Third Party & Independents: Archives

Great post.

Posted by: Max at January 13, 2008 11:53 PM

David,

Here is a website that people can go to which helps simplify the task of comparing your views to candidates positions. You answer questions on issues and they tell you which candidates are the closest match. I thought some of the questions were poorly worded, but… See: SELECT A CANDIDATE survey

On Obama, you wrote:

making followers swoon for the ideals and evoke their confidence on nothing more than faith that Obama will strive, without ever have said how, and at what cost.

I am supporting Obama, among others, but I had to laugh when I read this. There is a line in a Clint Eastwood western where an apparently highly educated Indian sidekick is talking about the President’s commitment to honoring a treaty with the Indians “as long the grass shall grow and the rivers flow.” He said the President promised to “endeavor to persevere.” In other words, the President was saying: He would try to try to honor the treaty. Lot o fancy words - aint promisin nottin… I laughed till I cried when I heard that line… The Indians are still cryin - I didn’t think it was that funny - apparently they got a better sense of humor than I do.

YOU LEFT OUT DENNIS KUCINICH! He may not have a real shot, but IMO he is the best candidate out there.

I think that the most important criteria to consider in selecting a candidate is how much special “moneyed” interest money they have. If they are bought and paid for by corporate America, you may as well not have a government. Just ask the fascist corporate oligarchs what they want then bend down and kiss their anal orifice. No point in having a Presidential middle man - save money - do the kissin yourself…

Posted by: Ray Guest at January 14, 2008 12:34 AM

I would recommend against that site, Ray. Many of the questions are limiting in their responses, as if there are only two possible answers to their questions, and perpetuate the duopoly we have in this country at the present time.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 14, 2008 12:54 AM

David,

I’m not sure Ron’s views are as simple as you portray them in your article. Perhaps that is where your confusion is coming from. For instance, on Iraq his stance as I see it from his website says that since the original objectives of the original authorization have been fulfilled, why hasn’t Congress either ended or re-authorized our presence there?

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/63/fixing-whats-wrong-with-iraq/

What I like about the statement here is that it is the only one I’ve seen from any candidate that is not about placing blame, inciting fear or trying to defend undefensible actions. It is not about scoring political points or partisanship. It is not about trying to tear America apart because based on whether we supported the Iraq war or not, just for political gain.

Instead he focuses on what is in front of us now and what should be done to resolve the issue. And we both know I’ve been calling for our troops to come home for the same reasons for years now, especially since they do not want us there.

it is a simple minded stand that fails to recognize the many defense treaties to which we are party, our history of having become a leader nation, and our integration economically and in military positioning with the rest of the world’s leaders and governments

Principles are something to aspire to, not shy away from. However, we all know that there may be areas when prudency must move away from those principles. BUT, they should be few and far between, not the normal standard operating system, as we see our country being run today.

Nearly every one here will say that we need a change, that our country is directionless and going nowhere. Stagnant. Yet, when someone points out the reason for this is because we have lost our way, we are no longer providing principled governance and defending liberty, it is considered simpleminded?

Perhaps in this day an age it is time to rethink the treaties and agreements we are a party to. Maybe they should exist as necessary, not in perpetuity. Can we name one military treaty that needs to be in place in today’s time that we are a part of? Should we really still be in Japan? Germany? Kosovo? Does being in those places make us more open for attack at home or prevent attack? Are we worried about these places harming us or do they just allow those countries the luxury of not having to pay for a military of their own for their own protection? How much longer can we sustain that type of military presence around the world without it costing us our liberty at home…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 14, 2008 01:29 AM

David,

There is no question that each of the candidates has serious flaws. On the Democratic side, Clinton and Obama are smart but have limited experience. As for John Edwards, I just don’t like the sumbitch.

On the Republican side, they all scare the hell out of me. John McCain seems like a sane person, if you ignore his frighteningly hawkish foreign policy. (“Bomb bomb bomb/ Bomb bomb Iran.”) Huckabee was a decent governor, but now he seems determined to obliterate the separation of church and state.

I’m just crossing my fingers that the US will muddle through no matter who wins.

You are also correct that they are dodging the tough questions. Alas, there is no profit in being candid if they can get away with being vague.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 14, 2008 07:08 AM

David

I think that to expect any candidate to provide specifics in the midst of the muddled mess that is the state of our nation is asking the impossible. First and foremost there is no clear direction for the future of our country. In order to lay down specifics one needs to know what the goal is. The last decade of governmental irresponsibility, a wealth induced agenda and stagnated progress have left us with nothing less than an ocean of needs and a lake of means. As I have stated before I consider our country as currently bankrupt. It just has not been officially proclaimed. Our economic state is so out of order that it will for all practical purposes require financial suffering for the middle class and poor before the road to recovery can begin. There has to be an end of the road somewhere. I believe we have reached that tipping point where action must be taken or we will most likely suffer dire economic consequences. Of course there are no easy answers. We can not continue to avoid the problems and pretend that all will be fine so long as we can continue to borrow.

It all comes down to properly organizing priorities, eliminating the non essentials and re-evaluating needs. This will all involve the elimination or restructuring of some social programs and entitlement programs, no new money for education, infrastructure, health care and most likely a higher tax rate for all. And number one on the list would be finding fixes to our energy dillema, which seems to be the crux of the majority of our concerns. In other words in order to have more we are first going to have to suffer with less. Decades of procrastintion has finally reached its peak. This is the reality that faces us all. No candidate wants to be the harbinger of that message. And no voter wants to be the recipient.

The harsh reality is that the only way to properly address the serious issues at hand will require great change in our personal lives and the way our nation does its business. I can not imagine how any one candidate can seriously work with a negative bank account and honestly say specifically how they are going to maintain and improve on the status quo without first admitting that we all are going to be required to contribute and sacrifice in order that we can once again work from a balanced begining point. People simply do not want to hear the truth. Any candidate who would be so bold as to run on these sad truths would be insuring their own self destruction. Lets face the facts. Until we have a congress that has the balls to enforce change and can recognize the need for compromise, no president of any persuasion, belief or party will be effective. I prefer to approach life in a linear direction. First things first. Until we repair our broken government there can be no substantial progress. In this light the status quo will not do. Our government needs a serious fix. I have to support the candidate I see as most likely to provide that fix.

Posted by: RickIL at January 14, 2008 11:03 AM

Good analysis.
Voters should also look at their voting records (see: OnTheIssues.org).
Yes, they all fall short, which is all the more reason for voters not to saddle the next president with a corrupt, FOR-SALE, do-nothing, incompetent, plutocratic Congress.
Either way, the voters will get their education one way or another, and the voters will have the government that they deserve.
With seat-retention rates of 96.5% (on average) for the two-party duopoly (since year 1980), it’s difficult to believe any new president will be able to get much good accomplished (even if they wanted to).
There’s a high probability that these regressive/oppressive systems will continue to worsen … at least, until it becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 14, 2008 11:33 AM

RickIL, Good post. The built-in self-correction mechanism has been demonstrated to us throughout history, over and over. It is pain and misery. It provides the motivation that finally trumps apathy, complacency, and sloth.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 14, 2008 11:38 AM

Max and d.a.n, thank you for the positive feedback.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2008 12:48 PM

Ray, the parallel with American Indian treaties is very apropos’.

Dennis Kucinich, IMO, is the Democrat’s Ron Paul, real simple answers to very complex problems, which could and would create more problems than the simple answers would solve. That is why, IMO, the polls have his numbers at or below Ron Paul’s. I respect his ideals and his uncompromising dedication to them, as I do somewhat with a few of Ron Paul’s positions, but, neither can achieve the confidence of the public at large to lead them.

You are right, though, I probably should have included him since he is still on the campaign trail, just as a counterpart to Ron Paul, if for no other reason.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2008 12:54 PM

DR
Edwards,contrary to your statement, has said specifically that he intends to pay for universal healthcare by repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. He,joined with Obama, have also proposed raising the cap in on SS payroll taxes as a large part of the solution. Declaring him short on specifics with the rest is not valid.
Another consideration is the push/poll nature of some of your questions.You are making assumptions that may not be valid. Example: We already are paying much more for healthcare. Why should healthcare that works cost more? Example: Immigration has been addressed and workable solutions have been proposed. The fact you do not like the proposals does not mean they were not made.
To say that Edwards has a goal of reduceing cheap imports is to mis-construe his position. What he does support is putting protections for labor in the main body of all trade agreements. That is labor in this country as well our trading partners. Nike for example pays about $5.00 to make a pair of shoes that sell for a minimum of $40. There is plenty of room in there to pay their workers better without a price increase.

Posted by: BillS at January 14, 2008 01:02 PM

Rhinehold, in his debates, Ron Paul has made statements to the effect that America should not play the role of world cop, and should not be attempting to manage other nations and peoples, but, focusing on homeland security and defense instead. He has been unequivocal in the debates on these points, regardless of what his web site says.

Rhinehold said: “Principles are something to aspire to, not shy away from.”

Reality, too, is something that should be accepted, not shied away from, regardless of whether one wants to change it toward one’s principles. Principles too are contextual. It was a generally accepted principle in the 18th century that large families had many economic advantages. This principle was promoted by American religions, by the Roman Catholic Church, by feudal lords requiring a continuous supply of cheap labor, by slave owners, and American farmers. It was a principle that was largely universally true.

It is a principle which is no longer valid for our changed context. Just as the state legislature’s election of Senators and the President, ceased to be principles of the Republic to be preserved and adhered to. Some of our original principles were abandoned for a better future for the nation, and some have been abandoned for a better future for an elite few.

Principles, like that of the Earth being the center of the universe, must be challenged periodically, and made to stand the test of reality, as human social and knowledge based evolution changes the context in which those principles are applied.

Principles are not necessarily eternally good nor beneficial. Principles are the product of human understanding, and thus subject to the same limitations and temporary nature as human understanding. Certainly, some principles have proven to be more universal and longer lived than others. But, distinguishing which should prevail and which should be discarded requires a critical analysis of principles from time to time to see if they still serve their original intended purposes.

Change, is one of the most fundamental and perplexing conditions challenging human understanding, philosophy, and social orders. Change drives people, mad, to suicide and murder, and war. Change drives people together for security and protection and unification. Change, for all its parlance on the campaign trail, is one of the least understood aspects of reality by the human species. Which is why the vast majority of all human research, effort, and wealth is devoted to change.

Principles are no exception to the ravages of change and reality, contrary to Aristotelian and Platonic endeavors. Still, without principles, chaos is a result. Even chaos theory seeks principles. Thus, we cling to principles, live by, and even die for them, sometimes long after they have outlived their usefulness as in the Civil War. It is just such times, that cause principles to be abandoned for new ones to take their place. Change rules everything, except an occasional human will or spirit.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2008 01:25 PM

BillS said: “Edwards,contrary to your statement, has said specifically that he intends to pay for universal healthcare by repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.”

Edwards is in dire need of a math class. Repealing the Bush tax cuts will not fund his Medicare replacement program by a long shot. Add up the annual dollars saved by repealing the Bush tax cuts for the next 65 years and see if they equal the more than 40 trillion dollar unfunded mandate of Medicare. They don’t.

Which begs the question, how is Edwards 1) going to preserve the Progressive Income Tax system in the face of growing opposition to it (a fundamental assumption of his plan), and 2) how is he going to lower the cost of health care delivery in an inventive and creative medical research environment to dramatically reduce the $40 trillion unfunded mandate to something which can be equaled by a repeal of the Bush tax cuts?

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2008 01:34 PM

Woody said: “On the Republican side, they all scare the hell out of me. John McCain seems like a sane person, if you ignore his frighteningly hawkish foreign policy.”

Well, if the Democratic candidates don’t get on the American public’s side on the illegal immigration and border security issue, John McCain, despite all the Democratic advantages, could become our next President. Of course that is entirely dependent upon Republican primary and caucus voters for the moment.

How long is it going to take for Independent voters to put the Democrat’s less assertive foreign policy together with their refusal to secure our borders, and come up with the conclusion that a Democratic President will be an enormous threat to our national security?

Not long after the primary candidates are selected, I suspect. And then the Democratic nominee is in a box that could lose them the race, and make John McCain the president. Especially likely if there is a terrorist incident between now and the elections. Our own intelligence community has told us that al-Queda is already here, as is Hezbollah here and based in S. America.

I know these are facts the Democratic candidates do not wish to promulgate, but, their caving to the desire for a growing Hispanic vote in lieu of securing our borders, is, in fact, an enormous and unnecessary security risk for the American people.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2008 01:37 PM

RickIl said: “Our government needs a serious fix. I have to support the candidate I see as most likely to provide that fix.”

I couldn’t agree more. Well said.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2008 01:50 PM

RickIL wrote: I can not imagine how any one candidate can seriously work with a negative bank account and honestly say specifically how they are going to maintain and improve on the status quo without first admitting that we all are going to be required to contribute and sacrifice in order that we can once again work from a balanced begining point.

RickIL, Since year 1961, 38 different states (more than the two-thirds required) have submitted 81 Balanced Budget amendment applications, which is sufficient to trigger a peremptory Article V Convention, yet Congress has flagrantly violated Article V by refusing to call a convention. For that matter, ALL 50 states have submitted 567 amendment applications (far in excess of the two-thirds required). All but three applications were submitted after 1900, and over half were submitted after 1960.

Perhaps we would not have the massive debt and plutocratic government if Congress was not allowed to flagrantly violate the Constitution?
Perhaps a BALANCED BUDGET amendment could have avoided the corner we’ve find ourselves backed into?

We are starting to see the painful consequences of over 30 years of fiscal and moral bankruptcy.
Economic melt-down is not far-fetched.
Not because we are unable to make reforms.
But because we simply lack the will … at least until sufficiently motivated by the probable painful consequences.

That’s just one Constitutional violation.
There are others.
Yet, most voters polled are now worried most about the “ECONOMY” ? Nevermind that the cost of the long term occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan may have something to do with it too?
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
So, why do most voters repeatedly reward incumbent politicians in Congress with 95%-to-99% re-election rates?
We will figure it out some day, but probably not before learning the hard way (again and again).
Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

• Hillary and Obama are both severely messed up on illegal immigration (both get a D- on illegal immigration), and have dismally low CAGW.ORG pork-barrel grades of 14% and 30% (respectively) too.


• John Edwards made tens of millions on lottery-size awards from persoanl injury law suits, but Edwards wants salary caps for CEOs, and Edwards says that he is for the little guy? Perhaps, as long as the defendant has a million+ dollars? Also, John Edwards got a BetterImmigration.com grade of D .


• Mitt Romney has about $220 million (perhaps about $20 million less now).
  90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money.
  What’s that say about the voters? It will be interesting to see if he can buy the election. Mitt Romney recently fired his landscapers (illegal aliens). Amazing that he didn’t anticipate that in advance. Yes, It is doubtful that Mitt Romney will do anything to stop (may even accelarate) the corpocrisy, and other manifestations of unchecked greed.


• Rudy Giuliani ran a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. Giuliani was against enforcing illegal immigration laws. Strange too, considering that some of the perpetrators of 11-SEP-2001 were illegal aliens, 18 of the 19 terrorist hijackers on 11-SEP-2001 possessed state-issued and/or counterfeit driver’s licenses or ID cards and ALL 19 had obtained Social Security numbers (some real, some fake).


• Mike Huckabee may indeed be bad in math, if he thinks the un FairTax.org’s 30% Sales Tax/Rebate system is a good idea. And what they call 23% tax is really relative to income; not sales. A $30 tax on a $100 purchase is technically a 30% Sales Tax. Also, something that is disturbing is Huckabee’s opinion that: George W. Bush (43) has done a magnificent job (Jan 2007). When? Between 2000 and 2001? Or between 2001 and 2008? Nevermind that little oversight of “no WMD”.


• John McCain is one of the few with a record of fighting pork-barrel, despite the $1 million he wanted for dealing with the brown tree snake in Guam. And McCain supported the shamnesty BILL that Hillary and Obama (and most other Democrat politicians) supported. In fact, McCain has a dismally low BetterImmigration.com score of 27%. McCain may be the most honest of the bunch. He at least admitted (on PBS radio) that he regretted times when he “looked the other way”. This is why there is little (if any) peer-pressure in Congress; why they fail to police their own ranks.


• Ron Paul is evasive on many issues. Like Huckabee, he says abolish the IRS, but Ron Paul doesn’t say what to replace it with, or excatly what spending to cut. No doubht, there’s a lot of spending cuts that could be made. But which? Ron Paul claims to be a champion of the Constitution and states that he wants to prioritize spending based on Constitution, and lower spending too (Sep 2007), but Ron Paul (along with all of the rest in Congress) refuse to call an Article V Convention, despite the fact that more than two-thirds of all states have requested a BALANCED BUDGET amendment.


• Dennis Kucinich also gets a D- on illegal immigration (like Hillary and Obama). But 66% of Democrats get a grade of D+ or worse. When asked, “Would you allow these sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?”, Dennis Kucinich said: “Absolutely.” Kucinich says we need to extend our arms once again to the world community and bring those, the tempest-tossed, to the U.S. That’s mighty generous, eh? Sounds like someone who has more compassion for immigrants? Clearly, Kucinich doesn’t have a clue about the societal chaos that would result from massive, uncontrolled immigration. Sure, so we should open the flood gates and let everyone come here? Kucinich voted NO on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project (Jun 2006), and says we should stop blaming immigrants for our system of slave labor (Jun 2007). Who says we blame or hate immigrants just looking for a job. We should blame the despicable politicians that are pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for voters and profits from cheap labor.

So, how does one select which candidate to vote for when all come up short? There is a rather obvious approach to making a rational critical choice. But, this approach requires a bit of a voter’s time and effort. Hence, it will not be a very popular approach.

That’s a good idea (i.e. grade them).

Here’s another comprehensive web-site helps you match your values up with a candidate (and shows voting records and statements by all candidates, and Congress persons). See OnTheIssues.ORG’s VoteMatch, SenateMatch, HouseMatch quizzes.
It will ask you many questions, and try to match you to candidates.
I took it and none of them scored very high; perhaps corroborationg that all of the candidates fall short.
Unfortunately, the quiz takes some time and effort too, so it will not be a very popular approach either.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 14, 2008 02:45 PM

DR
The progressive income tax is in no danger.Expecting some dramatic change is political fantasy. It needs a tune up to be sure. Closing loopholes and restoreing the progressivity will help a lot.
$40 trillion is speculative at best. We are already spending nearly twice as much per capita on healthcare as other developed countries. A sensible redirection of that spending could well mean we could be getting better care at less expense. At any rate ,Medicare simply cannot continue without the price controls only possible in a single payer enviorment.BTW Clearly Bushcos drug benefit was designed as a poison pill,just like his SS proposal and “no Child Left Behind programs.

Posted by: BillS at January 14, 2008 04:47 PM

Your 100% right David. Not one of the the candidates on either ticket are giving any real answers to the problems facing this nation. Just a bunch of same old vague rhetoric of past elections. If I were a registered Republican or Democrat I’d be looking for the none of the above box on the primary ballot.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 14, 2008 04:57 PM

d.a.n said: “Medicare simply cannot continue without the price controls only possible in a single payer enviorment.”

And incentives to move toward a much larger non-profit health care delivery system existing along side a much smaller for-profit system. The non-profit system needs to carry the single payer load of Basic, Preventive, and Emergency health care. The for Profit-System should remain for elective procedures, those who can afford to sustain it, and for research and development of new medical technologies and procedures.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2008 05:13 PM

Ron, I agree with your dissatisfaction, but, noneoftheabove provides no electorate guided direction to those who are elected. Voting for incumbent’s challengers sends a much clearer mandate to the newly elected challengers. DO NOT screw up like your predecessor or you too won’t be reelected.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2008 05:16 PM

The progressive income tax is in no danger. Expecting some dramatic change is political fantasy. It needs a tune up to be sure. Closing loopholes and restoreing the progressivity will help a lot.

What Progressive Tax System? Yes, it is in dire need of simplification to eliminate all tax loop holes.

The current tax system is effectively regressive, as evidenced by Warren Buffet (2nd wealthiest American), who made $46 Million and paid an effective 17.7% income tax, while his secretary paid an effective 30% income tax rate on $60K.

The regressive tax system is just one of several regressive/oppressive systems that apathtic and complacent voters not only allowed to happen, but rewarded THEIR politicians for, by repeatedly rewarding them with 95%-to-99% re-election rates.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 14, 2008 05:20 PM

BillS said: “The progressive income tax is in no danger.”

I would disagree. There is simply too much money being spent to shape the public’s perception on taxes and alternative systems like the unFair Sales tax and the Flat Tax, to not constitute a potential threat to the current unacceptable system. I agree with you, that a progressive income system could be made more fair, and equitable, but, such a balance would not be durable in the hands of Congressional politicians, who get reelected for screwing it up all over again by pandering for votes with other people’s tax dollars.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2008 05:22 PM

BillS wrote (not d.a.n): Medicare simply cannot continue without the price controls only possible in a single payer enviorment.

Why is healthcare so expensive in this nation?

Four major reasons:

• (1) greed; unnecessary middlemen; millions in the insurance companies making billions annually while providing no net benefit


• (2) mistakes; not only is healtchare becoming unaffordable, but increasingly dangerous too; an average of 195,000 people (per year) in the U.S. died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002; The U.S. has the most errors of the following nations:
  
  • Nation / Errors:
  
  
  • USA / 34%
  
  
  • Canada / 30%
  
  
  • Australia / 27%
  
  
  • New Zealand / 25%
  
  
  • Germany / 23%
  
  
  • UK / 22%
  
  That’s appalling. That makes HealthCare in the U.S. one of the leading causes of death! Compare that to the 57,000 Americans that died in Vietnam!
  
  
• (3) government meddling; Medicare price controls are shifting costs to other paying customers; many doctors are refusing to take more (or any) Medicare patients; restrictions on less expensive prescription drug imports;


• (4) illegal immigration; hundreds of hospitals are being overrun by illegal aliens; 84 hospiitals are closing in one state (CA) alone; an estimated 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare; many other burdens are shifting net losses of $70 Billio to $338 Billion annually to tax payers; politicians are despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits from cheap labor;


• Other contributing economic factors exacerbating the problem: regressive taxation, inflation, government waste and incompetence, two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, price gouging for prescription drugs, rising numbers of people without health insurance, falling and/or stagnant incomes, national debt, etc.;

David R. Remer wrote: [BillS,] I agree with you, that a progressive income system could be made more fair, and equitable, but, such a balance would not be durable in the hands of Congressional politicians, who get reelected for screwing it up all over again by pandering for votes with other people’s tax dollars.

Then, perhaps it should be an amendment (i.e. No tax-loopholes, subsidies, deductions, or exemptions can be added or removed without an amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states)? Such as a Balanced Budget amendment, or a One-Purpose-Per-BILL amendment? But that too has a snowball’s chance in hell, since Congress has decided it can violate the Constitution.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 14, 2008 06:15 PM

David,

You wrote:

I agree with you, that a progressive income system could be made more fair, and equitable, but, such a balance would not be durable in the hands of Congressional politicians, who get reelected for screwing it up all over again by pandering for votes with other people’s tax dollars.

Politicians will pander for votes no matter what kind of tax plan we have, and to a certain extent, even if there is public financing of elections.

This is another reason why we must absolutely defeat the “line item veto.”

It sounds so good. I was for it. We obviously need a system to control pork. Pork is defined as the other white meat. That is not a very good definition - so controling it is no simple matter.

I define pork as building a new nuclear warhead or a star wars missile defense that does not and never will actually work. The Repubs define pork as providing health care for sick children… What is pork?

The problem with the line item veto is simply this: It gives even more power to an already over empowered Presidency. The line item veto will do nothing to eliminate pork, (whatever pork is), because the President is a politician too and he will use it to pander for votes; for himself, for his party, and to arm twist congress into rolling and playing dead - deader than they already are that is…

If a Democratic Senator wants to stand up for the Constitution against a Republican President, he won’t be able to do it if he can’t get reelected. He can’t get reelected without pork. He won’t stand up.

Switch it around. If a Republican Senator wants to stand up for the Constitution against a Democratic President, he won’t be able to do it if he can’t get reelected. He can’t get reelected without pork. He won’t stand up.

We talk about Bush acting like a King now. If we get a line item veto - you ain’t seen nottin yet.

Queen Hillary or Queen Giuliani will rule with an iron fist inside of a delicate white velvet glove.

The best way to actually limit pork is through public financing of elections. People who want to get paid to build bridges to nowhere will not be able to buy pork with campaign contributions. There will always be the usual pandering for votes, but that is penny ante by comparison.

Posted by: Ray Guest at January 14, 2008 06:22 PM

The best way to actually limit pork is through public financing of elections.

Perhaps. Especially since 99.85% of all 200 million eligible voters 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).

Four other things that would help:

• (1) One-Purpose-Per-BILL amendment


• (2) Balanced Budget amendment


• (3) Voters stop rewarding irresponsible and corrupt politicians and the two-party duopoly with 96.5% seat-retention rates.
  When in doubt, vote ‘em out!


• (4) Education (sooner when it will be less painful than later).

At any rate, the following are for certain:

• our government is FOR-SALE, increasingly plutocratic,


• too many voters repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election does not seem to be working (in fact, it’s making things worse),


• we will learn one way or another (at least, when pain finally trumps apathy, complacency, adn/or blind loyalty),


• and we will have the government that we deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 14, 2008 06:44 PM

David
I know that voting for the challenger over the incumbent will send a message to those in office. But we’re talking about the primaries here. There aint any incumbents in this case. Voting none of the above, if it were available would force a whole new feild of candidates to try to get their party’s nomination. And it just might force that new field to actually come up with real solutions for the issues.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 14, 2008 07:41 PM

Ray said: “Politicians will pander for votes no matter what kind of tax plan we have, and to a certain extent, even if there is public financing of elections.”

With a Flat Tax system, they may try to pander, but, there would be a cacophany more resistance to increasing taxes to cover that pandering, than under the current system in which 94% of the voting public is not even aware when taxes are being increased. Largely a media thing and math thing, really. Under a flat tax system, the math is easy, and the media can cover it without straining their journalism education brains.

Under the current system, taxes are never raised on everyone, and deciphering who gets the raises, who gets the cuts, and whose taxes remain the same, is just beyond most journalists pea brain capacities to translate into words what they see and hear. Translating math and statistics into the English language is the nightmare the media journalists try to avoid when possible. Afterall, if they were any good at math, they would be making 4 times as much as an engineer.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2008 07:49 PM

Ron said: “There aint any incumbents in this case.”

There is for congressional nominees in many jurisdictions. That’s the problem with Presidential election years, the electorate forgets that a Congress gets nominated and elected too! Not in every district of course as some may have no Senate seats up for election and Representatives may be unchallenged within their own party.

But, its certainly not true of many districts, and provides a perfect opportunity to vote out an incumbent and vote in a challenger from the very same party. Seems to me a lot of Republicans and some Democrats would find that proposition appealing if they were aware of the option.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2008 07:53 PM

Ray, I agree about the pork. The pork will end when the voters make pork a voting out incumbent offense. Then the new politicians, not wanting to suffer the same fate as those they are replacing, will end the pork. A simple matter of political survival.

But, its up to the voters to make pork an incumbent destroying offense. The American people are capable of recognizing that our nation cannot survive with all this corruption of, and by, political officials putting power over the survival of the nation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2008 07:59 PM

I would recommend against that site, Ray. Many of the questions are limiting in their responses, as if there are only two possible answers to their questions, and perpetuate the duopoly we have in this country at the present time. Posted by: Rhinehold at January 14, 2008 12:54 AM

I answered only one question. The results I received stated every candidate agreed. Ron Paul was absent from the results but I was able to link to the forbes article in which he was asked the question along with his response.

He did not agree. He did not disagree. It was his only vague answer.

I will stop federal judges from imposing new definitions on the States. I will also return control over education to parents and local communities. Decisions about whether or not to fund vouchers, have merit pay for teachers or extend the school year should be made by parents and local school boards, not by D.C.-based bureaucrats.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/01/election-candidates-politics-oped-cz_rp_1002paul.html

RickIL,
Energy Independence is the only issue in this presidential campaign. Elect one man to do one job. The President of the United States should be tasked with one problem, Energy Independent in eight years, evaluated every two years.

If we are not using our own resources to supply our energy needs in eight years then this president has failed and we start over. Period.

You can’t expect anything from them if you don’t expect something.

We don’t need universal health care unless it’s mental health care.

We don’t need to concour the world, we need to conquer other worlds.

I would suggest we devote this election to energy independence, totally. Iraq will not be an issue if the world economy did not depend on oil.

You guys are going to laugh.

Elect a President who will replace every gas powered passenger vehicle with an electric powered vehicle in eight years.

Period.

If he does, He’s a good president. If he doesn’t, he’s a bad president.

No honeymoon.

Perhaps energy independence isn’t the issue. Maybe it’s border security. My opinion is if we have our country surrounded by structures capable of producing energy and repelling invading hordes we can kill two birds with one stone.

That’s too simple isn’t it. That’s why Ron Paul get’s the 20 million$ and I just get my seven thousand$ every quarter. He knows we can bring everyone home. I just work here.

Oh, About this Constitution being a vague, grey area that needs to be interpreted for us by an elite few(9)? Don’t believe it. Every word means just what it says. The Individual has more rights than the State and the State has more rights than the Federal Government. The Federal Government is not your master. You are.
Your personal beliefs and your family traditions will carry you further than your government will.

G’nite an’ may Gawd Bless.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 14, 2008 08:02 PM

Willie,

You write as though the President had all the power and did not have to seek agreement from Congress for making all these broad changes(like replacing all gas cars with electrics in 8 years). Besides the impossibility of building enough generating power to support such a plan, this would take more power than Congress or the President, or the Judicial branch have. It looks good on paper, but it just ain’t practical.

Posted by: Old Grouch at January 14, 2008 08:22 PM

Yes it is! You Old Grouch!

The American People need to make it VERY SIMPLE AND VERY STUPID for the Federal Government.

That would include telling it to BUTT OUT!

I would feel much more at ease if my local government was listening to me and not to my state and federal government.

If I gave my 93 Dodge truck to someone who traded me for a ZAP, a ZeroAirPolution automobile, would I be a sucker?

Would I vote for someone who said I would get a ZeroAirPolution Automobile if I traded in my 93 dodge truck?

You bet your sweet ass I would.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 14, 2008 08:32 PM

If our state officials were responsible for our federal official’ actions we would have a very different senerio in this day 2008.

The constitution is vulnerable to change and perhaps change is not so good.

The state is suppose to be equal to the federal government. The 16th amendment changed that.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 14, 2008 09:01 PM

David,

Good Post and good analysis.

One correction, Dr. Paul has an M.D. not a Ph.D. from Duke University.

Posted by: googlumpugus at January 14, 2008 09:47 PM

He was in the military as a doctor, too.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 14, 2008 10:02 PM

Reality, too, is something that should be accepted, not shied away from, regardless of whether one wants to change it toward one’s principles.

Reality is unfortunately in the eye of the beholder… If, for example, someone has a principle against government intrusion, then to solve a problem that is real, they would look for an alternative that doesn’t violate those princples. Someone without those principles will most likely look for the easiest way to implement a solution, not concerned about those, and then tell everyone that their way is the best and only real way. All the while belittling those principles as ‘quaint and old-fashioned’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 14, 2008 10:26 PM

googlumpus, that may explain, as per my discussion of professionals supporting him, his simple solutions to complex problems. Got a headache, here’s a pill. Bad kidney, we will cut it out, no problem, simple procedure. Can’t sleep, stay up longer and don’t drink caffeine after 2PM.

Yet another specialist who thinks expertise in one field makes him an expert in all fields, instead of a student. His total lack of logical thought may also explain why he is now a politician instead of a physician. Like his reference to an Amendment to the Constitution being Unconstitutional. He says it all the time about the 16th Amendment. Total absence of logic with a penchant for the slippery trick of introducing his own definitions into the conversation. By his definition A constitutional amendment is not constitutional unless he agrees with it. Slippery little sucker, that Ron Paul.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2008 10:32 PM

Or a vague, grey area, open to interpretation by an elite few.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 14, 2008 10:34 PM

Rhinehold said: “Reality is unfortunately in the eye of the beholder…”

What an absolutely, astoundingly comment.

Reality, is by definition, what the consensus of many agree it is. This verification by the empirical observance and agreement of many as the definition of reality stands in total contradiction to your wishful definition for the sake of your argument.

If your definition were true, there would be no words in existence for insanity or delusion or illusion. You really make me smile sometimes, Rhinehold. I used to do that too, make up definitions to suit my argument. Then I got introduced to some really smart people, far smarter and vastly more educated than I.

I noticed as they debated each other, they either used conventional dictionary definitions or they agreed to definitional constraints before proceeding with their arguments. Turns out, though this was new to me, it was established formally by the Ancient Greeks such as Plato and Aristotle, wherein the ideal, sanity, and reality required could only be discussed and established by specific definitions, and communication and commerce were no less dependent upon agreed definitions in common usage by the parties to interaction.

If you truly believe reality is in the eye of the beholder, it explains the anarchist trend running through some of your commentary. The anarchist makes up their own definitions according to their moment’s need. Authoritarians do that too. It is one of their hallmarks.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2008 10:44 PM

googlumpus, btw, thank you for the correction.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2008 10:45 PM

Kinda’ like a grey area in need of interpretation.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 14, 2008 10:47 PM

d.a.n said, referring to a balanced budget amendment: “Then, perhaps it should be an amendment (i.e. No tax-loopholes, subsidies, deductions, or exemptions can be added or removed without an amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states)?”

Wouldn’t that become disastrous, d.a.n? There are times when every nation needs the flexibility to borrow, as in the case of natural disasters of major proportions, invasion, or human miscalculation on a national level resulting in severe economic recession or depression.

Seems to me a better solution would be a balanced budget amendment in which, defined, detailed, specific, and constrained circumstances for borrowing are excepted, and otherwise, balancing the budget is mandatory by the amendment. I would even go so far as to include in the amendment the making of a legislative bill which fails to balance the budget, and impeachable offense for the sponsors and co-sponsors, which violates the conditions set out in the amendment. A little teeth to the Amendment would go a long way to prevent political chicanery.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2008 10:59 PM

Ah, the old ‘anarchist/authoritarian’ bullshit again.

Geesh, one could have thought you would have understood the nuance of what I was saying, as smart as you say you are, it obviously passed over your head.

Let’s try to be more specific then, shall we?

You assert that libertarianism is ‘simple’ and doesn’t deal with the realities of running a government. But your use of the word reality is really a misnomer and used only to make your point appear to have weight where none exists. You constantly ignore the possibility that the hard problems can be tackled AND our liberties maintained, simply because you haven’t thought of it before or someone else might not have thought of it before (that you know of). So, instead of accepting that there may be a way, you take the easy way out and chalk it up to ‘reality’.

There are very few mindets more authoritarian as statism. There are very few mindsets less authoritarian as libertarianism. They are direct opposites of each other. Yet you take long painful (and wild leaps of ‘logic’) to try to assert that is it actually the libertarian though that is authoritarian. It’s truly funny to watch sometimes.

Oh, and I almost forgot, the obligatory “I’m smarter than you, neener” attitude. *sigh*

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 14, 2008 11:56 PM

He says it all the time about the 16th Amendment. Total absence of logic with a penchant for the slippery trick of introducing his own definitions into the conversation. By his definition A constitutional amendment is not constitutional unless he agrees with it. Slippery little sucker, that Ron Paul.

Most likely he is referring to the ever increasing amount of evidence that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. That would, if proven, make it Unconstitutional by definition, wouldn’t it?

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

Do you even know why he says it is Uncosntitutional or do you just assume thought and meaning into everything everyone says, not just those of us you ‘debate’ with here?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2008 12:03 AM

http://www.devvy.com/notax.html

As you can see, it doesn’t matter which party is in office, there is no surplus and the debt cannot be paid down, it can only grow exponentially as long as Congress and the President have the central bank at their fingertips.

A “balanced budget” is nothing more than good political rhetoric, but in reality, it’s a pipe dream strictly for public consumption. How can you balance your budget if you have no money to spend and are trillions of dollars in the hole? You can’t. It’s just another well crafted illusion to keep the masses pacified.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but the American people have awakened to this monumental theft and are demanding the only real solution that can be implemented: Abolishing the central bank, and a return to a constitutional monetary system with no income tax.

Without the central bank siphoning off the wealth of our nation, there would be no need for a personal income tax.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2008 12:16 AM

Rhinehold, the 16th Amendment is attached to the Constitution as an amendment. If Ron Paul is going to run about the country declaring it unconstitutional, don’t you think it is he, not me, that needs to explain why?

Duh! Quite frankly, I don’t think it matters if it was ratified in any practical sense. It is accepted as ratified and functional as ratified. The first step to changing that is for Ron Paul to prove in a suit before federal courts that it was not ratified.

That too, is in the Constitution. BTW, where is Ron Paul’s principles if he truly believes the 16th is illegal, why is he paying federal taxes? Does he not have the same courage of our founders who refused the taxes on tea to King George? Or is he just another politician that found a few controversial phrases to get himself some attention, which perhaps he couldn’t get as an M.D.

If he believes in the Constitution, let him follow it, and file his lawsuit to prove it was never ratified. At this point he just sounds like another political hack who figured out fame and money can be made from free speech. I think he’s just a bible thumping hack who uses the Constitution instead of the Holy Book. With some evidence and legal proceedings, my opinion could be changed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 15, 2008 10:01 AM

Rhinehold said: “Let’s try to be more specific then, shall we?”

Well you tried. But failed, and quite inaccurately. You said I referred to libertarianism as simple, that is not accurate nor true. I referred to Ron Paul’s campaign prescriptions as simple minded.

A little accuracy will go a long way toward toward a productive debate, Rhinehold. Playing fast and loose with the facts, gets your argument nowhere.

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

weary willie, and what is an interpretation but, a decision by an individual or individuals amongst many alternatives, what something shall mean. Which will always raise the question of motive and criteria used to justify this interpretation over many others, which implies an agenda and motive for having made the interpretation this over that.

This is why it is impossible to ever have Supreme Court rulings that are free from the legitimate inquiry as to what standards and rationales were used for their rulings. How gray is gray? When the Court says gray is this shade of gray, not that shade of gray, there is no getting around the fact that they used criteria of value to them to make that decision.

The Constitution and its amendments, leaving many answers and questions in gray areas, means little would change regardless of the political affiliation of the Justices regarding debate over their interpretations and questions no matter what party nominated and confirmed their seat on the court. The very fact that the political parties intend to stack the courts with their political agendas has destroyed the non-political nature of the Supreme Court. Every one of their rulings have political implications and consequences by the true strict definition of political.

The days when the Supreme Court’s justices held each other to standards above political reproach by and large through peer group pressure, saw the beginning of their end when FDR began his campaign to stack the courts with a political agenda. Today the court is politically divided along very politically pretested lines (e.g. pro-RvW and anti-abortion, or, expanded executive authority vs. Congressional oversight and checks).

That is a genie that won’t go back in the bottle without a new Constitutional Convention and rewrite of the Judicial nomination and selection process and criteria, which prevents the political parties from being in control of the judicial selection process and criteria.

This is just yet another example of the destructive aspect of this political party system we have created which was never contemplated in the Constitution nor anticipated by our founders to wield the reins of power, though it rose its ugly head almost immediately after the election of George Washington as president.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 15, 2008 10:26 AM

David R. Remer wrote: [to BillS,] I agree with you, that a progressive income system could be made more fair, and equitable, but, such a balance would not be durable in the hands of Congressional politicians, who get reelected for screwing it up all over again by pandering for votes with other people’s tax dollars.

d.a.n wrote:Then, perhaps it should be an amendment (i.e. No tax-loopholes, subsidies, deductions, or exemptions can be added or removed without an amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states)?

David R. Remer wrote: Wouldn’t that become disastrous, d.a.n? There are times when every nation needs the flexibility to borrow, as in the case of natural disasters of major proportions, invasion, or human miscalculation on a national level resulting in severe economic recession or depression.

Some borrowing could be permitted for disasters and war.

Otherwise, shouldn’t the federal government have to work within a budget like everyone else (instead of stealing from and dumping massive debt and burdens onto many future generations)?
Even during recession or depression?
The federal government (continuously meddling, toying, and experimenting with the currency, inflation, borrowing, spending, and selective enforcement or abuse of laws) is a major cause of bubbles, recessions, and depressions.
And the excessive money printing, inflation, and fiscal bankruptcy of the severely bloated federal government during the past 30+ years may be, ironically, the recipe for the worst depression ever?

Mention of a BALANCED BUDGET amendment, and an amendment to limit taxation were in response to comments above on “progressive taxation”, an amendment to prohibit regressive taxation, tax-loopholes, subsidies, deductions, or exemptions, the “line-item veto” rampant, and “pork-barrel”, spending, and waste.

It’s doubtful that a line-item veto would resolve anything, and may make things worse.
One-Purpose-Per-BILL makes more sense, so that tens of thousands of pages for earmarks and pork-barrel can’t sneak into huge BILLs that most Congress persons don’t even read.
It would increase transparency (something that is severely lacking) and allow the merit of BILLs on their since purpose.

Regarding fiscal flexibility, the government could vary a flat (neutral) income tax rate (only on income above the poverty level).
That should provide sufficient flexibility.

A lack of any BALANCED BUDGET amendment may be one of the major things that has proved to be disastrous, based on the following:

• $9.2 Trillion National Debt;


• $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security;


• hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities for Medicare and other things to bribe the voters with their own tax dollars;


• rampant spending, pork-barrel, graft, bribery, pandering, and waste;


• excessive money-printing causing the U.S. Dollar to fall like a rock for the last 5+ years;


• excessive borrowing that risks the security of future generations;


• a severely complex (by design) tax system that is unfair and regressive;

But the hope for any amendments is folly since the Congress has decided it can flagrantly violate Article V of the U.S. Constitution, despite 38 states having already filed 81 BALANCED BUDGET amendment requests since 1961 (all to be ignored). So, it appears, since year 1961, the states have very much wanted a BALANCED BUDGET amendment. But it appears to be futile since all 50 states could propose another 567 amendments and Congress would probably ignore those too. It’s curious as to why any states submit any amendments when Congress ignores all of them?

It appears that an increasing number of our laws are being violated, but are the candidates addressing them?

• The 1st Amendment is being violated. the House of Representatives passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the 1st Amendment (H.R. 2679) by making attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment unable to recover attorneys fees. The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion. But not just any religion.


• Eminent Domain abuse;


• Habeas Corpus;


• Appointing and making Judges dependent on the will of the President;


• Spying on citizens without civil oversight;


• Unfair and regressive taxation;


• Government FOR-SALE and increasingly plutocratic;


• Abuse of the monetary system/currency; excessive money printing;


• Constant attempts to violate the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms); You can’t have a gun unless we want you to go pre-emptively attack another nation based on flawed intelligence;


• Congress persons giving themselves cu$hy perks and benefits superior to most Americans who fund them;


• Using the IRS to harass citizens;


• Ignoring countless warnings and failing to connect the most obvious of dots to prevent the preventable, despite Trillions spent annually for defense;


• Starting pre-emptive wars based on flawed and/or trumped-up intelligence (but only where their is oil);


• Torture; violating U.S. Laws and Geneva Convention treaties; and destruction of evidence;


• Congress is blatantly violating Article V of the U.S. Constitution, despite 567 amendment applications from all 50 states and far in excess of the number required;


• George Bush (43) said about the U.S. Constitution: “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper! Never mind that our fore-fathers and all the others whom have died protecting it for US.;


• Voting problems and irregularities;


• Abuse of presidential pardons that puts politicians and their friends above the law;


• Congress abdicating its responsibility to declare war;


• Judicial abuses and aberrations; Stare decisis is the doctrine that treats decisions in past similar cases as authoritative precedents. However, over time, degree by degree, the result is 180 degrees from where it started and supports the very thing the laws were originally supposed to prevent;


• Rep. (D-LA) William Jefferson is still in office?


• War profiteering; 7 wars in the last 90 years (some being unnecessary);


• Immigration laws are being ignored by politicians pandering for votes and profits from cheap labor; despicably pitting American citizens and illegal alien against each other;


• The severely bloated federal government growing larger and larger, to nightmare proportions;

That’s just a few. The list seems to be getting longer.

Could all of this lawlessness be fueling more lawlessness?

It’s appears that the plutocrats are playing a sinister and calculated game to abuse the apathetic and complacant voters as much as possible, without enough of the voters finally realizing how systematically and completely that they have been manipulated, used, and abused.

It could be that the Constitution that has protected our rights and liberties for more than 200 years is now in greater danger than at any time in our history?

After all, too many voters continue to endlessly whine and complain about corrupt incumbent politicians, but strangely continue to empower and reward those very same incumbent politicians.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 15, 2008 12:54 PM

d.a.n asked: “Otherwise, shouldn’t the federal government have to work within a budget like everyone else (instead of stealing from and dumping massive debt and burdens onto many future generations)?”

It should, unless, millions of Americans will suffer in ways future tax payers would not want them to suffer, as a result.

Severe recessions and depressions at this point in history could have very long term detrimental effects on future taxpayers. Hence, borrowing to mitigate those long term detrimental effects may be viewed as a bargain by the next generation saddled by the increased taxes of the borrowing.

It might be easier to craft an amendment which simply states that a balanced budget is required whenever the GDP growth rate is above 0%, except in the event of attack upon the U.S. or natural disaster affecting more than 250,000 American residents, provided the GDP growth rate is below 2%.

This would prevent borrowing during times when the economy is growing, even in the event of war or disaster when Americans can afford to tax themselves to pay for the war or disaster.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 15, 2008 03:32 PM

d.a.n said: “It’s doubtful that a line-item veto would resolve anything, and may make things worse.”

I agree. It would create more problems than it solves.

“Could all of this lawlessness be fueling more lawlessness?”

Absolutely. Congress breaking of its own laws regarding illegal immigration is a perfect example. Which in turn promoted foreign aliens to break our laws as well, by the millions. And now we have Diebold machines, (they have changed their name, btw) which afford the opportunity to deny the citizenry their democracy while leaving them proof that the crime was committed.

Could it be Congress is allowing Diebold machines as insurance against a groundswell of anti-incumbent voter sentiment in a future election? Sure looks like Congress covering its own ass against rebuke from the public, to me.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 15, 2008 03:39 PM

Could it be Congress is allowing Diebold machines as insurance against a groundswell of anti-incumbent voter sentiment in a future election? Sure looks like Congress covering its own ass against rebuke from the public, to me.

Probably, because a no-brainer, common-sense thing they could have easily done is to give the voter a receipt with a unique number in which voters can anonymously verify their vote.

Absolutely. Congress breaking of its own laws regarding illegal immigration is a perfect example.

Yes. There’s a steady chipping away at the foundation. The Constitution is being violated in over a dozen ways.

I think the way Hillary Clinton, Obama, and other candidates are pandering to immigrants and the illegal aliens is disgusting. And equally disgusting is the majority of Democrat voters that appear to be silent on the issue. It appears many Democrat voters are now willing to overlook the issue of illegal immigration. According to Hillary, “there is no illegal man or woman”. It wouldn’t be surprising if we get another amnesty like the one in 1986 that quadrupled the problem.

The middle-income-class has 50% responsibility for all of this. The majority of apathetic and complacent voters can not continually whine and complain (e.g. 11% approval ratines for Congress), then subsequently reward and empower the incumbent politicians with 95%-to-99% re-election rates, and then expect anything to improve. Unlike most others blaming corrupt politicians for everything, I see that the biggest problem in America is the apathetic and complacent voters. Despite the large number of irresponsible and corrupt politicians in Congress, I am becoming increasingly unsympathetic for the complacent and apathetic voters that repeatedly empower and reward those incumbent politicians with 95%-to-99% re-election rates. If too many voters continue to repeatedly crap in their own nest, it should be no surprise to them when the branch it all rests upon finally snaps.

At any rate, the voters will get their education, and the voters will have the government that they deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 15, 2008 07:58 PM

It seems that all of the candidates are sidestepping the illegal immigration issue which if you think about it is an important part of the economic issue. The economy has become a major concern as of late.
In Michigan the state with the highest unemployment rate Senator McCain said that the jobs are gone for good and the focus should be on retraining. Retrain for what? It used to be that the politicians could say retrain workers in the manufacturing sector for computer work. They can’t even say that anymore as most of the tech jobs are being outsourced by greedy companys. The illegal immigrants take other jobs (the few that are left) for wages below the minimum wage. If someone who owns a small business tries to go by the rules and hire legal workers he is forced out of business by the competition who uses illegal workers.
All of the candidates are pandering to socio-ethnic special interest groups big and small. What about the average working American? Well folks by a combination of illegal workers, outsourcing and disastrous free trade agreements Washington politicians have in effect said screw you.

Posted by: TBM at January 15, 2008 10:24 PM

TBM and d.a.n, I agree with you both entirely. There is no longer any question about the fact that both the political parties perceive much to gain by keeping imported cheap labor a reality rather than require either secured borders (Dem’s) or wages and benefits high enough to attract American workers (Rep’s). And both perceive they have much to lose by enforcing the laws regarding illegal immigration. Dem’s perceive illegal immigrants as potential democratic voters after they have become citizens and therefore their lock on power, and Rep’s perceive cheap labor as one of the incentives for business owners to continue to send Republicans campaign donations and subtly persuade their workers to vote Republican.

Quite right, TBM, both parties are saying to the American public, SCREW YOU, you will not stand in our way of getting what we want! As if government was designed to serve the politicians, instead of the nation and people’s interests and welfare.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 16, 2008 09:09 AM

TBM wrote: All of the candidates are pandering to socio-ethnic special interest groups big and small. What about the average working American? Well folks by a combination of illegal workers, outsourcing and disastrous free trade agreements Washington politicians have in effect said “screw you”.

No doubt about it.

It’s the result of not only greed, but complacency and apathy that is allowing many laws to be violated to allow these many regressive/oppressive systems to grow out-of-control, which did not all come about by mere coincidence.

And what do the whining and complaining voters do?
Strangely, they reward those same incumbent politicians and the two-party duopoly with a seat-retention rate of 96.5% (since year 1980).
I admit to doing it too in the past.
Why? Because I was one of the many complacent and apathetic too, and seduced into the circular, divisive, distracting partisan-warfare.
Isn’t it interesting how many of us reward, support, and become cheer-leaders for the very incumbent politicians that are using and abusing us, selling us out, pitting Americans and illegal aliens against each other, and other manifestations of unchecked greed?
But not any more, because things will worsen until enough of the 200 million eligible voters stop rewarding incumbent politicians and the two-party duopoly with 96.5% seat-retention rates.
Especially since 99.85% of all 200 million eligible voters are vastly out-spent by a very tiny 0.15% of all voters that make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more), and 90% of all elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money.

Two periods of some of the highest anti-incumbent voting periods in America were during the Civil War and the Great Depression?
Have we not learned anything?
There’s a term for repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
Must pain and misery always be our motivation for change?
Will we always have the luxury of repeating the same mistakes, until we are finally motivated by the painful consequences of decades of complacency and apathy?

David Remer wrote: Quite right, TBM, both parties are saying to the American public, SCREW YOU, you will not stand in our way of getting what we want! As if government was designed to serve the politicians, instead of the nation and people’s interests and welfare.

No doubt about it. For example, watch this 3.5 minute video which reveals one of the most disgusting and un-American things I’ve ever seen. A law firm, Cohen & Grisby (www.cohenlaw.com), train employers how to avoid hiring Americans (programmersguild.blogspot.com/2007/06/youtube-gate-cohen-grigsby-train-how-to.html). Hundreds of thousands of job ads are fake and being used to for the goal to get green cards for H-1B Visa workers. Yet, the lies that we all benefit from illegal immigration and imported labor still flourish. Job displacement is just one of the many burdens of illegal immigration.

Since most Americans polled are against another amnesty (like the one in year 1986, which more than quadrupled the problem), want illegal immigration stopped, and want the borders secured, you’d think they would be voicing concern about Hillary, Obama, Edwards, McCain, and other politicians with crappy voting records on illegal immigration (e.g. most of all those have a D or D- score from BetterImmigration.com) pandering to illegal aliens.

But they are very strangely silent on the issue.
It is beginning to appear as though party-loyalty trumps everything else (again)?
Too many voters rationalize their silence by saying “no politician exists that I agree with on all issues”.
Nevermind about the:

• wide-spread violation of existing laws;


• millions of jobs are being displaced;


• greedy employers profiting by illegally employing aliens, and shifting numerous costs to tax payers;


• welfare, Medicaid, MediCal (an estimated 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare);


• half of illegal aliens don’t pay income or Social Security taxes;


• closure of hospitals being overrun by illegal aliens (84 in California alone);


• burdens on public schools;


• prisons (29% of all people incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens);


• crime (there are an esitmated 3.6 to 12 homicides per day by illegal aliens; GAO Report 5646 (9-May-2005) recorded 5,992 homicides for a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens);


• voting fraud; with 12-to-20 million illegal aliens, there’s no mystery why Democrats want an amnesty and pander to the illegal aliens;


• increased costs for law enforcement and border patrol;


• increased costs for insurance, medical insurance, and healthcare;

While most voters probably don’t begrudge the illegal alien simply looking for a job, it is interesting how they can rationalize and make excuses for THEIR party, and THEIR party’s candidate that despicably pits American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.

Thus, the voters will get their education one way or another, and the voters will have the government that they deserve.
Perhaps voters will be less complacent and apathetic when they are jobless, homeless, and hungry (if history is any measure)?

Posted by: d.a.n at January 16, 2008 10:47 AM

TBM Said: It seems that all of the candidates are sidestepping the illegal immigration issue which if you think about it is an important part of the economic issue.

Of course they are. Neither party wants to stop illegal immigration. The Republicans want the cheap labor. The Democrats want the potential votes. Neither care about what happens to the economy as long as they get what they want.
Your right. Both parties are telling the American public “Screw You.” They’re also saying “The only time y’all count is election time.” And even then they could care less about our concerns. They just tell us what we want to hear so we’ll vote for them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 16, 2008 01:41 PM

Mitt Romney…with a pledge to pay attention to textile and other industrial job losses that have punished the South.

Industry in the South? How about the entire Midwest…AKA the “rust bucket”…just more pandering for Southern votes, I guess.

Posted by: Rachel at January 16, 2008 02:52 PM

I hope the people of South Caroline and all other American U.S. citizens will remember what some of the Congress persons have done against the wishes of the legal citizens of this country, by despicably pitting American citizens. Lindsey Graham, Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards (and others; see BetterImmigration grades here; scroll to the bottom of the list, or press Ctrl-F and search for any name), and President Bush tried to push the so-called shamnesty BILL for illegal immigrants to become U.S. citizens against the will of most Americans polled.

These FOR-SALE, money-grabbing, power-grabbing, do-nothing, look-the-other-way, irresponsible, corrupt politicians are selling Americans out almost daily. And Lindsey Graham (R-SC) seems to be getting ready for the race to the White House in 2012, but the voters should vote him out of office, along with most (if not all) in Do-Nothing Congress.

It seems quite likely that the trumped up war with Iraq (based on a complex web of lies and exaggerations) was a war to make all of Bush’s and Cheney’s their friends into billionaries, off the blood of the working-class men and women of this country.
Our Congress persons have just brushed American citizens aside for cheap labor and profits.
Washington D.C. needs a good flush.
If too many voters continue to repeatedly reward corrupt and irresponsible incumbent politians and the two-party duopoly with 96.5% seat-retention rates (i.e. re-election), then those voters only have themselves to thank for it.

It’s a lie, but it is repeated over and over by pro-illegal-alien and pro-immigration lobbyists. They all say the same thing: illegal aliens only take the jobs Americans refuse to do. Greedy elitists in search of profits from cheap labor are forever singing hymns to this lie.
They also say that the illegal immigrants are a benefit to the nation, but that is a lie too.
The illegal employers are making profits, but the U.S. tax payers are having $70 Billion to $338 Billion in other costs and burdens shifted to them.
You, the American citizen, don’t matter.
Especially when too many of the voters repeatedly reward incumbent politicians with 95%-to-99% re-election rates anyway.
These Congress persons have more compassion for illegal aliens than American citizens, and/or care more about cheap labor and potential votes.

• Where is the compassion for U.S. citizens that go without healthcare and access to ERs because ERs and hospitals are over-flowing with illegal aliens (of which many don’t pay)? Is this fair to U.S. tax payers? 84 hospitals closed in California due to Illegal Aliens:


• Where is the compassion for the truly needy U.S. citizens that can not get help because of limited resources, because 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare ?


• Where is the compassion for the illegal aliens being lured here for sub-minimum wage jobs, creating an under-paid, under-class (practically slavery) ?


• Where is the compassion for displaced American workers and the outrage at the greedy employers of illegal aliens ?


• Where is the compassion for the U.S. victims and survivors of crimes perpetrated by illegal aliens and tax payers the pay the high costs of incarceration, deportaiton, law enforcement, and trials (29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens), and the crime rates are rising? Are all illegal immigrants sexual predators or murderers? No, of course not. Most just see better opportunities offered by America. But, per capita, illegals commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes. We also shouldn’t fail to mention their contribution to illegal drug and gun trafficking, adding to America’s crime problem.


• Where is the compassion for U.S. Americans who’s lives have been changed forever by illegal aliens that spread disease ? One illegal alien in Santa Barbara, California infected 56 other people with tuberculosis as reported on April 24, 2004, by the Santa Barbara Press-News, “Anatomy of an Outbreak”. Because illegal alien migration into the USA continues unabated for the past 20 years, we now have 16,000 new cases of incurable MDR tuberculosis in the past five years. We suffer 7,000 new cases of leprosy. We tolerate 100,000 new cases of hepatitis “A” in our society. Chagas Disease, which affects 14 million South Americans and kills 50,000 annually, streams across our borders as unchecked thousands of them enter our society. If your child goes to public school, they could be exposed, as thousands already have been?


• Where is the compassion for the people murdered every day by an illegal alien (Source: GAO-05-646R based on study group of 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period)?


• Where is the compassion for all of the people that do not want to see a repeat of 11-Sep-2001, which was perpetrated by several illegal aliens; 18 of the 19 terrorist hijackers on 11-SEP-2001 possessed state-issued and/or counterfeit drivers’ licenses or ID cards and ALL 19 had obtained Social Security numbers (some real, some fake). Those terrorists very simply tapped into an enormous market for fraudulent documents that exists because 12+ million people have successfully breached our borders and now reside here illegally. Their presence has spawned widespread document and identity fraud that threatens our ability to distinguish illegal aliens from U.S. citizens and legal foreign residents. Yet, Barack Obama wants to give drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens? And Hillary isn’t sure?


• Where is the compassion or all the victims in South Carolina which had the highest rate of violent crime (excluding D.C.) of any state in the U.S. and it is largely due to illegal aliens. in fact, South Carolina is submitting a Constitutional amendment with regard to illegal immigration.


• Where is the compassion for the U.S. tax payers net losses of over $70 billion per year due to all the numerous problems stemming from illegal aliens?


• Where is the compassion for the 2.3 million displaced American workers?


• Where is the compassion for all of the U.S. policemen murdered by illegal aliens? On 13-Nov-2005, Brian Jackson, a Dallas policeman was shot and killed by an illegal alien, Juan Lizcano. Lizcano had become drunk and went to the home of his ex-girfriend to threaten her. As the police pursued Lizcano after he fled the woman’s home, he shot Officer Jackson, who died later in the hospital. Officer Jackson was remembered by his fellow police as someone who loved his job and always went the extra mile. In Denver, Colorado, an illegal deliberately ran over a Denver polceman in a school cross walk “breaking his legs along with severe internal injuries. This is not anectdotal. This tragedy has occurred over and over in many cities across the U.S. These are crimes that should have never happened.


• Where is the compassion for all of the thousands of homicide victims ? (estimated 3.6 to 12 or more homicides per day (the number keeps rising)!). Even if the lowest estimate (3.6) is used, the rate is twice the norm. If it is 12 homicides per day, that is 6.7 times more homicides.


• Where is the compassion for all of these victims of crime by illegal aliens?

It’s despicable.

Yet, too many voters repeatedly reward the incumbent politicians in Congress that voted for half a fence, and no money to build it.
The majority of Congress persons are responsible for this, yet too many voters repeatedly reward these despicable incumbent politicians for pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes.
Hopefully, this little detail will not be lost on the voters in the next election.
But, if it is, the voters will have the government that they deserve.
Perhaps the voters will be less complacent and apathetic when they are jobless, homeless, and hungry, or worse?
However, by that time, it may be too late.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 16, 2008 05:30 PM

what is an interpretation but, a decision by an individual or individuals amongst many alternatives, what something shall mean.

Interpret: (from Dictionary.com)

8. to explain something; give an explanation.

Decision: (from Dictionary.com)

4. a judgment, as one formally pronounced by a court.

a decision by an individual or individuals is a judgement. That judgement is based on an explanation. An explanation of what the constitution means, not

what something shall mean.

The standards and rationales used to create this document are already in place and have been for over 200 years. This idea of them being outdated, antiquated, not relevant, is an insult to the people who established those standards and rationales. The basis of this country’s Constitution is not irrelevant or antiquated or outdated, it’s misinterpreted. I can not imagine the people who wrote this document all agreeing to it being filled with shades of grey. It can’t make sense. The original intent is just as valid now as it was then. Shades of grey are why many posts in this very thread are documenting the flagrant disregard for the Constitution.

Is complaining about things and then making excuses for the causes productive? Is discounting any idea that will cause a disruption in the status quo a ligitimate democratic tactic?

No, and No. But a strict interpretation of the constitution is needed as a basis for a sound decision. What was the environment that bred the Constitution? What of the thoughts of the men who constructed the constitution? Why did they define it the way they did? This is information needing interpretation.

If our focus is a strict interpretation of the environment our constitution was born of, it would be our problems melting away and not our money, freedom, and our constitution.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 16, 2008 07:22 PM

The nation is lost.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 16, 2008 07:46 PM

That is, it has lost its way.
Consequences will build of enough voters don’t come through.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 16, 2008 07:59 PM

weary willie said: “a decision by an individual or individuals is a judgement. That judgement is based on an explanation. An explanation of what the constitution means, not what something shall mean.”

How illogical can a comment get? Weary Willie’s demonstrates.

If the Constitution is clear, it requires no explanation. If it is not clear, it requires interpretation. Whenever interpretation is required, multiple alternative interpretations are available. When one chooses amongst alternative interpretations, one is making a judgment as to what the language shall mean.

C’mon, WW. Such futile attempts by conservatives to call their interpretations valid and other’s interpretations invalid, will ALWAYS fail logically. And Republicans may be able to fool their own constituencies with subtle misuse of language and logic, but, certainly not those who understand logic and language, nor Republican’s adversaries.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 16, 2008 08:09 PM

Do I have Demonstrates?
Dagnabit!

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 16, 2008 08:21 PM

I noticed as they debated each other, they either used conventional dictionary definitions or