. illegal immigration, politicians above the law (like the 140 felons pardoned by Clinton), 6 cases per day of eminent domain abuse, etc.), starting wars based on extremely irresponsible and flawed intelligence (not to mention, “Mission Accomplished”, “last throws”, “dead enders”, “troops will be greeted with flowers”, “pay for it with Iraqi oil”, etc., etc., etc.).
Even the most optimistic would say “Yes, we have some serious problems, and should be addressed as soon as possible”.
That is realistic and responsible.
But the statements:
- “we’re feeling pretty darn good”,
- “We’re feeling so good…”,
- “the economy is booming”
- the only “pain and misery” I see is that being suffered by America’s out-of-power socialists, pacifists, and media.
- We’re feeling so good, in fact, that the “pain and misery” of our political opponents is worse than ever!
… don’t seem realistic or credible.
Instead, they seem suspiciously partisan motivated.
- Stop Repeat Offenders.
- Don’t Re-Elect Irresponsible, Bought-and-Paid-for Incumbent Politicians !
Don’t just lazily pull the party lever (i.e. straight ticket).
Remember, there is a correlation between the decline of the nation and the 90% re-election rate of incumbent politicians. Most (if not all) are irresponsible, FOR-SALE, vote on pork-barrel, graft, waste, corporate welfare, carry the water for their big-money-donor-puppeters, and look the other way. New comers to congress are always out-numbered by too many corrupt, irresponsible incumbent politicians. Voters need to understand that newcomers can never pass any badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms while there are always so many incumbents that will never allow any reforms of any kind that may reduce their power or the security of their cu$hy, coveted seats of power.
Pilsner’s comments reflect no desire to do a google search for facts - his comments present all the “facts” he needs to make his point.
Yes, it appears so. The few facts provided are the very same cherry-picked facts that seem to always originate from the current “IN-Party”.
But, I shouldn’t get up on my high-horse, having been there and done that same sort of thing before. However, some don’t mind getting all twisted and contorted trying to shape reality to fit any political party. Perhaps, it is because it is the lazy way?
At any rate, the partisan-warfare is a very powerful detractor. It is very effective at seducing and distracting voters. It mixes half-truths with lies and fuels hatred of anyone with a different belief, regardless of reality.
Too many Americans have not yet learned how to recognize and reject the petty partisan warfare that irresponsible incumbent politicians use to manipulate, control, and distract voters from truly substantive issues. Too many Americans are all too fond of wallowing in the petty bickering, and being seduced into less important issues (e.g. flag burning, wardrobe malfunctions, Martha Stewart, etc.), while much more important issues and more serious violations go unnoticed. Perhaps, it is because it is the lazy way?
Posted by: d.a.n at September 23, 2006 12:38 PMDan, I think it is more basic than lazy human nature. I think it is inherent in the Republic. The very concept of a Republic is one in which the voters elect politicians and leave investigation, oversight, and responsible decision-making to the politicians. The more the voters delegate these powers and responsibilities to the politicians, the more the politicians become self-serving.
The fallacy is that this is a democratic republic, and voters have lost awareness of the word democratic in front of republic. Because democratic means the voters have an active role in overseeing and holding responsible the republic’s politicians. A republic without a responsible, aware democratic voter base overseeing their actions devolves into rule by the elite, for the elite, over the citizenry.
And that is largely where we find ourselves today. Gerrymandering districts is blatantly a politician’s strategy to diminsh the ‘democratic’ portion of the republic.
Our founding fathers knew this democratic republic form of government was an experiment, and like all experiments, its success was anything but guaranteed. It is not difficult to argue that our 18th century experimental government served us well as both an agricultural and industrial society.
But, in a world far more complex than that of the founding fathers, with many times the people, politicians, and wealth, and interdependence on foreign nations, their people, governments, and economies, an informed consent of the electorate seems to be causing the experiment to fail as the electorate finds itself unable to stay informed on the host of issues before it.
The failing of this grand experiment in governance may not be irreversible, but, if restoring the efficacy of our democratic republic system is in the cards, it is education and motivation on the part of the voters that will be required. The first step is getting the voters to understand that the only check and balance of importance left in this system today is their vote, counted and recorded accurately, transparently, and accountably. When that is gone, so is our democratic republic as our founding fathers designed it.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2006 01:32 PMDavid R. Remer wrote: A republic without a responsible, aware democratic voter base overseeing their actions devolves into rule by the elite, for the elite, over the citizenry.Yep, no doubt about it, and the longer it goes on, the harder it will be to restore a balance of power between government and the people (and not merely shift power or strip all power from government to accomplish anything).
There is a definite trend there. Government is FOR-SALE, voters are being used and abused, and (for whatever reasons), re-electing the very same irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians that are doing it to them.
David R. Remer wrote: And that is largely where we find ourselves today. Gerrymandering districts is blatantly a politician’s strategy to diminsh the ‘democratic’ portion of the republic.And they are arrogantly above the law too, as evidenced by presidential pardons (such as the 140 felons pardoned by Clinton), $90K bribes found in Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-LA) refrigerator, Abramoff, Delay, countless examples of rule and law violations of campaign funds, etc. Even if ever convicted, they can get a pardon, or a reduced sentence and a few measely years at some Club-Med like prison. Some of these things have always existed, but they are growing. The growing number of eminent domain abuses (6 per day) is another sign. And, our worsening public education systems may also be part of the problem. Undoubtedly, a more ignorant electorate is not helping things either.
David R. Remer wrote: … it is education and motivation on the part of the voters that will be required.Yes, education is the key. The voters that are reachable, will only allow information “in” if they can see how ignoring it will certainly lead to their own pain and misery. Hopefully, enough will see what lays ahead and choose a better path. And, if they don’t learn before they have to suffer the consequences, they will learn after they suffer the consequences. Pain and misery is a good teacher. The danger though is that we are not invincible. If we keep crappin’ in our own nest long enough, the whole thing could irreversibly collapse, and (as you said above), “When that is gone, so is our democratic republic as our founding fathers designed it”.
P.S. After years of declining crime, did you hear that it is now on the rise again? Aside from these many other factors , that is not surprising. It may go hand-in-hand with the decline of the middle-income-class, and the growing ranks of the poor? Also, the g_a_p between the 1% of the U.S. population (with 40% of all wealth, and growing) and the remaining 99% of the U.S. population, has never been larger since the Great Depression of 1929.
Posted by: d.a.n at September 23, 2006 03:50 PMDavid, what is this “kind of voter” that you’re complaining about? That is “part of the problem” and not part of solution? One that disgrees with you?
One that points out, as I just did, when you’re just making stuff up to fit your agenda?
You were throwing around this statistic about 192,000 medical malpractice deaths a year —something you stated as if it were not only an unquestioned fact (something not at all supported by those quotes you offer, by the way) but something that could somehow be automaticaly and easily addressed by non-incumbent politiicans.
A first year law student, or for that matter a student in a freshman logic class, would immediatly realize that a “potentially preventable medical error” is not the same thing at all as malpractice, so conflating the numbers of potentially preventable errors (numbers which themselves are conjecture) with “malpractice” is either a major error or a willful distortion. An even more nuanced thinker would go on to ask what sort of regulatary or political scheme could possibly eliminate not only errors but “potential errors” in medicine.
What law is going to ensure, for instance, that doctors always diagnose a patient’s correctly in the first minutes of their arrival at a hospital and prescribe and then administer exactly the correct treament 100% of the time? Doctor always want to perform perfectly, but medicine is an art as much as a science, and only in hindsight can it ever be realized EXACTLY what would have, under perfect conditions, made the difference with any given patient—and even then you can’t always be sure. Malpractice is negligence—sometimes criminal negligence. Imperfection, however (errors or potential errors seen only in hindsight), is a built-in fact of medicine just as it is in every other profession and is not something that can easily be addressed with new laws.
Your failure to admit the flaw in an argument based on non-existent or unsubstantiated facts betrays the same blinkered agenda and political blinders you so loftily accuse others of. You are, I think, part of the problem yourself.
Posted by: Pilsner at September 23, 2006 04:45 PMMatt, the anti-incumbents have a wisdom your comment appears to lack. The anti-incumbent vote is the power our Constitution provides the people to control their elected representatives and process of government. The anti-incumbent vote is one by voters who recognize Government is not living up to its responsibilities and tasks set before it.Do they? While you, I and a select few may have a reasoned, defined, anti-incumbent philosophy, it certainly won’t be apparent through the link provided. Lets review a few comments: “They’re not doing their job,” “They don’t care.” “Somebody who cares for the working man,” “Maybe the Democrats do, or maybe they don’t.” “Typically, Americans have a really negative view of Congress but love their congressman,” “I don’t think you can just keep voting the same people in because they’ve been there.” I mean really, did they bother to interview a single solitary person who actually had anything substantive to say? The only telling quote in the article may be the one you’re least receptive to: “Typically, Americans have a really negative view of Congress but love their congressman.”
Matt’s comments seem to suggest that he doesn’t mind if his inevitable hospital stay will carry a risk of death many, many thousands of times greater than that of being killed by a terrorist.Not sure what the hell that has to do with incumbent politicians. it has more to do with GOVERNMENT in general creating a problem and then making it worse with ‘regulation’.
Matt’s comments seem to suggest that there is no limit to our national debt, until there is, at which point it will be the kids of all those stupid parents who decided to have them to worry about it.No. My comments suggest that the quotes in the link you provided suggest that Americans are politically ignorant, and rather than educating themselves about the economy and the historical failings of socialism, they will vote for the next Nader, Gore or Bush…some new, popular, and equally inept moron who will perpetuate the status quo.
Matt’s comments suggest their is no merit to the issues I raise above which voters feel give them reason to vote anti-incumbent.I share your conviction in MANY of those issues.
I simply suggest that the sentiment of those portrayed in the link provided gives great insight into exactly WHY this Anti-incumbent philosophy may fail…because it appeals to disgruntled masses, most of whom will perpetuate the 2 party problem, rather than the enlightened, creative and charasmatic difference-makers.
I admit, I HAVENT fully explored the VOID website, and I think I shall as you strike me as more enlightened and convicted than the mob…but I may be more of a realist than you…and a bit skeptical of Americas ability to resist the allure of the 2-party entitlement system.
Posted by: Matt Goldseth at September 23, 2006 07:35 PMMatt, you obviously are not poll reader. Much has been written about this year’s polls and the remarkable fact that more than 50% are considering voting THEIR OWN CONGRESSMAN out of office by seeking a challenger to vote for. There have already been a number of incumbent upsets in the primaries, by voters who were counted on to vote for their incumbent but didn’t.
There are Democrats running competitive races in Montana and Iowa - Now that is proof positive folks are NOT voting for their own incumbents, because in these states, a Democrat could never pull 35% of the vote on the best of elections past.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2006 11:10 PMPilsner asked: “That is “part of the problem” and not part of solution? One that disgrees with you?”
Not at all. Many anti-incumbent voters disagree with me on many issues. They are part of the solution to America’s governance problems. Reasonable people can disagree on how to solve almost any problem. They can, but, usually don’t and won’t unless they have another agenda other than solving the problem.
Our government is broken in so many ways and no one illustrates those ways better than D.a.n. But the voter who sticks to their incumbents regardless of how bad or broken governence gets, is part of the problem and not the solution. Voters who treat their political party like the home NFL team, standing by them win or lose, are part of the problem. Governance is not a team competitive sport where the goal is winning. Governance is about protecting, defending, and managing this nation and its Constitution and laws toward the goals of peace, security, prosperity, and liberty for all who are its citizens and seek not to deprive anyone else of their equal rights to purse their own lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Daunting concept that! Take it out for a spin, you might actually decide to trade in your old problem model for a solution model.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2006 11:22 PMMatt, you obviously are not poll reader. Much has been written about this year’s polls and the remarkable fact that more than 50% are considering voting THEIR OWN CONGRESSMAN out of office by seeking a challenger to vote for. There have already been a number of incumbent upsets in the primaries, by voters who were counted on to vote for their incumbent but didn’t.No, Im not a poll reader. The outcome of a poll is generally determined by the way its written…a poll is generally written to elicit a desired outcome. Most polls are bunkus and even when you find a well-written, objective poll, you see the fickle nature of the population. They say one thing in the midst of certain circumstance and do something entirely different.
And you’re pointing to Democrats running in GOP strongholds as “proof positive folks are NOT voting for their own incumbents.”
Thats been my point on this issue…the only thing worse than a Republican is a Democrat.
So vote out the incumbent by voting in another 2-party hack and we’ll chase the tail again next election.
This country isnt quite pissed off enough yet to vote for real change…politicians that stand for philosophical principles and liberty.
Maybe in 50-100 years when taxation has destroyed self-sufficiency.
or when self-reliant people finally say enough to the plunder of government entitlements
Or the immigration issue in the southwest gets violent.
But not yet
Posted by: Matt Goldseth at September 24, 2006 08:37 AMWell done, Matt. Discount any evidence that may contradict your point of view. Your perspective would have made a great officer material in WWII Germany’s Office of Propaganda.
You said: “And you’re pointing to Democrats running in GOP strongholds as “proof positive folks are NOT voting for their own incumbents.”
You really excel at this propaganda stuff. Nowhere did I say it was proof. It is evidence, not proof. But, that’s OK, your propagandist efforts to twist other’s words for your own purposes is still very blatant with little sophistication or effectiveness. Your propagandist skills are still in training. I understand.
Your view of the future is completely backwards. When the safety nets fail as a result of this Republican led era, the millions and millions of suffering and impoverished Americans and their families and friends will look to conservatives as the culprits. For it is the conservatives violating the contract established and paid for by the public to its government.
And what happens to the economy when 10’s of millions find their SS checks diminished and Medicare and Medicaid after paying for that insurance all their working lives? The losses in consumerism will devastate our service oriented import dependent economy. And that too will fall on conservative’s shoulders for that future is in the making today through Republicans rush to bankrupt these systems and further enrich the already elite. It’s common knowledge throughout the nation that Republicans are bankrupting our future. This is why the White House can’t convince the public that the economy is doing just fine. The White House wants folks to just look at today. The American people look to their children’s future and their own retirements and see the writing on the wall. It is getting a whole lot worse.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 24, 2006 02:34 PMWell done, Matt. Discount any evidence that may contradict your point of view. Your perspective would have made a great officer material in WWII Germany’s Office of Propaganda.OK, your tone has certainly become more hostile. Im not sure you’ve PROVIDED any evidence that contradicts my view. In fact, my whole perspective has been based on the idea that the “Anti-Incumbent” movement is a great idea in theory, but a cyclical failure in practice. I guess we’ll see in a couple months.
You said: “And you’re pointing to Democrats running in GOP strongholds as proof positive folks are NOT voting for their own incumbents.” You really excel at this propaganda stuff. Nowhere did I say it was proof. It is evidence, not proof.You’re words were exactly this: “There are Democrats running competitive races in Montana and Iowa - Now that is proof positive folks are NOT voting for their own incumbents, because in these states, a Democrat could never pull 35% of the vote on the best of elections past.”
Your view of the future is completely backwards. When the safety nets fail as a result of this Republican led era, the millions and millions of suffering and impoverished Americans and their families and friends will look to conservatives as the culprits. For it is the conservatives violating the contract established and paid for by the public to its government.To me that makes you sound like a liberal who simply doesnt like being identified as a liberal because they also failed us.
The suffering and impoverishment isn’t due to the GOP. They’ve done good and bad things for the economy, but certainly no worse than the liberal agendas that have been equally as destructive.
Not sure which anti-incumbents you’re trying to get voted in, but the incumbents who lose will likely be replaced by socialist leaning democrats who will sacrifice the health of economics in order to bribe Americans with entitlements to be funded by stealing from other Americans.
That doesnt sound like a healthy America to me.
And what happens to the economy when 10’s of millions find their SS checks diminished and Medicare and Medicaid after paying for that insurance all their working lives? The losses in consumerism will devastate our service oriented import dependent economy.Although well-versed in political rhetoric, you’re poorly versed in basic economics.
Those programs are inherently immoral in the first place and are doomed to fail by sheer weight of beuracracy which breeds entitlement at the expense of self-sufficiency. The funny thing is that the GOP even propped up this legal form of plunder by stealing more money from Americans to give old people drugs they didnt pay for.
Its unfortunate that so many fail to learn the lesson from repeated failures of socialist economics. Good intentions often have disastrous consequences in the end.
David…for the record, I dont disagree with your theory and I certainly dont intend my remarks to be taken personally. I play the role of contrarian and realist to get others to consider intentions AND consequences is all.
If I did make any personal remarks, I apologize.
Matt, none of your remarks appeared to be personal in nature. I just saw words and meanings attributed to my comment which I neither spoke, nor intended. I expect folks to read into my remarks what they will. That is the nature of communication and debate on its lower side.
Playing Devil’s advocate, if that is what you intended, is an effective technique for generating thinking and discussion. When it is not obvious however, it is easy to misinterpret motive and intent.
If I misread your intent, I apologize. While we all divine motives and intent from others remarks, I know that it is risky business to declare that one knows another’s motive and intents. To the extent I implied knowing yours, I apologize. I don’t, and couldn’t on the basis of only a small amount of writing on one or two issues.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 24, 2006 04:26 PMMatt, throwing the incumbents out, 5 or 10% of them every 10 to 16 years, is not going to change anything, other than perhaps which Republocrat party is in the majority for awhile.
You are right to question whether a sustained anti-incumbent sentiment over many election cycles can remove enough incumbents to put the fear of the voter deep into the hearts and minds of new and remaining incumbents. I question that myself.
But, it really is the only option open to voters dissatisfied with government and politician performance, short of revolution. So, working toward that end is the only rational course I can find available to those who wish to improve American politics and governance. Revolution is never rational until all other options have proven insufficient.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 24, 2006 04:32 PMRevolution is never rational until all other options have proven insufficient.I guess Im just waiting for the rest to admit the other options are failing. Doh!!! Posted by: Matt at September 24, 2006 06:45 PM
Matt, millions of Americans are working on many other options, third party and independent coalitions are a new phenomenon, Common Cause, and similar organizations are uniting voters around reform measures and hinting at, if not outright advocating for anti-incumbent voting.
All options have not yet been fully implemented and it is yet premature to say they are failing, since, the polls reflection of anti-incumbent sentiment has now surpassed that of even 1994 including a huge rise in those who say they would consider ousting their own incumbents.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 24, 2006 09:25 PMIts fair to say that Im a natural contrarian and perhaps too skeptical. It may also be fair to say that you’re a natural leader and perhaps too optimistic.
But I think my skepticism is justified when:
> More Americans watch “Dancing with the Stars” than the Presidential Address.
> Half of American chants, “Bush Lied, People Died”, while the other half insists we’re saving the Middle East.
> Government schools and politicians have convinced most Americans that we are a democracy, thereby perpetuating the mob rule, 2 party system.
>Americans of all parties seem unable to resist the allure of stealing from other citizens using politicians as the mediator in this endless political plundering.
I do think we really need to hit hard times again….to really experience pov3erty and oppression as a nation again, before people value the opportunity and blessings of liberty.
Being that states’ rights were destroyed when we began the popular election of Senators, I’d like to see a few states secede from the union.
Otherwise, I think some sort of civil unrest will happen in the next 100 years.
Posted by: Matt at September 25, 2006 12:09 PMMatt said: “I do think we really need to hit hard times again….to really experience pov3erty and oppression as a nation again, before people value the opportunity and blessings of liberty.”
It may come to that, Matt. But, we have a humanitarian and moral obligation to fight like heck to prevent that from happening. To hasten it, is be the problem, and not the solution.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2006 04:29 AMAGreed.
Sadly, libertarians like myself have beed reduced to the party of, “I told you so”.
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
