Third Party & Independents Archives

How do you pick a Candidate?

Voting is a very important part of our adult lives.
Choosing a candidate is personal.
What do you look for in a candidate?

I find it hard to believe that people actually vote based on someone's looks.
I find it hard to believe that anyone votes straight party lines.
Voting for the white guy ? Voting for the woman? Voting because you recognize the name?

Should there be a quiz given before one can vote?
People should at least know that there is more than one person in the race.

McCain sang 'Bomb Iran' and that became the political story of the day. Some were absolutely!!! outraged by this. The guy was trying to make a joke... or not.
Now there are people who will vote for him because of this - or will Never vote for him because of this.

I actually saw a news reporter commenting on this ,who asked if the media - and everyone else- watches and searches, searches and watches - for clips like this to either promote or destroy a candidate.

Our politicians are no longer allowed to be 'HUMAN'.
At the same time the American voters are looking for the partisanship to stop.

We cannot have it both ways.

Everyone believes their politician is the 'best' while at the same time are disappointed in the Senate and the Congress as a whole.

Why is it that people can't put the two together?
Why is it that our media (they are voters too - I think) cannot do a better job when it comes to showing us who we are voting for??

Elections = a media frenzy and a joke.
It's just sickening the way our politicians and the media play games with our lives.


BTW -
Gonzales is a wimp and he need to go ....... now.

Posted by Dawn at April 21, 2007 10:14 PM
Comments
Comment #218053

Being 57 years old, I pick my candidates based on my 16 year old daughter’s future. Which candidate is going to address the issues that pose the greatest threat to her future, I ask. And secondarily, which candidates are going to most represent the policies and political values that will insure my daughter’s future the greatest liberty, security, and opportunity to fulfill her dreams?

That’s my criteria. So, in 2008, I will vote for the candidates who will make global climate change a top priority, address deficit spending and national debt, are dedicated to making international friends - not enemies, and will wean America off the bulk of her fossil fuel dependency in the safest and most cost effective manner.

Too early to make any calls on candidates on these issues. But, I expect the candidates I can vote for will make their positions known on these issues by Summer of ‘08. If they don’t, they don’t qualify for my vote.

Of course, I will look forward again in ‘08 to voting against incumbents who fail to meet these criteria, preferring even a poor challenger choice to someone who has already demonstrated an incapacity to look out for my daughter’s future as described above.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 22, 2007 6:19 AM
Comment #218071
What do you look for in a candidate?

How little they’re going to screw us over. :)

Sadly it’s just about come down to that. But as both major parties become more and more alike it’s getting even harder to find that.
What I want in a candidate isn’t what they’re going to give everyone. It’s what are they going to do about the many problems facing this country that the major parties have been ignoring for so long that they’ve become major problems and threaten to destroy this country.
If these problems aint addressed and addressed very soon we’re gonna end up in a depression that’ll make the one in the 1930’s seem like a boom.
The only way to avoid it (if it’s still possible) or at least lessen it’s impact is to get busy on resolving the problems that are going to cause it.
But our bought and paid for politicians aren’t gonna do a thing about them. Instead while they serve the special interest that paid for their overly priced campaigns, they’re gonna to pit is against each other with frivolous issues that’s going to serve no purpose other than to keep us so divided that we won’t see that they’re selling this country down the river to the highest bidder. And I’m afraid that by the time most folks finally figure out what our bought and paid for politicians are up to it’s gonna be to late.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 22, 2007 1:59 PM
Comment #218073
BTW - Gonzales is a wimp and he need to go ……. now.

Your right He is a wimp. And he does need to go. But not for the reasons most folks say.
He needs to go because he didn’t have the guts to tell that bunch of overly sanctimonious idiots up there in Congress that it’s none of their damn business who the Presidents fires or why.
The federal attorneys serve at the digression of the President and he can fire them just because he feels like it. He doesn’t need any other reason.


Posted by: Ron Brown at April 22, 2007 2:13 PM
Comment #218085

Ron I agree he needs to go if for nothing else the Habeus Corpus deal. but If the Prez and Gonzales would have been honest about it, And I know thats asking a lot from that crew, this wouldnt have been an issue. We really dont need a politicized DOJ do we?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 22, 2007 6:10 PM
Comment #218086

BTW Dawn I pick a candidate using the lesser evil method right now. Im not proud of it, and Im working on changing it, but for now it is my MO.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 22, 2007 6:14 PM
Comment #218090

I have to say ditto to David with these exceptions my sons futures (1,3 and 5 yo). So I look at schooling and funding of it. Services to keep this country strong for them, ie good roads, rail and ports. Without transport we will have no goods or services.
Thanks for articulating so well what I feel Dave or do you prefer David
Rich

Posted by: timesend at April 22, 2007 6:59 PM
Comment #218098

j2t2
Sorry, but it’s to late. The DOJ has already been politicized. When the Attorney General and all the other attorneys serve at the discretion f the President. And the President appoints the Judges. Jut how much more politicized can ya get?
Asking honesty from any politician (specially from the 2 major parties) is a study in futility.

timesend
Any responsible voter is going consider the effect of their vote on future of the country. Specially if they have children or grandchildren.
My kids are grown and I am concerned about their futures. But I also have 17 grandyoungins from 2 weeks to 14 years old. And their future looks very grim. And I’m very concerned about that.
That’s why I’m looking for candidates that will address the real problems facing this country. And not serve the special interest.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 22, 2007 7:58 PM
Comment #218106

Ron, As with most things, this Administration has lowered the bar on politicizing the DOJ. I dont recall underlings being fired for “performance” and then covering up to the point these losers have done.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 22, 2007 10:20 PM
Comment #218112

Thanks, timesend, infrastructure is extremely important as well and you are right, the nation’s future health depends upon its proper maintenance.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 23, 2007 12:36 AM
Comment #218115

Lots of folks, it seems, are going to vote on the basis of getting to abort their children. To each his own.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 23, 2007 1:13 AM
Comment #218144

LO, as long as they are not your fetuses. There are plenty of suffering people out there waiting for charitable and merciful Christians to rush to with aid and protection of their rights. As long as they don’t try to exert their Christianity or morality on others who don’t want it, the others should respect the same freedom of Christians. Love thy neighbor. Not, covet the unborn or choice of others, was the message if I recall my Sunday School correctly.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 23, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment #218150

Although I have never had a chance to “pick a candidate”, I am looking forward to my first chance to do so either in 2007 or 2008 (I do not know yet whether the special election to replace my Congressional Representative, Martin Meehan (D) of the 5th district of Massachusetts will come before or after my birthday). When I vote I will look for the candidate who shares the most opinions and piorities as I. I especially want someone who will pioritize the Enviroment, minimizing our reliance on Fossil Fuels, Universal Healthcare, education funding as well as balancing the budget. I also find socially conservative candidates distasteful and will probably avoid them unless they offer a very good strategy on how to fix issues I raised a couple of sentences ago.

In regards to the future, some people have stated that they fear of their decendents’s future; as a 17-year-old American I actually have a great deal of optimism for this new century and this new mellenium. I remember how at the beginning of this school year last September my Russian Literature teacher stated that the twentith century was the deadliest century of all time (think of WWI, Armenia, WWII, the Holocaust, the Stalinist purges, Israel-Palestine, Rawanda and all the other wars of the 20th century). He said that his generation (he is about 60 years old) had screwed the world up greatly, but that he hoped my generation would be better than his and that we would make our century one that was much better than his. I hope more young people would get involved in the political process and help shape their century; unfortunately, this demographic has terrible voting turnout rates.

Posted by: Warren P at April 23, 2007 12:37 PM
Comment #218160

>>The federal attorneys serve at the digression of the President and he can fire them just because he feels like it. He doesn’t need any other reason.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 22, 2007 02:13 PM

Ron,

You are right…except, if the reason is to interfere with due process. If that is the reason, even the President is breaking the law.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 23, 2007 2:13 PM
Comment #218166

Marysdude
Is there any proof that the attorneys were fired in order to interfere with due process? Or is that just some more spin by the Democrats?
If there is proof then why is Congress wasting our money with this stupid investigation?
It all sounds like a Democrat witch hunt to me. The very same thing they accused the Republicans of when they were investigating Clinton.
Once again our politicians are showing exactly why they don’t deserve to be in office.


Warren
Your teacher and I are the same age and he’s right. Our generation in it’s selfishness has screwed things up almost to the point of no return. And I apologize to your generation for my generation’s selfishness.
I sure hope your generation can get things turned around. But it’s gonna take a lot of work, sacrifice, and having elected officials that will address the real problems facing this country.
The problem is the politicians have made up a bunch of phony problems and issues to distract voters from the real issues. That way the hide their selling us down the river to the highest bidder.
They know that if we ever quit arguing about their so called issues and start paying attention to the real issues that they all will be out of their cu$hy jobs.
Just do me one favor. When you go to the polls to vote remember that your fixing to make some very important decisions that will a have long range impact on this country. Don’t vote selfishly for what you get now from the government. Vote for what is best for the country.
My generation voted selfishly for what it could get from the government now. And look at the mess this country is in.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 23, 2007 3:11 PM
Comment #218171

Ron asked: “Is there any proof that the attorneys were fired in order to interfere with due process?”

Well, Ron, since the reasons initially given proved false, the only way to know the truth is through the oversight investigations. I for one find them refreshing, actually, even if they are partisan motivated.

I want to know why Democrats are standing behind Jefferson, and being outdone by Republicans who are now removing their Committee persons when issued a warrant for investigation search (better late then never)?.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 23, 2007 4:00 PM
Comment #218180

David
I want to know why Democrats are standing behind Jefferson, and being outdone by Republicans who are now removing their Committee persons when issued a warrant for investigation search (better late then never)?.

I’ve been wondering about that myself.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 23, 2007 5:16 PM
Comment #218200

“Love thy neighbor. Not, covet the unborn, or choice of others, was the message if I recall my Sunday School correctly.”
David Remer

I seem to remember:

Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart. (You can’t deliberately kill babies and serve God. Just doesn’t happen)

Thou shalt not kill! (especially children)

Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother. (Seems if one honors fatherhood and motherhood, it would be a great contradiction to end it so mercilessly.

Thou shalt not lie. (I wonder how many women have lied about their real reasons for having an abortion?)

Thou shalt not steal. (It would certainly be logical to characterize an abortion as stealing the life of child.)

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (See the Thou shalt not lie part above)

Thou shalt not covet. (Women with children just don’t have the opportunities that other women have that are not tied down to child-rearing. Hmm! Isn’t that coveting the lifestyles of others rather than accepting the unique position in which God has placed you for a specific purpose?)

Your philosophy kind of flies in the face of a lot of those Sunday School lessons you heard Remer.

JD

Posted by: JD at April 23, 2007 10:13 PM
Comment #218203

Dawn,

I agree that many candidates are completely misrepresented and tossed out for the pidliest of things. For the most part, I think it is because we do not have a fair press. Many of the reporters have an agenda in their questioning, trying to trip a candidate up rather than let him tell his experience or story. It is a shame that the biggest stories in the press right now are how much change the candidates have in their pockets, rather than how much sense they have in their heads.
As a candidate announces his entrance to the race, the press should do an unbiased history of the candidate, including his previous jobs, education, achievements, volunteer work, etc.! This information should be collected from the candidate, revealing only those things the candidate wishes for the people to know about his personal and professional life, on the day of their announcement, and verified without the press doing a hit job on the guy. They will have plenty of time for hit jobs during the debates and campaign. These “introductory specials” should be required to run on all networks, unedited, and without press “commentary”. In this way the candidate can choose the setting, and the information about himself that he feels the people should know in the beginning. I think this would be a great way to introduce the candidate so the people could get an unbiased look at who he is. It wouldn’t require much time or money to create one of these “introductory specials” and get them out to the press. In this way, at least from the beginning, certain pre-picked candidates wouldn’t be getting all the press.

JD

Posted by: JD at April 23, 2007 10:46 PM
Comment #218220

JD, that’s all fine and dandy if you wish to believe all that stuff. But, you have NO right to enforce your beliefs upon others. May I take your kids if I think you are not bringing them up the way I think you should?

Of course not. Point made.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 23, 2007 11:50 PM
Comment #218223

Remer,

No, you can not take my kids if you think that I am not bringing them up the way you think I should.
However, the government can, and it has been done to thousands of parents over the years. The majority passed laws that made it illegal to treat kids in a way that would harm them. That was the right thing to do to protect the children.
If that is appropriate for the government to do by law, then it is also appropriate to legislate what is “moral” for a parent and doctor to do to an unborn child as well.

What I said was not a personal attack on your memory of Sunday School lessons. Just wanted to give another point of view!

JD

Posted by: JD at April 24, 2007 12:02 AM
Post a comment