Third Party & Independents Archives

October 20, 2006

Republicans No More!

There is a wave of Republicans disavowing those in the White House and Congress leadership, saying they are Republicans no more. Some mean those in power are no more Republicans. Some mean they, themselves, are leaving the Republican Party.

Jack Cafferty photoJack Cafferty, a very conservative journalist and consultant for CNN aired a special last night entitled "Broken Government", in which he called for ousting all incumbents and starting over. Bravo!, Mr. Cafferty. Better late than never.

The Washington Post states in 'Moderates in Kansas Decide They're Not in GOP Anymore':

In a state that voted nearly 2 to 1 for President Bush in 2004, nine former Republicans will be on the November ballot as Democrats.

Whether it is cross dressing to ride the winds of change, or, a true conversion away from being Republican, it appears the polls are underestimating the slam dunk coming on Nov. 7. Of course, it doesn't help that the same GOP incumbents who are taking the fund raising from the White House speaking tour are at the same time distancing themselves from the White House in their campaign literature and debates. The hypocrisy of it all is not lost on voters.

MSNBC reported in September that Evangelical Hispanics are turning away from the GOP. And they may not be the only ones. One PEW research poll also indicates some white evangelical Christian groups are losing faith in the GOP as well. This was a cornerstone group of Americans who insured Republican victory in races dating back to Reagan years.

WRAL.com reports on one Democratic Faith based organization whose co-chair is quoted:

"I'm tired of politicians, partisans and preachers spelling 'God' G-O-P." "Now many Americans think Jesus has quit riding a donkey and started riding an elephant. The truth is, God cannot be held captive by any political party. And American Christians should not be either."
It appears some Democrats are finally finding their voice on issues hijacked by the GOP back in 1994.

Taken together, religious groups, Republican incumbents, conservative journalists and talk show hosts like Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, and now, Jack Cafferty, and the millions of Americans telling pollsters they have had enough of Republican rule, it would appear it is becoming fashionable to be anti-Republican, or, for those who see that as a stretch, at least anti-incumbent.

However, if the corruption, waste, fraud, lies, cover-ups, and broken government are to end, it will be incumbent upon voters to continue waging war on the incumbents in 2008, 2010, and perhaps beyond. These incumbents have gerrymandering, your taxes, and a credit card on your grandchildren's earnings at their disposal to wage war on the voter's perceptions to try to keep their jobs. They will bribe you with your own tax dollars, they will lie to you about their opponents, they will gerrymander whole cities and counties out of electoral existence, in order to keep their cushy jobs, and their swinging doors to lucrative lobbyist careers open.

It will be tough for Americans to sustain their anti-incumbent mood across a number of elections. But, if the voters don't take on this tough assignment, it is certain the politicians won't take on theirs to set this country back on a positive track toward the future. If Americans will drop the 90+ percent reelection rate for federal incumbents to 50% or below, Congress will, out of self interest, place the nation's future and the people's concerns in the driver's seat of their legislation.

We thought that was up to them. We were wrong. It is up to us, the voters, to force them to put us and our country first. They have proven they won't do it without our forcing them.

Posted by David R. Remer at October 20, 2006 01:21 AM
Comments
Comment #189164
David R. Remer wrote: However, if the corruption, waste, fraud, lies, cover-ups, and broken government are to end, it will be incumbent upon voters to continue waging war on the incumbents in 2008, 2010, and perhaps beyond.

Yes, that is what is required. It won’t be easy.
Glad to see Jack Cafferty and Lou Dobbs seem to understand the problem is not just one party.
If enough voters don’t realize it now, and still aren’t motivated to stop re-electing irresponsible incumbents, the voters’ motivation will eventually arrive in a form they won’t like. It’s on the way. Already, some painful fiscal consequences will be unavoidable for many decades to come.

What bugs me is that things are starting to look like Democrats will retain incumbents and perhaps gain a few seats.
That will NOT make government more responsible.
After all, look how long Democrats were in power (between 1930 and 2000). The reasons Democrats lost the majority still exist.

Sure, no doubt about it, irresponsible incumbent Republicrooks need to go. But, so do irresponsible incumbent Democrats.

Unfortunately, it’s looking as though we are about to see a mere continuation of the circular-pattern that incumbent politicians have carefully engineered to secure their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies.

Democrats are giddy with joy that they are about to get THEIR turn as the new “IN PARTY”. What did Democrats do to deserve it? Nothing really. They are (as the “OUT PARTY”) simply slightly less corrupt than Republicrooked “IN PARTY”? While Democrats certainly can’t do much worse, voters are likely to be very disappointed by 2008 and beyond when they realize how little the new “IN PARTY” accomplishes, as pork-barrel, waste, massive borrowing, debt, spending, money-printing, corruption, and the nation’s pressing problems continue to grow in number and severity. Newcomers to Congress will still be vastly out-numbered, and unable to ever pass any badly-needed, common-sense, responsible reforms.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 20, 2006 04:49 AM
Comment #189173
After all, look how long Democrats were in power (between 1930 and 2000). The reasons Democrats lost the majority still exist.

Not only that, but many of those reasons are still in office!

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at October 20, 2006 06:34 AM
Comment #189185

d.a.n, the problems created by the lies, corruption, and neglect are not going to go away. Therefore, take heart! This also means the voting public’s incentive and motivation to kick incumbent asses and elephants out will remain with us in 2008, 2010 and possibly beyond.

Also, take heart in the hope that some Democrats will learn from this rout to take place on Nov. 7. We may see a few Democrats, and perhaps even more Republicans, grow a spine and develop some integrity in sacrificing their party for some responsible problem solving for the benefit of the nation and the people, instead of themselves and their party. They may not be in sufficient number to correct our nation’s course, but, they may be sufficient to expose all the others in government who are preventing that from happening.

Jane Harmon’s action this last week to expose the Hoekstra Committee’s attempt to withhold a report by the Investigator of the Duke Cunningham corruption since June, until after the elections, a reprehensible cover-up in an of itself, may become a hallmark of what lies ahead in years to come.

We have to expose the corruption before we can clean it up, and I see many signs from the CIA analysts who exposed the lies of the Iraq War through Harmon’s action this week, that it is going to get a whole lot riskier for politicians who wish to continue to scam the American public for political or personal gain.

And the 4th Estate is also reawakening to its role as public oversight of governmental affairs. There are many signs that we may see significant improvements, even though clean, efficient, responsible, and accountable government may yet be years and many, many incumbents away.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2006 08:33 AM
Comment #189186

Rob, how true. But less on Nov. 8, than on Nov. 6.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2006 08:34 AM
Comment #189257

What do you suppose Democrats will fix when they regain “IN PARTY” status?
The Democrats will likely:

  • (1) reverse the denial of Habeas Corpus for detainees

  • (2) stop wire-tapping without a warrant

  • (3) adhere more closely to the 1st Amendment

  • (4) and start making the wealthy pay more taxes

But will they do anything about a good many other pressing problems?
Like:

  • (1)campaign finance? reform

  • (2)stop illegal immigration, or reward illegal aliens with amnesty, and quadruple the problem again?

  • (3)election reform?

  • (4)eliminate Gerrymandering?

  • (5)eliminate eminent domain abuse?

  • (6)real tax system reform?

  • (7)reduce the debt? Or continue massive spending, borrowing, and money-printing?

  • (8)balance the budget?

  • (9)pass a balanced bugdet amendment?

  • (10)reduce the size of government?

  • (11)create another massive social healthcare program?

  • (12)keep plundering Social Security surpluses?

  • (13)monetary system reform?

  • (14)public education? continuing to send public tax dollars to private schools?

  • (15)change the course in Iraq? Or stay the course in Iraq? Is Iraq even fixable?

  • (16)put an end to the pork-barrel, graft, pandering, corporcisy, and corporatism? Or continue to peddle influence and look-the-other-way?

  • (17)put and end to unfair trade, or continue to sell out Americans?

  • (18)put an end to the dangerous pill-pushing pharmaceuticals and the complicit FDA, or continue to kill 106,000 people per year?

  • (19)stop giving welfare and Medicaid to illegal aliens, or grow the numbers even larger than the current 32% to 46% of all illegal aliens that receive welfare?

  • (20)start enforcing the existing laws? Or continue to ignore the existing laws to stop illegal immigration and the net losses of $70 billion per year to tax payers, not to mention the cost of crime, disease, and 2.3 million displaced American workers?

  • (21)pass a ONE-PURPOSE-PER-BILL amendment? Or continue to tack on ear-marks and pork-barrel to every BILL ?

  • (22)put and end to voter fraud? Afterall, who does most of the voter fraud?

I’m starting to recall all of the valid things that the Republicans use to describe Democrats (even though BOTH parties are irresponsible; don’t worry, I’m never returning to that party).

Democrats are giddy with joy, but let’s see how long it lasts. Let’s see how many things they have screwed up by 2008, since it seems most Democrats are apparently (based on polls) quite likely to merely re-elect a good many of THEIR Democrat incumbents? Maybe Democrat voters will surprise me, but I doubt it. The circular pattern continues. The last 6 years were eye-opening for many Republicans. I guess Democrats need another eye-opening. Like 1994?

David,
BTW, what do you think is the reason for the reduced volatility (see graph) between 1994 and 2000 ? The number of seats for each party has been close. Do you think it is because voters don’t know what to do, so it’s almost a toss up?

Posted by: d.a.n at October 20, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #189272

I said a long time ago that we need the ‘good’ politicians to jump ship from BOTH parties and band together to start a new one. Independent Party? Moderate Party? (I believe there is one with this name.)
If they are not on the fringes we don’t really hear alot about them. If they are not on the fringes they can’t really rely on the base voters??
The Blues and Reds are both good at making us decide between them.
They don’t want us to have another option.
We also need voters to turn Independent so that the parties can’t simply use their talking points.
Independents need to be allowed to vote in ALL primaries.
We the voters have to keep THEM guessing.

Posted by: dawn at October 20, 2006 01:19 PM
Comment #189288

dawn,

That’s an excellent point and an excellent idea.
I don’t recall seeing or hearing that before.
It should be promoted more!
The good politicians should promote it too!
That is, if they really care? ! ?
Right?
It begs the question: Why don’t they do that?

Those are a lot of good points.
As you allude to with “keeping them guessing”, the current predictability is what the big money donors depend on.
That’s part of why government is so FOR SALE.
Incumbents are so bought-and-paid-for, and most (if not all) look the other way.
90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most.
83% of all federal campaign donations ($200 or more; $2.0 billion of $2.4 billion in 2004) comes from a tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible voters.

The good politicians ought to state that very objective, make it well known, and do it.
Maybe the reason they don’t is be there aren’t any good politicians?
Are there any politicians that are good enough?

At any rate, you’re right.
We need more independent voters that can do their own thinking for themselves.

P.S. Regarding this graph, it’s interesting that the Republicans had the majority (for about 12 years) just prior to the Great Depression, and never really regained it until 1994. There was a HUGE swing from Republican to Democrat after the Great Depression started (from 1932 to 1946), and it stays predominately Democrat for a long, long time (about 70 years), up until 1994 to 2006.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 20, 2006 02:08 PM
Comment #189315

D.A.N, you continue to beat this anti-incumbent drum (and to raise many valid points while doing so), but when you talk about “the good politicians” and the independents or moderates you see as the alternative, WHO are you talking about? Names please.

If you can’t or won’t supply names, why not? Is it because doing so would actually start a conversation about whether this or that person or candidate really is a viable alternative and invite us to examine their positions? Is it because this idea of a “different” kind of politician is actually a creature of myth, like fairies and unicorns, and doesn’t actually exist?

I’d love to have different leaders, but before any voter actually votes for ANYBODY instead of against somebody else, they need to know who they’re voting for and why. I’m not gonna vote for a Neo-Nazi or Communist just because he’s the other name on the ballot.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 20, 2006 03:37 PM
Comment #189350

d.a.n, regarding your question about reelection volatility diminishing in the last decade, I am sure there is a combination of reasons. But, a couple that I would venture a guess follow:

GOP’s mastering of the propaganda machine and Democrats failure to. Beginning with the Contract with America, the GOP resolved a simple platform which they could impart throught the public relations machine. They resolved to stick to the propaganda no matter what their real world actions reflected. This kind of formula for mass mesmerization was highly effective over the last decade, because defending it was so easy. Anytime a critic said government is getting too bid or the debt too high, the response was, give us time, you can’t turn a nation on a dime. It has been their response to critics of the Iraq war, critics of the debt, critics on border security, (700 miles now, more later), and on and on.

It was a brilliant strategy until the folks recognized that the real world discrepancies and the propaganda were diverging, instead of converging. Overtime, the utter and complete failure to marry action with words, finally began to stretch credibility to the breaking point back in the fall of 2004.

Democrats have never, in these years, articulated a simple baseline set of platform issues which would have general appeal and on which all Democrat in the public eye could refer to.

That is how I would explain it, but, there are certainly other factors too, such as growing voter apathy due to information overload which has caused voters to tune out political news in between elections.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2006 06:03 PM
Comment #189353

For those who are interested, the Broken Government series programming can be viewed here and also on TV as below:

In a year in which American voters will make critical decisions on issues from the war on terror to scandal in Washington to an exploding national debt, CNN’s “Broken Government” examines all branches of government and explores how much of the system may be broken beyond repair. The series premieres Thursday, Oct. 19 at 7 p.m. ET. A six-part series then airs Oct. 23, 24, 26, 27, 28 and 29 at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2006 06:27 PM
Comment #189358

David:

“It was a brilliant strategy until the folks recognized that the real world discrepancies and the propaganda were diverging, instead of converging. Overtime, the utter and complete failure to marry action with words, finally began to stretch credibility to the breaking point back in the fall of 2004. “

An interesting thumb-nail synopsis. I would add that the growing gap between propaganda and real world discrepancies was neither highlighted nor truly criticized in any meaningful way by either the Democratic Party or the MSM. The relative silence and the lack of a coherent, focused alternative to Neo-con madness I believe to be unique, at least in my lifetime. And it is a sinister development in American politics.

The Dems for the last six years (especially in the last two years) have been content to go along to get along, and bathe in a barely contained schadenfruede as Neo-con policies have gone up in smoke. The press as been equally recalcitrant, when they weren’t actually turning a collective blind-eye to this administration’s incompetence.
I don’t ever remember an administration, Republican or Democrat, that had an uncritical, silent pass to do what ever it wanted.

This schadenfruede the Dems are imbibing in is probably the saddest part of all this—besides the tens of thousands of dead people. It may be the wave of the future—similar to the argument that when an opponent is in the process of destroying himself, step aside. Unfortunately, with the kind of stakes we playing with, the country suffers untold harm as well.

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 20, 2006 06:52 PM
Comment #189361

David,

That’s interesting.
The “Contract With America” got my attention.
I fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.
It was a great idea.
Sadly, it was an empty promise.
Congress, as usual, was more interested in other things, than the people’s business.
Newt Gingrich turned out to be a hypocrite (accepted a $4.5 million advance on a book contract from Harper Collins, and turned it down only after negative media attention about the book deal and Newt’s meeting with Rupert Murdoch, owner of the publishing company; and in
1997, Newt was fined $300,000 by the ethics committee for violating House rules barring use of tax-exempt foundations for political purposes; Newt had to turn to an unusual source, Bob Dole for a loan, who offered to lend him the cash at 10% interest for 8 years).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Neocon Pilsner wrote: D.A.N, you continue to beat this anti-incumbent drum (and to raise many valid points while doing so), but when you talk about “the good politicians” and the independents or moderates you see as the alternative, WHO are you talking about? Names please. If you can’t or won’t supply names, why not? Is it because doing so would actually start a conversation about whether this or that person or candidate really is a viable alternative and invite us to examine their positions? Is it because this idea of a “different” kind of politician is actually a creature of myth, like fairies and unicorns, and doesn’t actually exist? I’d love to have different leaders, but before any voter actually votes for ANYBODY instead of against somebody else, they need to know who they’re voting for and why. I’m not gonna vote for a Neo-Nazi or Communist just because he’s the other name on the ballot.

Neocon Pilsner,
Please see the answer (Posted by: d.a.n at October 20, 2006 06:14 PM) to your question, which you also asked on the other thread in the Blue column.

To recap the answer to your question …
There is nothing to dodge.
See the 28 reasons at the link above as to the many reasons for not re-electing irresponsible incumbent politicians.

First of all, who you vote for is up to you, and every voter should try to vote for the most responsible and most quailified candidate (regardless of party), because that is what is in yours’ and everyone’s best interest. I can not tell you exactly who to vote for, because I do not even know what state you are in. If you really want to know, E-Mail me your information, and I’ll research it, and give you my recommendation. Anyway, I’ve never told people who to vote for. I’ve always only suggested people not re-elect irresponsible incumbent politicians, and recommend that people do a little research to find out more about their candidates.

You know … like the AARP commercial. Don’t vote until you know how your candidates stand on the issues. But, also, for incumbents, look at their record. Many are truly dismal.

Therefore, my suggestion is to vote for challengers (regardless of party), since most incumbents are not responsible, as evidenced by their many failures, fiscal irresponsibility, starting unnecessary wars, violating the Constitution, etc., etc., etc.

However, IF your incumbent(s) are responsible, then they deserve to be re-elected. But there aren’t many, which is why no one has yet named 10, 50, 100, much less 268 (half of 535) in Congress that that are responsible, that don’t pander, troll for big-money-donors, and don’t look-the-other-way. Polls show most eligible voters agree. So, re-electing the irresponsible ones doesn’t make much sense.

So, my suggestion is really to merely do the one simple thing that voters were supposed to be doing all along, always. Don’t re-elect irresponsible incumbent politicians.

Perhaps, if enough newcomers, who are always vastly out-numbered, can get elected, then perhaps they will finally pass some badly-needed, common-sense reforms.

As for my incumbents (in Texas), I’m not voting for any of them, because they have all been carrying the water for their big-money-donors, or flip-flopped, broke a promise, or lied, or refused to enforce existing laws, or abused their influence in some way. For Texas governor (the incumbent is Rick Perry), it’s a toss up between Strayhorn, Bell, and Kinky Friedman. Perry had plenty of time to do something, and hasn’t, so he’s not getting my vote. Perry also has a commercial running that says Texans are going to get an average of $2000 off their property taxes. It’s a lie. Most people won’t even see a $100 reduction in property taxes. Property taxes in Texas are high and pay for public education. Taxes on my plain old ordinary middle-income-class home that is 21 years old is the largest monthly bill ($320 per month). Also, Perry did something a while back when stopped by a highway patrol for speeding (Perry wasn’t driving, but Perry hassled the police officer who was writing a speeding ticket for his associate who was driving). And, a while back Perry called some reporter a [explicative] and it was caught on tape (that’s no big deal really; just dumb).

For other challengers in other states, go here.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 20, 2006 07:10 PM
Comment #189393

Tim Crow, I am not sure if it is MSM turning a blind eye as much as the fact that MSM is investing less money and resources into investigative reporters, combined with the public’s lack of demand for political news in between elections.

The consolidation of MSM is a very real threat to our American experiment which can only succeed in an arena of transparency. Monopolistic or oligopolic mainstream media which focuses ever more on the bottom line where demand for political oversight wanes between elections is a huge threat indeed. The threat is moderated by the internet and blogs, but, they too, are now beginning to fall under threat of regulation.

It is a worrisome trend, indeed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #189395

David:

“I am not sure if it is MSM turning a blind eye as much as the fact that MSM is investing less money and resources into investigative reporters…. Monopolistic or oligopolic mainstream media which focuses ever more on the bottom line where demand for political oversight wanes between elections is a huge threat indeed. “

Worrying about the bottom line is turning a blind eye to civic responsibility. We are seeing the consequences of The Federal Communications Act of 1996, and a slow strangling of freedom of the press via corporate monopolies.

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 20, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #189401

D.a.n., since I asked the same question in both threads, I’ll answer your response here since the topic heading is most relevant to the subject.

Anyone who takes the trouble to learn about a challenger’s positions and qualifications and then compare them to the incumbent is just doing what he/she should be doing in the first place. In that case, it’s not about “getting rid of incumbents” but deciding which incumbents to get rid of and becoming an educated and responsible voter.

There is actually no such thing as “voting against” an incumbent. That isn’t an option in the voting booth. You have to vote FOR someone else, and if you take a random approach to it there’s no guarantee that you’re getting anybody better.

An analogy: if your wife is unfaithful, you’re not suddenly going to have a good marriage if you divorce her and marry the first person who walks by on the street.

And anyway, the real stalemate in our current political climate, I fear, is not that people dislike their own incumbents. They dislike other people’s incumbents.

I agree that many of the positions taken by incumbents that you mention are bad positions. They are, however, positions that are also taken by large portions of the American population. Hence, a lot of these problems arise from incumbents representing their consistuents. To get rid of such incumbents, you’d have to get rid of their consitutents, and that’s not a genuine possiblity.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 20, 2006 11:39 PM
Comment #189405

The best thing any self respecting conservative can do is leave the Republican party.
The best thing any self respecting liberal can do is leave the Democrat party.
Both parties are corrupt and controlled by the fringe on each side. Both parties need to dissolved and new parties if any at all established.
It’s time to take the partisan blinders off folks.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 21, 2006 12:16 AM
Comment #189435
Neocon Pilsner wrote: Hence, a lot of these problems arise from incumbents representing their consistuents. To get rid of such incumbents, you’d have to get rid of their consitutents, and that’s not a genuine possiblity.

Neocon Pilsner,
Well, I have to disagree.
Getting rid of constituents is not the only solution.
Education is the solution, and the Education will come the smart way, or the hard, painful way, or a combination of both.
The system is somewhat self-correcting.
Voters are starting to feel the consequences of their own laziness, brainwashing, bad decisions, being seduced into the distracting partisan warfare, complacency, and apathy.
My only hope is to help that education arrive sooner.
Education is the first step.
Also, it is not so important who the challenger is, as much as the challenger is made to understand that their career will be short if they follow in the footsteps of their corrupt predecessors.
The U.S. has been going backwards.
The people are about to go vote in 7-NOV-2006 and 2008, and they are getting wise to the fact that BOTH parties are crooked, and Republicans have royally screwed up. Many Republicans (including myself) have left that party. Too bad too many Democrats still fail to see THEIR party as irresponsible also.

Bad_Voters = Bad_Politicians = Bad_Government

That leads to consequences (pain and misery).
Consequences lead to unhappiness.
Unhappiness leads to different behavior.
Which leads to people looking for solutions.
Looking for solutions leads to Education.
Education leads to solutions.
Education will lead to design changes (i.e. the importance of Transparency in government).
Transparency will lead to Accountability.
Accountability will lead to Responsibility.

There are degrees to everything.
The goal is a high degree of Responsibility.
We’re not likely to achieve that on 7-Nov-2006.
It will take several elections to get the message across to irresponsible politicians.
Politicians will continue to be corrupt as long as voters allow (empower) it.

Now, you can take the position that it is impossible, and you may be right about that. Our decline may be unavoidable. However, you don’t know that, and neither do I. I try to hold on to hope for these simple reasons and evidence:

  • (1) Progress does happen. It is slow, but it does happen. Slavery is widely accepted as wrong. We have the right to vote, and many died to give it to us. Progress is 2 steps forward, and 1.999 steps backward, but it occurs. That does not guarantee that the U.S. will NOT also disappear like thousands of nations before it, but evidences provides us a glimmer of hope.

  • (2) Doing nothing will solve nothing. Doing something increases the chances for improving things. So something is better than nothing.

  • (3) Humans have thrived, because they adapt to consequences. Consequences are a good teacher. We’ve been crappin’ in our nest a long time, and we learn a hard lesson when the bough breaks. Our Education is on the way. We will learn or we will disappear. We will learn the smart way, or the dumb way.

So, eliminating the constituency is not the solution.
Educating the constituency is the solution.

For this 7-Nov-2006 election, you will see some voters have learned. The numbers are still too small, but some have learned. Many have left the Republican party, and for very good reasons. Unfortunately, Democrats haven’t learned yet. In fact, they are giddy with joy because they see their turn to be the “IN PARTY” coming near. If Democrats keep re-electing irresponsible incumbents, things will worsen by 2008, 2010, and beyond, and voters will abandon them again. The longer this goes on, the closer the U.S. comes to an fiscal/moral melt-down. If we survive that, we may be better for it. But, it would be nice if we didn’t have to keep learning the hard way, and only Education can help us stop our decline. Humans will do what is logical, but it requires a longer view. Currently, the short-sightedness is deceiving most. For example, this illusion of a “good” economy is just that: an illusion. It is the result of clever manipulations to fool the people; using their shortsightedness against them. That is about to become all too evident. The current levels of spending, borrowing, debt, and money-printing can not last much longer, and long term effects are already unavoidable.

Some call it “gloom and doom”, but overlook the optimism and hope in the belief that we can improve. No one really knows for certain, so why resign to futility ?

Posted by: d.a.n at October 21, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #189437
Ron Brown wrote: The best thing any self respecting conservative can do is leave the Republican party. The best thing any self respecting liberal can do is leave the Democrat party. Both parties are corrupt and controlled by the fringe on each side. Both parties need to dissolved and new parties if any at all established. It’s time to take the partisan blinders off folks.

Ron Brown,
I could not have said it better.
Fortunately, many voters are catching on.
Unfortunately, probably not enough by 7-Nov-2006, but probably more by 2008, because the rising misery index from now to 2008 is likely to provide the badly-needed Education. Too bad we have to learn the hard way.

Maybe it’s a myth, but I think the generation that rose out of the Great Depression had more mettle than any since. That would be my parents and those born in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s. What made them thay way? Education. They got it the hard way. That mettle helped them survive WWII. But, we have been in a steady decline since the boom years of the 1940’s and 1950’s. There has been a fiscal and moral decline that is somewhat visible on this graph. Perhaps it is a cycle, but as history shows us, but there is no guarantee that we won’t dissapear like thousands of nations before us?

Posted by: d.a.n at October 21, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #189465

Just heard Jack Cafferty (on CNN, 2PM, 21-OCT-2006) say something like the following:

Are you tired of the do-nothing crooks that, that sell influence, take big-money, give it to their friends, ignore our broken borders, and ignore the voters? Want to have fun on election day. Don’t vote for any incumbents. How much worse can the newcomers do? And, it would send a clear messasge. Do the peoples’ business, or you’re gone.

Finally!

Somebody in the Main Stream Media (MSM) that gets it.

Jack Cafferty, Thank you very much !

Please continue to spread that message.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 21, 2006 03:06 PM
Comment #189554

Is it just me, or does it seem the time is ripe for a Populist comeback? Just imagine for a sec if somebody could merge conservative Christian social issues with left-wing economic issues. Don’t you think the heartland would eat that up? Think the second coming of William Jennings Bryant.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at October 22, 2006 02:08 AM
Comment #189559

Hmmmmm….don’t know.
William Jennings Bryant also ran for president three times and lost three times.

Some kind of power shift is on the way.
Especially in 2008.
Things can get unpredictable when power shifts.
What’s interesting is the close numbers of Democrat and Republican seats in both houses since 1994 (the last 12 years).
And, it looks like those numbers are going to remain close, with only a small lead for either party (probably Democrats).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 22, 2006 04:04 AM
Comment #189560

leatherankh, Sounds like a nightmare to me.

First, I don’t want any religion’s social values governing the me or mine. My freedom to choose my religious choices and values are guranteed by the Constitution without interference or coercion by any government. I do want a government which observes the values laid out in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

As for left-wing economic issues, I haven’t a clue what you mean by the phrase.

I believe the government has a role in insuring a fair and level playing field for opportunity but, doesn’t get into determining merit. I believe the government has an obligation to insure against harmful exploitation of some citizens by other citizens. Which would include insuring employers meet a minimum wage standard for full-time work which provides a minimum no frills middle class lifestyle.

I believe the government has an obligation to assist citizens who are, for whatever reasons outside their control, unable to provide a humane and dignified existence on their own, provided such individuals do as much for themselves as their disability or infirmity will permit.

I believe when our government makes a contract of service for taxes with its citizens, it must meet that contract without default, and modify it only with public consent.

I believe our federal government has an obligation to meet challenges and demands of the majority of Americans for services and tasks which they individually or, as states and local governments, cannot accomplish seperately, provided such service neither violates the Constitution nor harms the nation’s efficacy presently or in foreseeable future tense.

If these are what you mean by left wing economic issues, then I agree.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 22, 2006 04:11 AM
Comment #189579

Personally, it is a turn off to me when politicians try to use religious beliefs and affiliations. If asked, there’s not problem with sharing their beliefs, but to use their position and repeatedly offer those beliefs raises questions about their motives and sincerity, since it should have litte to do with government, and it may be unfair to people of different religions; who may feel as though they are not being equally represented. This sort of preference and/or intolerance between religions is how religious wars are started. Iraq is a perfect example. The U.S. is fortunate to have the 1st Amendment. That achievement was a tough lesson. It was one of those few times when progress and wisdom resulted from the slow, painful 2.000 steps forward and 1.999 steps backward. It would be a shame to lose that lesson, by returning to a theocracy.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 22, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #189676

I am hoping that voters will not cast ballots against incumbents which result in election of “The best of two evils is still evil” candidate.

The challenger may not be “the best of” and/or the incumbent may not be “the worst of”.

Posted by: steve smith at October 23, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #189678

Steve, with all the misinformation and cover-up by candidates, both incumbents and freshman, how is a voter to ever know which is the lesser or, greater of the two evils? All incumbents have a public record, but, as Foley’s revelations prove, tenure in office is no gurarantee that the truth about a candidate is available or, that open-secrets in D.C. ever make it into an election race for public consumption.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 23, 2006 11:01 AM
Comment #189683

Excellent points David.

The voter can self educate to some extent and/or can rely on additional input and dialogue with organizations such as VOID who are a motivating and potential ingegral force in this issue.

The outright deceit, ambiguity, etc. that has made government translucent is a tough nut to crack to be sure.

Posted by: steve smith at October 23, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #189689

Steve Smith,
Me too.
Someone saw my “Vote Out Incumbents” bumper sticker the other day.
He asked, “How do know the challenger is any better”?
I asked him “Is it better to re-elect and reward the incumbent you already know is irresponsible?
He responded, “But you’re losing experience”.
I asked him “Experience at graft, pork-barrel, waste, bribes, selling out Americans, using and abusing and ignoring the voters ?
He said, “There’s no way I’m voting for a Democrat”.
My response was, “Then don’t. Vote for another challenger”.
He said, “But, what if there isn’t a challenger that’s not a Democrat?
My response was, “Then, it’s a tough choice. However, continuing to re-elect incumbents rewards incumbents, making them more arrogant and irresponsible. If that Democrat challenger is irresponsible too, vote him/her out too in the next election. Keep doing that, always, because that’s what voters were supposed to be doing all along, always.”
My response was, “That will take forever. They have it all figured out. No matter what voters do.”
My response was, “Not if voters stop re-electing irresponsible incubment politicians. They’ll get the message after a couple of elections, and things will improve. Besides, is what we are doing now working?”.
He says “No, but all voters will never vote out all incumbents”.
My response was, “No, and that isn’t required. 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money, and the margins by which they win are not that large. Only a few percent of all 200 million eligible voters could change the outcome of many elections. If only 10% of all eligible voters stopped voting to re-elect an incumbent, some incumbents will finally be unseated, and other incumbent politicians will notice that, and they will begin to get the message.”
He said “It will never work.”
I said, “Maybe. Maybe not. You nor I know that. So, why not try, since not we were never supposed to keep re-electing irresponsible incubments, ever?
He said, “I suppose.”

I could see that he still was not convinced.
Regardless of the many PROs versus CONs, it is very difficult to overcome the deeply engrained beliefs (brainwashing). I know, having done that very same thing myself.

Regardless, I am confident we will learn. It’s just that it would be nice if it wasn’t the hard way (again). Only Education can help make that happen. One way is to keep showing how irresponsible most (if not all) incumbent politicians are. The longer voters stay on this path of repeatedly re-electing, rewarding and empowering corrupt government, the more pain and misery the voters will bring onto themselves, and the longer it will last. We already have some fiscal problems that will have unavoidable consequences, and WE are threatening the future and security of the nation. Yes, WE. All of US. Not just irresponsible incument politicians of only ONE party, but all parties and all voters (as a whole).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 23, 2006 12:01 PM
Comment #189740

President Bush seems very confident that Reps will win on election day against all polls, how can we be so sure that the election is not already rigged.

Posted by: goby at October 23, 2006 05:58 PM
Comment #190167

goby, we can’t! That is the problem with paperless electronic voting machines. If you have them in your area, contact your elections commissioner and demand they be converted to accountable paper trail systems, and demand an accountable registration process as well which samples the accuracy of registrations against real citizens in the district.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 25, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #191036

democrats will loose the elections because they are fool enough not to realize that those who lied about everything to american people will not stop at rigging the elections to win, somebody sais once: those who vote decide of nothing, it is those who count the votes that decide of everything, it was Joseph Stalin, you see where America is going….

Posted by: goby at October 28, 2006 02:54 AM
Post a comment