Third Party & Independents: Archives

David

Obama has been campaigning as the agent of change since the inception of his candidacy. It is that issue of change which has served to energize the youth vote over the last year. Our young adults are concerned about their futures and see nothing promising about retaining the status quo. I have two sons in their mid twenties, they and their friends are well aware of the state of our government. They see Obama as a possible vessel to deliver that change which may give them a say in the direction our country moves. I think it would be near impossible to define specifically how one would initiate such change. Probably the most important factor is that one must genuinely believe in what they stand for. To make that determination of genuineness the voters have to use a bit of gut instinct and intuition. I see an energized excitement in the young voters of this country that I have never noticed before. Whether or not they will come out in large enough numbers to elect Obama remains to be seen. But one thing is for sure, the status quo is most definitely not acceptable to them.

On a personal level I would like to see Obama present more specifics. But to be honest I have seen few specifics from any candidate. Only claims that the issues need addressing and that they will address them. At present the most important factor to me is what candidate do I feel is genuine in their beliefs and who will actually have the character and intelligence necessary to mold a government that works as opposed to the status quo. Before we can make any headway on the serious issues we must have a leader capable of bringing people together. It has been a long long time since we have seen any evidence of respect between the parties. We are desperately in need of a functional government which works in the best interest of all the people of this country. Not a government which is self serving at the expense of the people of this country.

Posted by: RickIL at January 9, 2008 10:09 AM

Before we can make any headway on the serious issues we must have a leader capable of bringing people together. It has been a long long time since we have seen any evidence of respect between the parties. We are desperately in need of a functional government which works in the best interest of all the people of this country. Not a government which is self serving at the expense of the people of this country.

And Obama is the guy to do this how exactly?

Best interests of all people, who decides? Shouldn’t the best interest of a person be left up to that person or should that be left up to their neighbors?

The government is not intended to be what you are making it out to be, to do so requires ignoring what built this country and made it what it is today, why so many millions of people try to come here each year. Rejecting the ideals of our forefathers and of liberty in the hope that our existence will be different doesn’t make me feel warm and tingly about what that difference will be…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 9, 2008 12:11 PM

RickIl, all good points and comments. But, they don’t satisfy the voters who are looking for experience and nuts and bolts know how to solve problems which can only be demonstrated either by results from the past, or laying out their specific plans in ways that make sense, and demonstrate that their solution will not create even bigger problems.

Example. Univ. Health Care. Covering everyone is going to raise government costs. Raising government costs is going to deepen American debt and increase taxpayer losses to interest on that debt. Is there a way, and which candidate has a way, to provide universal health care without bankrupting the government and next generation of taxpayers?

Its like, a very important question, and the Evangelical approach of “just believe” is insufficient for an increasing number of voters. If Obama doesn’t address these questions satisfactorily, he is going to lose to Hillary who was preferred 71% to Barack’s 5% on experience to get the job the done.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 9, 2008 12:48 PM

The only change the Democrat candidates want is the party that controls the White House. And of course each one wants to be the person in the White House.
But it don’t surprise me any that Clinton and Obama are all of a sudden for change. They’ll be for or against anything that will get her elected. Just like the rest of the feild. And I have a very hard time believing anything any of them are saying.
If I was a registered Democrat I’d be looking for the none of the above box.
I’d like to see all the candidates on both sides be more specific on what they plan to do about the problems of this country. But I don’t think any of them have any idea what they plan to do to solve them.
Come to think of it, if I was a registered Republican I’d be looking for the none of the above box too.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 9, 2008 12:55 PM

Rhinehold asked: “And Obama is the guy to do this how exactly?”

That is what the primary process is for, to determine who is best suited according to voters to best represent their interests. It speaks well of Obama so far that he has garnered some Republican voters, independent voters, and Democratic voters, a majority of women in Iowa and majority of men in New Hampshire. He and Hillary to a lesser extent (no Republicans supporting her) so far, have demonstrated an appeal folks across many distinction lines. That is an essential part of bridging many of the divides that currently impede American progress on the challenges facing us.

John McCain is the front runner GOP candidate garnering cross party interest and that of the independent voters. But, there are many primaries to go, and the candidates will continue to find the messages that will appeal across electorate distinction lines.

“Best interests of all people, who decides?”

The people themselves AND/OR the Electoral College on election day. You couldn’t answer that question for yourself? Each voter does decide for themself, and collectively ALL the voters decide with a plurality, or in some states their delegates decide based on differing forumlas determined by each state and its people.

Rhinehold said: “Rejecting the ideals of our forefathers and of liberty in the hope that our existence will be different doesn’t “

Wow! You read all that into RickIl’s comments? I didn’t see RickIl even imply rejection of the ideals of the founders or liberty in his comment, anywhere.

If I stretch my imagination I can see your rejection of democracy and democratic elections as your oft cited concept of “mob rule”, but, it’s a real stretch. Perhaps if you respond to RickIl’s wording by quote and give your interpretation of his words, we can find the hallucinated connections and help remedy them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 9, 2008 01:06 PM

Ron Brown said: “The only change the Democrat candidates want is the party that controls the White House.”

Ron, that is certainly one of the changes the Democratic candidates seek. But, to say it is the only change is no different than saying you ran for the School Board only to change your status in life. It is obviously and patently a false statement. Everyone of the Democratic candidates wants to bring what they believe will be beneficial changes to their constituents and the people they care about. Just like you on the School Board. Sure you wanted to change the makeup of the school board, but, you wanted many other good things for the people in your district too.

The support each of the candidates is receiving is a direct measure of how many people believe the Democratic candidates will work for and benefit their futures. So, I have to reject outright you claim that the ONLY change they seek is who sits in the White House.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 9, 2008 01:11 PM

Voters appear to be voting for change, without demanding to know specifically what changes will be made, or how. This would indicate one thing hasn’t changed, the emotional foundation for voter’s choices as opposed to a critical and informed one. Which may explain the bump Hillary got from her teary words the day before the primary. It does explain how America elected the current president, not once, but, twice. Polls show a majority of Americans now carry a lot of regret over that. But, not enough to change the basis for their voting.

“Not enough” is most likely (unfortunately) the case. And increased voter turn-out is not even necessarily better. The real motivator is still in the pipeline (i.e. painful consequences of 30+ years of fiscal irresponsibility).

It is unlikely enough voters are yet feeling sufficient pain, but give it time.
Inevitable, more and more Americans will become less complacent and apathetic when they are jobless, homeless, and hungry.

Perhaps then, enough voters will finally hold Congress accountable (despite the fact that no one can name 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable), instead of repeatedly rewarding it with 95%-to-99% re-election rates (see seat-retention chart from 1855-to-2008: one-simple-idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm).

Yes, “Not enough” yet, but they eventually will, the longer that too many voters are:

• too focused on the presidential election,


• 40% to 50% don’t even bother to vote,


• those that do vote merely continue to blindly pull the party-lever (i.e. vote straight ticket) without even knowing the person(s) they are voting for, much less their voting records,


• and subsequently shackle the newly elected president (whoever that may be) with a severely bloated, corrupt, FOR-SALE, irresponsible, dysfunctional, Do-Nothing Congress, in which the two-party duopoly has enjoyed a cu$hy 96.5% seat-retention rate since year 1980.

Perhaps the process is simply too complicated?

Either way, the electorate will get its education, and they will always have the government that they deserve, one way or another. If they don’t like it, they only have themselves to thank for it.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 9, 2008 03:48 PM

d.a.n, one liklihood in November is pointed to by election history. In a change mood presidential election, the public will vote for a different kind of president, but, by and large, they will show up ONLY to vote for the presidential candidate, and select party line for Congressional incumbents. Less attention is paid to Congressional races in a presidential election than in a non-presidential election. So, we are likely to see non-Bush like president, but, the same old Congresspersons.

Which will make the new President’s change agenda all that much more difficult to move forward. If however, the younger voters turnout nationally, we could see a higher than expected rout of Congress persons, but, by only a couple percent, as gerrymandering locks in incumbents along party lines, as you previously pointed out.

The agents opposed to change are so powerfully and deeply entrenched. It is sometimes disheartening to try to find an effective path around them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 9, 2008 06:02 PM

So, we are likely to see non-Bush like president, but, the same old Congresspersons. … Which will make the new President’s change agenda all that much more difficult to move forward.

Yep.

That’s too bad too. That is, too bad for the voters, who will reap what they sow. It’s a shame to have to almost always learn the hard and painful way.

The best thing voters could do to give their choice for president a chance of accomplishing any real change (for the better) is to do some major house cleaning in D.C., which is in very bad need of a good flush.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 9, 2008 07:28 PM

On ponders the question “How can Hillary run for president? She’s already served two terms.” Or “How can anyone in their right mind consider Hillary Clinton, “honest.” The crying act was very good it deserves and oscar, heck if Gore can get one then Hillary is a shoe-in. Bill and Hillary Clinton remind me of another southern couple from the not so distant past, Jim and Tammy Bakker. One look at Jim told me he was a crook before he was exposed. One look at Bill Clinton gives me the same opinion. And no one seems to remember that Bill and Hillary stated just after the election that their White House would be the “most Honest” White House ever. Isn’t there one news organization that remembers that. It stands out in my memory so well, considering that both Bill and Hillary and the worlds slickest and most prolific liars in American History. How can we as Americans be so blind to continue on with the very “experienced” Hillary as a president. And just what experience is she referring too. She hasn’t got any more official experience at anything than Obama. At least I can listen to Obama and have some confidence that he not only believes in his message, it’s HIS message. Not just more of the same old Clinton rhetoric that this country has already listen to forever. Jeez the Clintons are tiring to listen to. And the press gives them so much time to spread their BS. What bothers me is that so many people in New Hampshire bought into the “comeback” crap again. I hope the rest of the country gets wise soon. If the American Public truly wants a “change” in politics, then the obvious thing to do is dump the Clintons back to Arkansas and give the rest of us a rest from them.

Posted by: B.o.b.E at January 9, 2008 07:33 PM

David - having seen Edwards on the road about 18 months ago, I am struck by how he has stuck to the message he had then: healthcare for the poor, and scaling back obscene profits for the rich. Edwards is the real thing, a genuine guy who has fought for the little guy over and again as a trial lawyer (for which the Republicans castigate him, naturally). I too have seen the other Democratic candidates adopt - even usurp - his positions, and although I personally feel sorry that he won’t be President, at least his message of honesty, hope and practicality will find itself into the White House assuming Obama wins.

I’m glad someone else noticed.

Posted by: Jon Rice at January 9, 2008 10:14 PM

Rhinehold

I am not Obama. I do not know exactly how he will or even if he can accomplish what this country desperately needs. Of all the candidates he is the one who I believe to be the most genuine in his message. I do not feel as though I am getting the overused lip service slogans designed to appease the masses. I do not see in his character that curtly divisive nature common to most seasoned legislators of todays congress. I feel that his inexperience and lack of time trolling the halls of corruption may be a good thing. He has not had time to become conditioned to the idea of placing oneself above the law as though they are a better class of people impervious to the same standards which you and I must live. In most of the other candidates I only see a continuance of business as usual. Our nation has very many serious issues at hand which have been ignored for too long due to an ever increasing degree of partisan politics. It quite simply without a doubt is time to end this ridiculous battle of parties and get on with taking care of business. I see no other candidate that will even have a chance of alleviating the gridlock which provides us with an essentially non functional government. At this point in time they pretty much pass only legislation which must be passed to keep them functioning. There is little which gets accomplished with the future in mind. These people are wasting our time and our money and the futures of our children because their hatred of the other party is an obstacle to productive legislation. One needs to look seriously at the candidates and determine first who has the most potential of sensibly and conscientiously ending the hatred induced, non productive divisiveness.

I have thought this out and I feel Obama is that person. This is a decision that is on my shoulders to make. I will express that decision at the polling booth when the time comes. As for the best interests of us all. It seems as though it has been a millennium since government put any serious effort into doing what is right for this country instead of what is right for them. We have become two separate entities. Those who govern with their own best interests in mind. And the rest of us who get the repercussions of rotten leftovers.

Please, you tell me which candidate in your mind has the best chance of uniting our parties into a productive entity capable of accomplishment. Until we find that person all the experience in the world will be of no consequence.

Posted by: RickIL at January 9, 2008 10:58 PM

Rhinehold

The government is not intended to be what you are making it out to be, to do so requires ignoring what built this country and made it what it is today, why so many millions of people try to come here each year. Rejecting the ideals of our forefathers and of liberty in the hope that our existence will be different doesn’t make me feel warm and tingly about what that difference will be…

I did not imply or express any differences or disfavor with the views of our forefathers. I think you must be purposely looking for negativity. Perhaps it is time for some chill pills. I simply am hoping for an honest functional government capable of compromise. Not a perfect government, but one which can at least accept that the ideals of any one party are not the only way or are necessarily what is best for the multitudes.

Posted by: RickIL at January 9, 2008 11:23 PM

David said: Less attention is paid to Congressional races in a presidential election than in a non-presidential election. So, we are likely to see non-Bush like president, but, the same old Congresspersons.

This is also why a lot of times the party that wins the White house will pickup seats in Congress. Folks just check the party box while voting for the person they want for President. Seems they don’t want to take the time to vote for every office on the ballot. And a whole heap of them just might not even know or care who’s running besides the Presidential candidates.
This is also one reason why a lot of times mid-term elections aren’t very kind to the Presidents party.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 10, 2008 12:01 AM

David

To be honest I have not seen any candidate’s proposals which can seriously and honestly address the serious issues at hand without furthering our deficit or putting further strain on business which will ultimately trickle down to the consumer. In the end we are going to have to pay for progress as well as the huge retrograde financial problems created by our last congress and a president that could not say no to them. So far as I am concerned we are already bankrupt. The only difference is that none of our official money people have officially declared it so.

We can look at the records of our candidates but mostly what we will find is that what they have accomplished is just enough to satisfy their local constituency to remain in office. Our legislators are imo a lackluster bunch accepting a salary with the realization that all they have to do is throw their share of the pork at their constituents to retain their job. Most of us agree on what the important issues are. The differences are that we do not necessarily agree on the order of importance. I do not have the answers nor do I think any candidate has all of them. But I do know that until we can end partisan gridlock there will be no practical legislative evolution of a productive nature.

Observance of his character and instinct tell me that out of all the candidates Obama is the person most likely to genuinely work at effecting change in the working nature of our government. The change that I believe must happen before any serious progress on the important issues you mention can be made.

Thank you for coming to my defense with regards to that rather strange rant in response to my earlier thread.

Posted by: RickIL at January 10, 2008 12:03 AM

y …. poor mr or mrs next president

Posted by: rawdawgbuffalo at January 10, 2008 01:01 AM

David,

Can you blip rawdawg into oblivion. His site hardly seems appropriate. Then again I’m becoming a grouchy old fart prematurely.

I’m disappointed with the outcome of Dem primary results so far, but not surprised. I do however find it interesting that Hillary’s 3% lead over Obama in NH seems like such a ground shaking event. After all New Hampshire is 98% white, so I still see a large degree of “color blindness” so far which is encouraging.

Something I’ll bet you can help me figure out is just how a state that brags so many independents ends up casting nearly 290,000 ballots for all Democratic candidates and less than 240,000 ballots for Republican candidates?

I did some sloppy math in my head but you can double check me:

http://tinyurl.com/29od8b

Even with Hucksterbee math that’s a pretty good chunk of voters aching for change to something in a shade of blue (or green).

Another “footnote”: while it appears that Edwards is out of the running I feel that he did help to reshape or mold the Dem message. Of course messages are easy to forget once the race is run.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 10, 2008 03:21 AM

KD, Independents in NH may vote in any party’s primary, and there is no Independent candidate. Ergo, they must break right or left with the slate of candidates placed before them based on the issues - attributes of highest priority for them.

Not sure I understood your question. Hope that helps clarify.

Obviously, other people measure presidents by other criteria. I measure them by the relative amount of prosperity, liberty, and peace enjoyed by all citizens during and for about 2 years after their term in office. Measure congress persons the same way. Whether they can keep their campaign promises or not often depends on a number of factors beyond their control.

I won’t hold Bush responsible for OBL and the war in Afghanistan on the peace scale, though peace was one of his 2000 campaign promises. I can and do however, flunk his ass on the peace scale regarding Iraq.

As for prosperity enjoyed by all, Bush gets a C- minus from me. His actions were effective in mitigating the tech-bubble triggered recession. But, by 2004, his insistence on keeping the tax cuts going into a strong economy, deserved an F because his actions increased our national debt more than 3.67 trillion dollars following the end of the recession. As for liberty, I give him a D+, not because his policies have deprived very many Americans of their liberty which, they haven’t, but, because he has paved the way for that deprivation to occur should he or the next president deem it expedient. Bush belongs on par with FDR (Japanese American detentions and theft of their property) and Andrew Jackson regarding liberty and abuse of power against inhabitants of America (extra-legal Florida raids).

I say all this because how presidents are rated by future generations are very subjective and distorted by time and revisionist history. FDR is regarded by a majority as one of our greatest presidents. And few would ever think of Andrew Jackson as one of our worst, Constitutionally or legally, though in fact, he was. Bush might, 100 years from now, be very highly regarded for his actions, despite the majority opinion of his contemporaries today.

Keeping campaign promises can never be used as a measure, since, the public forgets most of what those were in a very, very, short period after election. Bush the First made one of his promises, no new taxes, so emphatic, that it was remembered. But, most could not recall any other of his promises today.

For me, the ideals set out in our Declaration of Independence, and whether we drew closer or further away from them as a result of a president’s policies and actions in place during and after their administration, are the only measure that is meaningful to me. But, I am clearly in a minority who hold this view.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 10, 2008 08:15 AM

rawdawgbuffalo, yes indeed, the next president is going to inherit an economic fecal storm. Couldn’t agree with you more. Welcome to WatchBlog.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 10, 2008 08:17 AM

RickIl, couldn’t agree with you more regarding all the candidates failing to make the case that they can increase middle class prosperity and halt deficit spending at the same time. Not a single candidate on either side has laid down a credible plan to accomplish this in which the numbers add up.

Clearly however, the cost of medical care MUST come down, and Republican candidate’s laissez faire approach to the issue will not even address it. Romney talks coverage, not driving down for profit costs. Same with McCain, though McCain has an advantage of being credible on reducing and eliminating a whole lot of wasteful tax spending, freeing up a bit more money for health care costs, potentially.

Democrats are at least making Health Care costs one of their centerposts both in Congress and amongst leading presidential candidates. There simply isn’t any greater challenge America faces than the spiraling cost of health care and the entitlement revenue shortfalls. It is a 40 trillion dollar unmet obligation and an economic and political mountain to climb before America can find lowland green pastures to rest in again.

It is a make or break issue regarding our children’s and grand children’s future. And yes, it will take an end to the partisan gridlock to effectively deal with it. Which should read as a mandate to the voters to remove the partisan hack incumbents in Congress responsible for all that gridlock currently taking place. That (a reduction in the 92-98% incumbency reelection rate) would send the message loud and clear to the replacement challengers, America’s challenges must be first priority, and partisan gridlock is simply not acceptable, and the incumbents on both sides of the aisle will punished for it on election day.

It is not an easy solution. But, it is the only viable guaranteed one to have the intended effect anyone has come up with. (Kudos to Jack Gargin and VOIDnow.org supporters).

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 10, 2008 08:37 AM

Ron Brown, your last reply was well stated. I concur, entirely regarding the on and off year elections. UNLESS there is another dynamic that voters are focusing on.

The potential, though small, still exists for a large number of independent voters to decide one party government is unacceptable. If that became a theme, and there was a clear front runner for President in the polls, it could translate into a loss for the elected president’s party.

But, like I said, it is only a potential. Not likely unless someone like Bloomberg enters the race and makes this theme a centerpost of his campaign.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 10, 2008 08:44 AM

B.o.b.e, you are dead on right to say that a change in America’s direction and politics can only happen if we change the people responsible for what we have now.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 10, 2008 08:51 AM

Smoke and mirrors, people, smoke and mirrors. Or as the Romans used to say, divide et imperia. It’ all just a game to let you think that you have choice, that there is actually a democracy. As someone I know always says, doesn’t matter who you vote for, the Govt always wins.

You guys have the best Govt money can buy, and the problem is that you haven’t paid for it, the vested interests who fund the parties and candidates did and do. A definition I once heard of an honest politician is one who, when he’s bought, stays bought. Like I said, smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors. The real game is about amassing more and more power and wealth in the hands of the tiny elite, and that is inevitably bringing us closer and closer to global war; maybe the final one.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at January 10, 2008 11:10 AM

David:

Personally, I am guardedly impressed with the voters having defied the media, pundits, and pollsters in so stark and monumental way making fools of them with their erroneous prognostications.

Take out the word “guardedly” and I am with you all the way. I thought this election was fantastic as is showed that voters can and do make a difference. I think this election in general, left right or in the middle has been good for America. It’s so far the best in my memory. It looks like this year we have a real live election.

Is this the first time since 1968 that the election has been wide open on both sides?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at January 10, 2008 11:28 AM

Funny you should mention 1968…

http://www.recreate68.org/

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 10, 2008 01:10 PM

Not sure I understood your question. Hope that helps clarify.

I think what he was trying to assert was that since the Democrats got more votes, the independants are seeming to go towards Democrats instead of Republicans, which bodes well for Democrats in November.

I’m not sure I am willing to accept that yet, based off of this and Iowa’s votes. Remember, it could very well be that people are voting against someone they really don’t like. If an Independant (or Libertarian or Green) are more worried about Hillary getting nominated than who gets the nomination in the Republican side, they may break that way to cast that vote against. Whether this happened or not I do not know, but it is hard to know for sure. Especially considering the suggestions of voter irregularities, the hand counts in counties without voting machines were markedly different than those with…

As for prosperity enjoyed by all, Bush gets a C- minus from me. His actions were effective in mitigating the tech-bubble triggered recession. But, by 2004, his insistence on keeping the tax cuts going into a strong economy, deserved an F because his actions increased our national debt more than 3.67 trillion dollars following the end of the recession. As for liberty, I give him a D+, not because his policies have deprived very many Americans of their liberty which, they haven’t, but, because he has paved the way for that deprivation to occur should he or the next president deem it expedient. Bush belongs on par with FDR (Japanese American detentions and theft of their property) and Andrew Jackson regarding liberty and abuse of power against inhabitants of America (extra-legal Florida raids).

I agree almost 100% except I would switch the F and D+ with each other. F for liberty and D+ for the economy because while we are considered bankrupt by the GAO, the good news is that the deficit has been reduced each of the last three years and may be a surplus by next year, so it isn’t as bad as it could have been I suppose…

I mean, we’re not as bankrupt as we could be, though I suppose once we get a Dem congress AND president we are really going to be in trouble… Healthcare for all until China takes us over in 2030!

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 10, 2008 01:31 PM

RickIL wrote: I do not know exactly how he [Obama] will or even if he can accomplish what this country desperately needs.

There is a simple, but elusive solution.

Do not saddle the next president (whoever that may be) with the same, corrupt, FOR-SALE, Do-Nothing Congress.
Do not repeatedly reward the dysfunctional, irresponsible, incompetent, bought-and-paid-for, plutocratic, Do-Nothing two-party duopoly in Congress with 96.5% seat-retentions.

Most Americans don’t seem to understand that re-election rates for Congress are so high, and that might have something to do with it being so irresponsible, corrupt, FOR-SALE, incompetent, and dysfunctional.
Repeatedly reward your children for bad behavior, for years, and then observe the end result.

RickIL wrote: Of all the candidates he is the one who I believe to be the most genuine in his message.

Maybe.

But voting records are important too, and Obama gets a “D-” grade based on his voting record on Immigration (grades.betterimmigration.com/compare.php3?District=IL&Category=0&Status=Career&VIPID=1162
Also, Obama gets a dismally low 30% grade from CAGW.ORG for his Pork-Barrel voting record.

RickIL wrote: I do not feel as though I am getting the overused lip service slogans designed to appease the masses. I do not see in his character that curtly divisive nature common to most seasoned legislators of todays congress.

Maybe. It appears Obama’s comment to Hillary, “You’re likeable enough” didn’t help him much. It was an ugly moment that revealed a side of Obama not seen before, and probably more than a few women didn’t like it.

RickIL wrote: I feel that his inexperience and lack of time trolling the halls of corruption may be a good thing. He has not had time to become conditioned to the idea of placing oneself above the law as though they are a better class of people impervious to the same standards which you and I must live.

Maybe.

RickIL wrote: In most of the other candidates I only see a continuance of business as usual.

Maybe. But whoever is elected to president, it won’t mean squat if the electore saddles the next president with the same, corrupt, incompetent, arrogant, Do-Nothing Congress.

RickIL wrote: Our nation has very many serious issues at hand which have been ignored for too long due to an ever increasing degree of partisan politics.

Yes, many serious issues growing in number and severity ( one-simple-idea.com/PressingProblems.htm )

RickIL wrote: It quite simply without a doubt is time to end this ridiculous battle of parties and get on with taking care of business.

It’s up to the voters. But too many prefer to wallow in the partisan warfare, and blindly pull the party-lever (i.e. vote straight ticket). And 40% to 50% don’t bother to vote at all.

The problem is all of us. Not just the incumbent politicians we repeatedly reward with 95% to 99% re-election rates in Congress.

RickIL wrote: I see no other candidate that will even have a chance of alleviating the gridlock which provides us with an essentially non functional government.

I don’t see ANY candidate for president that can do that if the new president is still saddled with the same, corrupt, incompetent, arrogant, Do-Nothing Congress. But it is very difficult to convince enough voters of that. They are too programmed and brainwashed to blindly pull the party lever. Many don’t even know the candidates on the straigth-party-ticket, much less the candidates’ voting records.

RickIL wrote: At this point in time they pretty much pass only legislation which must be passed to keep them functioning.

Especially when it comes to their raises. Congress has given itself a raise 9 of the last 10 years, and they will likely do the same thing this month. They must beleive they are doing a fine job, and deserve a raise, while our troops go without adequate medical care, armor, and promised benefits.

RickIL wrote: There is little which gets accomplished with the future in mind. These people are wasting our time and our money and the futures of our children because their hatred of the other party is an obstacle to productive legislation.

Well, those in Congress are more chummy than many realize. They really do not police their own ranks. It’s quite likely that much of the partisan warfare is all calculated to seduce the voters into wallowing in the partisan warfare. That’s why many incumbent politicians love to fuel the distracting, divisive, circulare partisan warfare. That way, a majority can never exist to vote their sorry, do-nothing butts out of office.

RickIL wrote: One needs to look seriously at the candidates and determine first who has the most potential of sensibly and conscientiously ending the hatred induced, non productive divisiveness.

Yes, they should. OnTheIssues.ORG is a good place to do just that. Not just presidential candidates. Congress persons too. Unfortunately, most American voters do not even know who there Senators and Representatives are, much less their voting records.

RickIL wrote: I have thought this out and I feel Obama is that person. This is a decision that is on my shoulders to make. I will express that decision at the polling booth when the time comes.

I wouldn’t lock in that bet yet.

There are 11 months to go.
I’m glad the campaign season started so early. It will help us know more about the candidates, and hopefully, most voters will be absolutely disgusted by all of it by 4-Nov-2008, and vote some do-nothing scum out of office. Otherwise, the new president will be worthless.

RickIL wrote: As for the best interests of us all. It seems as though it has been a millennium since government put any serious effort into doing what is right for this country instead of what is right for them.

A millennium is 1000 years.

At any rate, I think, based on several statistics, many things (see charts) started to unravel around 1976, and grew worse and worse for the last 30 years.

RickIL wrote: We have become two separate entities. Those who govern with their own best interests in mind. And the rest of us who get the repercussions of rotten leftovers.

Yes, we are approaching (if not already arrived) a plutocracy, as evidenced by 99.85% of all 200 million voters that are vastly out-spent by a very tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible voters that make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more); source: www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/DonorDemographics02.asp .

But we keep repeatedly rewarding Congress with 95% to 99% re-eleciton rates ( one-simple-idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm ).

RickIL wrote: Please, you tell me which candidate in your mind has the best chance of uniting our parties into a productive entity capable of accomplishment. Until we find that person all the experience in the world will be of no consequence.

I don’t yet know who I’ll vote for president.

But I do know who I won’t vote for in Congress.
Stop Repeate Offenders.
Don’t Reward Them With Perpetual Re-Election.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 10, 2008 06:07 PM

David
Your right. There is a small chance that independents will decide that a one party government aint good for this country. But right now I’m not so sure that a two party government is very good for it either.
What I’d like to see is the independents put enough third party and/or independent candidates in office to keep either major party from having a clear majority in Congress regardless of which party has the White House. It could go a long way toward forcing Congress and the President to seriously address the real issues that face this country.
I know it’s a long shot and would take something short of a depression that makes the one in the 1930’s seem like a boom to achieve. But it sure would be nice to see Congress and the President actually do something other than cater to the big money that paid for their campaigns.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 10, 2008 11:57 PM

Rhinehold, thanks, with your suggestion that does appear to be what he was saying. The exit polling and research on vote breakdown compared to registered voters indicates that in both Iowa and NH, more Democrats turned out than Republicans, and more independents did side with D. candidates than with R.

But, Iowa and NH are not representative of most other states and therefore not necessarily predictive of how the breakdowns will occur in other states. So, like you, I am not sure yet this kind of trend has been established yet.

As for the deficits, Bush has been promising to half or end deficits since 2003, and he’s still at it for the 2008 Budget:

The President’s FY2008 Budget reduces the deficit each year and reaches a balanced budget within five years. A strong economy and better spending restraint will help us achieve this goal, while continuing to invest in the Nation’s prosperity and security.

Of course that means he plans to end the deficits 4 years after he has left office. They just don’t come anymore illogical and nonsensical than GW Bush.

As for the actual deficit record,
2002 -158 Billion
2003 -378 B
2004 -413 B
2005 -318 B
2006 -248 B

Except for 2002, that is more than 1/4 trillion dollars per year. It is mind boggling, considering the entire taxes spent on 9/11, the wars, Katrina & Rita, were something in the neighborhood of 1/2 of these deficit sums. 2007 if I recall is -168 Billion.

The budget deficit has been cut in half from the 2004 record high for this decade, but that is meaningless in light of the deficits entitlements are about to start creating in a few years.

Revenues are about to take a large drop due to slowing economic activity, so, the projected deficit for 2008 is no doubt going to be higher than previously anticipated.

America is always going to be facing needs and pressures to overspend, which is precisely why this is not a singular spending problem, but, revenue and spending problem, which must be brought into balance or surplus during years of strong economic growth, like the last several. Failing that, the national debt will just keep growing toward an unsustainable level.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 11, 2008 01:50 PM

David,

You left off 2007 which was 162.8 B.

The budget deficit has been cut in half from the 2004 record high for this decade, but that is meaningless in light of the deficits entitlements are about to start creating in a few years.

I agree, but my point was that it could be worse, it could just be staying steady or increasing.

which must be brought into balance or surplus during years of strong economic growth, like the last several.

And I think it has been getting better, not as quick as *I* would like to see it (I think you know I think these BILLION and TRILLION dollar numbers are too much for the federal government and all) but remembering what we faced in the fall of 2001 through spring of 2003, it is good IMO that we are turning in the right direction. That is why I don’t apply the F, just the D+. I really think it could have been a lot worse, I’ve seen what this president and congress can do together when they put their minds to it…

I also think that this is the exact wrong time to be implementing a new trillion dollar a year boondoggle…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 12, 2008 12:22 AM

Rhinehold, I did not leave off 2007. Read my WHOLE comment.

You said: “I agree, but my point was that it could be worse, it could just be staying steady or increasing.”

I don’t understand this perspective. It could be worse? It could be a whole helluva lot better too, and we should all get on with the business of making it better, rather than being comforted by words like: “It could be worse”.

Unless ‘It could be worse’ is meant to convey we should make it worse, it is a meaningless statement except to excuse and rationalize that which is already bad.

You said: “And I think it has been getting better,”

Perhaps that is because you are not calculating opportunity cost. The deficit dropped in 2007 because the budgets for infrastructure, education, failure to fix the Alternative Minimum tax, and reductions in policing budgets, and other needs of vital interest to America’s competitive and sustainable future. Add these losses in, and it is not getting better. Bush and Congress just robbed Peter to pay Paul while making APPEAR to be better.

We also exported another record number of dollars to foreign lands with the trade deficit. Now 30 years in a row of annual exports of dollars which should have been recirculating in our own economy and investing in our own future, not that of China’s and India.

It is not relevant to speak of a single economic statistic or fiscal datum as an improvement or retrenchment. All these data are simply bits and pieces of a very much larger state of well-being or disrepair. One would not look at a dying chicken and claim it healthy or improved because it was still flapping one wing.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 12, 2008 02:00 PM

Ron Brown said: “What I’d like to see is the independents put enough third party and/or independent candidates in office to keep either major party from having a clear majority in Congress regardless of which party has the White House.”

I couldn’t agree with you more, Ron. This systemically rigged 2 party system has long outlived its ability to create net gains for our nation. It is now creating net losses and will ruin our children’s future if left to its own corruptions, greed, and incompetencies.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 12, 2008 02:03 PM

Read my WHOLE comment

You are right, you mentioned 2007, I missed it before.

I don’t understand this perspective. It could be worse?

Yes, as I detailed, the deficit could have been increasing these past few years, not decreasing, so it could have been worse.

That is why I am not giving Bush a passing grade, but also not giving him an F. That is what my D is for. I find it interesting that you gave him a D for privacy issues, as if he did better there than the budget… The budget can be fixed almost immediately (and is actually the responsibility of the house) but the damage to our privacy and civil rights will take decades to correct, if they ever are. You see how people here are so ready to give their rights away at the mere thought of making a few bucks out of it…

Even funnier, though, is that I nearly 100% agree with your statement, but because I disagree with the severity of Bush’s failure in one area I’m being painted as a neocon support soldier?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 12, 2008 11:51 PM

Rhinehold said: “but because I disagree with the severity of Bush’s failure in one area I’m being painted as a neocon support soldier?”

That’s you with the paintbrush in your hand, Rhinehold. I see no such characterization in any of my comments. You are looking in a mirror and seeing me. Not a healthy sign. ;-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 15, 2008 11:45 AM