Third Party & Independents Archives

David R. Remer wrote: … all any voter has to go on in making their decision is the rhetoric of the candidate, the candidate’s supporters, and the candidate’s opponents.

And their voting records too, which are revealing; but not flattering for any of the 3 candidates (Obama, McCain, Clinton).

David R. Remer wrote: … will you, as an American citizen work to destroy his presidential legacy, or will you work to support his and other’s efforts to solve the Big 4 issues facing America: …

Regarding the nation’s BIG 4 issues:

• (1) LAWLESSNESS: corruption of government,


• (2) ECONOMY: entitlements, trade, national and personal debt looming in our future,


• (3) HOMELAND SECURITY: creating effective national security at an affordable cost to taxpayers and civil liberties,


• (4) EDUCATION: and educating America’s future citizens to effectively fend for themselves.

… the common thread with these BIG 4 issues are not so much about doing something NEW and different, as it is about stopping OLD abuses and other pre-existing manifestations of unchecked greed, that have been with us for decades (i.e. the past 30+ years):

• (01) STOP Lawlessness and corruption; enforce the laws and uphold the U.S. Constitution; stop pardons that put politicians above the law;


• (02) STOP starting unnecessary wars; 7 wars in the last 90 years (about 1 war every 13 years); and stop the fear mongering and lies as an excuse to start wars; especially with wide open borders and thousands of Americans being killed annually by illegal aliens;


• (03) STOP all pork-barrel, graft, bloat, peddling influence, waste, and other abuses of power (e.g. such as Congress giving itself 9 raises between 1997 and 2007);


• (04) STOP illegal immigration which is costing tax payers an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion annually in net losses; that could buy a lot of health insurance!; WageStagnation + CheapLabor = BigProfits; politicians are despicably pitting Americnas and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes; as for homeland security, it should be noted that more Americans were killed in the past 3 years by illegal aliens than all U.S. troops killed in Iraq in the last 5 years (since March-2003); also, the perpetrators of the 11-SEP-2001 attacks 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). Those terrorists very simply tapped into an enormous market for fraudulent documents that exists because 12-to-20 million illegal aliens have successfully breached our borders and now reside here illegally, and anonymously. And that anonymity breeds more crime, when illegal aliens are repeatedly arrested, released, and deported, over and over. GAO-5646R Report indicated that a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens had an average arrest record of 13 arrests per illegal alien.


• (05) STOP election problems; election fraud, stop blocking access to ballots; implement common-sense election reforms, and give voters a printed verifiable receipt of their vote;


• (06) STOP the borrowing, spending, and growing the massive $9.3 Trillion National Debt; stop plundering Social Security surpluses ($12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent, leaving
• (07) STOP abuse of the monetary system; inflation and force the Federal Reserve and government to target ZERO inflation and stop excessive money-printing;

it pay-as-you-go with a 77 million baby-boomer bubble approaching);

• (08) STOP regressive and unfair taxation;


• (09) STOP the misinformation and ignorance. An educated electorate is paramount. Ignorance is not an excuse or defense. An ignorant electorate will be abused and exploited. There are many things that most Americans are unaware of:
  • What causes inflation?
  • Why is the U.S. Dollar falling?
  • Why are incomes stagnant since 1967 while GDP has increased (despite more workers per household and a disappearing 40 hour work week)?
  • Why is the tax system called progressive, when it is actually regressive?
  • Why the occupation of Iraq? Oil?
  • Why rampant illegal immigration? Who profits from it?
  • Why aren’t existing laws enforced?
  • Why so much debt ($48 Trillion nation-wide)?
  • If economy is so great, why an economic stimulus package? What are they nervous about?
  • Why the constant consumerism and encouragement to spend, spend, spend?
  • Where will the money come from to pay the interest on that debt, much less the money to reduce the principal debt? What is a pyramid-scheme?
  • Why does a tiny 1% of the U.S. population own 40% of all wealth (up from 20% in year 1980)?
  • Why is the wealth-disparity gap larger now than ever before since the Great Depression?
  • Why are some things not taught in public schools (e.g. monetary theory)?
  • How is it that 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). There are two classes in this country. One class derives concentrated power from its concentrated wealth. The other class has power only in numbers, and that power is largely ineffective due to their inability to mobilize through organization (such as merely not re-electing irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians).
  There are many questions, and a person does not need to know all of the answers to know that these many abuses did not all come about by mere coincidence.


• (10) STOP the unnecessary middle men (i.e. government and insurance companies) and fraud in the healthcare system; stop killing 195,000 per year by medical mistakes and adverse drug reactions; also, if the 9 problems above were adequately addressed, it would reduce the pressures on the healthcare systems and make health care more affordable and attainable;

David R. Remer wrote: Will you vote to send the next president a new Congress?

I will. And if enough other voters also STOP repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly in Do-Nothing Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates (one-simple-idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm), those abuses may finally be stopped. Again, it isn’t so much about NEW things, but stopping OLD things.

ALL of those issues (above) are intertwined, related, and rooted in excessive greed, apathy, complacency, blind partisan loyalties, irrational fear, delusion, and laziness.

As for one issue that is something relatively NEW, that would be the issue of ENERGY VULNERABILITY.
This will require NEW efforts, NEW strategies, NEW innovation.
But what are the chances of any NEW issue being adequately addressed (before it is too late), while we fail to STOP those other OLD abuses and problems, growing in number and severity?

At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters deserve (whether they learn the smart way, or the hard and painful way).

Posted by: d.a.n at March 3, 2008 01:09 PM

That leaves Obama. Sen. Obama has made going after the special and corporate interests a centerpiece of his campaign from the beginning. He know they corrupt our government and political process and insure the nation’s problems do NOT get solved. He has effectively given those special and corporate interests full and due notice that if he is elected their heyday of control of government is over while he is in office. They will still be heard and consulted, but they will not control government decisions, is Obama’s promise.

Does anyone actually think Obama’s gonna go through with his tough talk and ruin his chance of getting the money from these folks he’ll need for reelection in 2012?
Obama is as owned by the special interest as Clinton and McCain.
The only way to keep politicians from being owned by special interest is to keep them from donating to political campaigns or politicians in any way. That would cut off a whole heap of benefits that the politicians now enjoy. And I don’t believe that any of the Presidential candidates intend on doing anything close to that.
Either way ya cut it, it’ll be business as usual with any of the major party candidates.
I agree though with ya David, the voters need to replace all the incumbents with folks that will do on of two things. Work with the President in solving the problems facing this country. Or force the President of address this issues if he’s unwilling to.

Personally I’m completely disappointed with any of the choices we have from either major party. I don’t believe that any of them intend to do anything about the problems facing this country.
I’m just hoping that a good independent or third party candidate shows up. And real soon.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 3, 2008 01:25 PM

Does anyone actually think Obama’s gonna go through with his tough talk and ruin his chance of getting the money from these folks he’ll need for reelection in 2012?

Ron, I’m skeptical about whether Obama will ignore the BIG money influence. Especially if most of the incumbents in Congress are re-elected (of which 93% or more probably will be re-elected).

Either way ya cut it, it’ll be business as usual with any of the major party candidates. I agree though with ya David, the voters need to replace all the incumbents with folks that will do one of two things. Work with the President in solving the problems facing this country. Or force the President of address this issues if he’s unwilling to.

Yes, it will be business as usual unless enough voters also remove a large number of irresponsible, corrupt incumbents too.

Personally I’m completely disappointed with any of the choices we have from either major party.

Me too.

What does that say about Congress if the creme of the crop is running for office? Yikes!

I don’t believe that any of them intend to do anything about the problems facing this country.

Me neither. Obama maybe, but his position on illegal immigration makes me wonder. I think if an election were held today, Obama would win.

I’m just hoping that a good independent or third party candidate shows up. And real soon.

That would be nice. Ralph Nader is running, but when I got to looking at his position on illegal immigration and fair trade, I have concerns about him too.

However, what is equally important, regardless of who the next president is, is the Congress. While presidents come and go, voters should not forget the Do-Nothing Congress. It needs a good flush for perpetuating these abuses over the past 30 years.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 3, 2008 01:55 PM

Ron Brown, Obama is the one candidate who appears capable of funding his candidacy without corporate special interest blackmail and bribery. More importantly he is not beholding by his rhetoric to very many special interests who haven’t contributed either like Edwards to Lawyer’s Assn’s, or Hillary to Seniors, or McCain to war and military contractors and their families. Obama is the freest of the lot to pursue solutions regardless of what minority group constituents may not benefit from them. I’m not saying he is perfect, just the best of the lot in this regard, by the numbers.

Here are some fact based numbers: (source FEC overall as of 12/31/07)

Hillary Clinton overall $106,071,617
—From Special interest PACS $983,969

Barack Obama $102,084,979
— PACS $7,840

John McCain $36,962,068
— PACS $516,072

Only Alan Keyes has accepted less money from PACS than OBAMA. All other funds are from individuals.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 3, 2008 02:24 PM

David, since you’re already doing a good job of beginning to examine the relative role of PACs in the different campaigns, I’d strongly suggest you look into the behavior of HOPEFUND INC.

This PAC is controlled by Obama, accepts donations outside of usual campaign finance restrictions, and has been used extensively by Obama throughout the primary season to help him secure endorsements in key states. They’ve given out hundreds of thousand of dollars during this campaign to help Obama, and has given away millions since 2006.

Other candidates faced with a conflict of interest with such PACs and their presidential campaigns have disassociated themselves with the PACs. Obama has not.

It’s no wonder, then, that Obama has what appears to be the lowest (only $7,840) total in your list. He is funneling HUGE amounts of PAC money using other means and avoiding oversight by keeping it off the official books. I think you should look into it. While this may be legal—or at least on the edge of legality—it would be dishonest for Obama to claim that he’s free of PAC money when the truth is that he’s spent more of it than many of the other candidates combined.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 3, 2008 03:07 PM

Loyal Opp, I won’t argue with your facts, as I haven’t researched them yet. But, it sounds to me like there is an enormous difference between a PAC to elect Obama and Exxon/Mobil’s PAC to elect whomever, or the trial lawyer’s association.

The one is a single special interest with a specific policy agenda to benefit their profits through legislation. The other is a general PAC with a number of different agendas representing a number of different entities, and very likely in competition with each other for legislation. To be obligated by other is not good, but, which would be easier to ignore, the PAC from the most profitable oil company ever, or the general PAC representing a host of different issues and policy agendas? By my calculation, the greatest pressure would come from the Exxon/Mobil supported PAC.

Then there is the question of whether Obama would trade moving the nation forward for a second term in office? He has convinced millions that he won’t. The public would likely answer in the reverse for McCain and Clinton, with little doubt. Which means, as I said in the article, the public is taking Obama at his word precisely because his rhetoric is superior to either Clinton’s or McCain’s. Superior as in effective and persuasive.

The implication of your argument is that no candidate which accepts PAC money should be trusted, not even the candidate promising to end the reign of special interests over government and the nation’s future. My argument is, show me a viable candidate running without PAC support and with Obama’s rhetoric, and we will have a whole different election cycle. But, the reality is, the choices are Obama, Clinton, and McCain. Which will voters trust more on this issue? The answer appears apparent. Tomorrow will tell for sure.

If I am sinking in quicksand, and the only objects in reach are two stones and a tree branch, I will choose the tree branch even though it could break. The stones will just hasten my descent. That is the choice as I see it among the 3 candidates.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 3, 2008 03:33 PM

David, I assumed you were talking about PACs—because you said “PACS.”

If you’re also talking about big business contributions like Exxon Mobil, I find it downright weird that you put a number like $7,840 next to Obama.

According to his site, Obama got $16,000 from Exxon/Mobil alone. More than McCain and more than Clinton.

Other big business special interest contributions to Obama:

$155,000 from pharmaceutical manufacturers
$5.3 million from Wall Street execs
$222,000 from Exelon (a nuclear power company)

According to this site, you can add the following to Obama’s feeding at the corporate money trough:

$375,978 from Goldman Sacs
$216,459 from JP Morgan
$181,787 from Citigroup
$$131,485 from Time Warner
$47,450 from GE
$44,250 from Microsoft
$43,483 from AT&T
$414,863 from the insurance industry

Now, I haven’t added all this up, but I’m pretty sure it totals a hell of a lot more than $7,840. Also, you have to realize that until about the last month, Obama wasn’t considered the Democratic front-runner. All the union, trial lawyer, and other special interest group money that usually goes to Democrats, will soon be funneled to Obama instead of Clinton. Watch and see.

Whatever all this means, it sure does doesn’t square with your statement that “Obama is the one candidate who appears capable of funding his candidacy without corporate special interest blackmail and bribery.” Or at least that if he’s “capable” of doing so, that isn’t what he HAS been doing.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 3, 2008 04:21 PM

Loyal Opp., you miss the point entirely whether discussing PAC money or Individual Corporate donations. The point is, which of the 3 candidates is garnering the trust of voters to act on their behalf instead of the donor’s and special interest’s behalf if elected?

Of course Obama has received individual donations from all manner of entities, human and corporate. How else could ANYONE possibly make a viable run for President in this country with our current campaign finance disorganization?

The issue is, which of the candidates is most likely to refuse to be beholding to those individuals making large donations with proposed strings attached? Answer: Obama, at least according to the polls.

Since you have access to corporate donor information, just out of curiosity, where does each of the candidates stand on total corporate donations? My guess would be McCain has the least, Obama has the parity with Clinton, but its just a guess. It is a historical fact that business will fund all candidates and more to the one most likely to win.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 3, 2008 05:10 PM

What does a President do? They sign papers reflecting decisions ultimately reserved for them to make.

because the next President of the U.S. will be handed an enormous menu of problems to be resolved, many of which can only be resolved through consensus and very persuasive, effective speech and logic which leave others in government little choice but to join the President’s solutions or become labeled as ineffective, corrupt, or incompetent by the media and voters.

The next President, if they are to be successful, hold nothing back in labeling those in government who would derail such efforts as saboteur’s of the nation’s future.

Hey there georgy boy!

I thought crazy people just talked to themselves.

Let’s revisit the Missouri Compromise. Let’s add states from Canada(north) and Mexico(south) into the union. Let’s say the leastcoast and the whorstcoast states need to scoot over to make room for the rest of the North American continent.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 3, 2008 05:28 PM

The point is, which of the 3 candidates is garnering the trust of voters to act on their behalf instead of the donor’s and special interest’s behalf if elected?

Why is the “trust of voters” more important than the actual numbers of where the money is coming from?

Is it your position that that perception is more important than the facts? In that case, maybe candidates shouldn’t disclose where their money comes from at all, and then we can give our votes to whoever gives the best speech about how honest they are. That would benefit Obama greatly because he’s a lot better at giving speeches than anyone else. One might also say that he’s a lot better at giving speeches than anything else.

What I find especially troubling about your statements is that you believe that Obama takes more corporate money than McCain but say that Obama should get credit for being the least influenced by corporate money—what’s worse, because of polls.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 3, 2008 05:51 PM

Obama said: “Money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless.” (Nov 2007; source: ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm#Government_Reform)

Voters bear a large part of the blame for all this money in politics, since:

• 90% of all elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money.


• 99.85% of all 200 million eligibile 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).


• Voters complain about money in elections, but they then throw billion$ at the candidates, and then reward (90% of the time) the candidate that spends the most money?


• Voters complain about corruption in elections and government, and give Congress dismally low 11%-to-18% approval ratings, but then the Voters reward the incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates? ! ?


• Voters talk out of one side of their mouth while complaining about pork-barrel, but then reward the politician the brings home the pork.


• Voters complain about the two-party duopoly, but then many Voters blindly pull the party-lever, rewarding and empowering the very incumbent politicians they rail against.

At any rate, the Voters will have the government that the Voters deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 3, 2008 06:27 PM

David
Obama might be capable of funding his campaign without PAC money. But from what I’ve been reading in response to you statement it’s beginning to look like he aint.
It’s no surprise to me though that Clinton and McCain are excepting all the PAC money they can get. These two have been in bed with special interest so long that they couldn’t get out if they wanted to. And I doubt very much either one wants to.

BTW, Another vote coming up tomorrow night on a proposal I have in front of the school board . I’m trying to get it to release about $680,000 it’s been holding to buy or build a retreat for board members.
The money needs to be used in the schools. A couple need some major repairs. A new roof at the high school. And a new heating and air conditioning unit at one of the elementary schools. We also need to upgrade the computers in some of the classrooms. The money would go a long way on all three.
And we just might have enough left over to replace couple of buses that are in bad need if it. The State Inspectors has ordered us to replace one and red tagged the other.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 3, 2008 07:15 PM

Loyal Opp asked: “Why is the “trust of voters” more important than the actual numbers of where the money is coming from?”

Because, quite obviously, the “trust of voters” translate to delegates to elect, dollars don’t. Ask Mitt Romney for an explanation of how that works. He has a lot of experience in the difference, now.

LO said: “Is it your position that that perception is more important than the facts?”

No, my position is that perception can be more important than fact, and when facts are absent or obscured, perception is everything.

But, the issue, I will repeat is, which of the candidates has from the beginning based their campaign on taking on the corrupting special interests influences within government? Only one. And since, there is only one, the best hope and chance perception of real change that will effect solutions rests in that one candidate, according to the voters, so far. That candidate is Obama.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 3, 2008 07:36 PM

Well, not ‘only one’, David. Or do you mean to say ‘one one of the major party candidates’?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 3, 2008 07:40 PM

Ron Brown, Obama’s name would not even be recognizable to most Americans were it not for individual contributions including those of individual corporations. Obama didn’t make these campaign finance laws, but, he has vowed to change them. Gives him a bit more credibility than the other two candidates who have become millionaires from middle class backgrounds on their ties to wealthy special interests, and who only came late to the campaign trail attacking special interest campaign finance after Obama proved it was a winning rhetoric.

Now, McCain is trying to backpedal on his campaign finance reform statements in order to get the conservative backing. Obama remains consistent.

Your District sounds horrible if that kind of money has been targeted for Board retreats instead of educating and safeguarding students of taxpayers. Fight the good fight, Ron.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 3, 2008 07:43 PM

Rhinehold said: “Well, not ‘only one’, David.”

Yes, only one of the three remaining viable candidates. McCain is even backpedaling on his previous assertions to reform campaign financing in order to secure the conservative vote behind him and keep Huckabee in his annoying place and from becoming a viable contender.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 3, 2008 07:46 PM

d.a.n, quite right, Obama is no angel when it comes to taking special interest money. But, if he remains honest, as President he will throw the power of his office behind changing this corrupting system created by a century of partisan backroom deals to cheat voters of their equal suffrage.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 3, 2008 07:49 PM

But, the issue, I will repeat is, which of the candidates has from the beginning based their campaign on taking on the corrupting special interests influences within government? Only one. And since, there is only one, the best hope and chance perception of real change that will effect solutions rests in that one candidate, according to the voters, so far. That candidate is Obama.

David, I find your statements incredibly strange—especially since I’m someone who disagrees wholeheartedly with all of John McCain’s many misguided legislative crusades to limit campaign money and free speech.

But Obama has been doing this “since the beginning” you say? The beginning of what? A presidential campaign during which he’s taking special interest cash by the bucketful?

John McCain has been campaigning against special interest money and influence for ages now, and is the author of virtually all the restrictions we’ve got when it comes to “getting money” our of politics. Which is something that he’s drawn an enormous of heat over, and along with immigration, is the reason substantial numbers of Republicans don’t support him. You seem to have a strong preference for words—even empty words—over substance and a proven record.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 3, 2008 07:59 PM

So, the Green and Libertarian parties are already not viable? We aren’t even through the nomination process yet…

I guess the 3rd party and independant column should just give up and go Obama then?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 3, 2008 08:01 PM

Rhinhehold, YEP! You got it. There is this little thing called name recognition backed by the little concept of public voter introduction through the media during the primary season. That leaves Greens and Libertarian minorities absolutely UNVIABLE in this election for the Presidency.

So, yes, we finally agree on something.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 3, 2008 08:05 PM

Loyal Opp, you are arguing logic and what should be. I am arguing psychology and perception and WHAT IS !

Reality IS. Your drothers don’t create reality for a national presidential election. The reality is, and the polls show it, that Obama is the trusted person when it comes to voters hope for real change in D.C. that can solve more problems than it creates.

I have supported McCain’s campaign finance reform efforts every inch of the way. I respect him for it, and even considered him as my potential candidate until he adopted Bush’s foreign policies as his own and bought into trickle down voodoo economics. He is doing good to beat out Huckabee for his Party’s nomination. He hasn’t a prayer in the general election if his opponent doesn’t commit suicide on the campaign trail. Mark my words.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 3, 2008 08:11 PM

David

A well written article. Your logic is sound and solidly represents my take on the election. I read many posts by opponents of Obama who claim he makes false unachievable promises. The fact is he has made no specific promises that I am aware of. He assures us that he will work on behalf of the people to restore government to a credible entity. The fact that he makes no promises indicates to me that his message is based in reality. Not in the usual manner of false promise, that we all as voters expect to go by the wayside as soon as the election is done. Yes he appears to be a man of conviction. Time will tell if indeed he does get the nod. Should he genuinely pursue reform in government it will be a first for us. One thing is for sure. The election of Clinton or McCain will insure nothing more than business as usual. Obama is as you say the only logical hope for much needed and long overdue change.

Posted by: RickIL at March 3, 2008 08:14 PM

LOL, we’re 10 months from an election and even though the Green and Libertarian parties have not even picked their nominee yet, it just doesn’t matter… Why, if Perot had listed to david in 1992, he wouldn’t have even tried and gained so much quick attention and support! (had he not dropped out and then re-entered, he could most likely have had a chance at winning that election…)

I’m glad David is around to tell everyone how to think and predict the future!

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 3, 2008 08:19 PM

Go Ralph!!!!!

Posted by: googlumpugus at March 3, 2008 08:53 PM

David
Obama might be being consistent on his promise to reform campaign finance laws. And if he’s elected I hope he tries to get some true reform.
It’s no surprise that McCain is backpedaling though. I’m looking for him to backpedal on everything else he’s said once he gets the nomination. And back pedal even more if he’s elected.

I’m just trying to undo 16 years of my predecessors doings. He wheeled and dealed himself into being the most powerful member of the board. Then used that power to force the other members to do his bidding. The retreat was just one of his babies he’s forced down the boards throats that’s left the school district in the mess it’s in.
I believe that most the members will go along with me on this. There’s two I know for sure that won’t.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 3, 2008 09:13 PM

Just one of many reason I ran for the job.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 3, 2008 09:16 PM

David R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, quite right, Obama is no angel when it comes to taking special interest money. But, if he remains honest, as President he will throw the power of his office behind changing this corrupting system created by a century of partisan backroom deals to cheat voters of their equal suffrage.

I hope you are right (ahhh … there’s that word again: hope). : )

Of the candidates that stand a chance (i.e. Obama, Hillary, or McCain, Nader?), I’d rather not see Hillary or McCain in office.

However, I still don’t think I can give Obama my vote because:

• (1) of his refusal to enforce existing laws (likewise with Hillary and McCain), and pushing for another SHAMNESTY bill.
  
• (2) touting himself as a champion and defender of the Constitution, while completely ignoring Article V and these many other constitutional violations.


• (3) … more …

But, who ever the next president is, the voters should try not sabotage the next president by saddling the next president with the same corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way, irresponsible, incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress, that refuse to stop these 10+ abuses cheating most Americans.

At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 3, 2008 10:36 PM

Loyal Opp, you are arguing logic and what should be. I am arguing psychology and perception and WHAT IS !

Reality IS. Your drothers don’t create reality for a national presidential election. The reality is, and the polls show it, that Obama is the trusted person when it comes to voters hope for real change in D.C. that can solve more problems than it creates.

Your statements assume first of all that “psychology and perception” can hide from facts, logic, and “what should be” indefinitely.

Just watch those polls that you think determine what “reality” is and you’ll see that “reality” based on polls has a way of changing. Especially when Obama comes under real fire from real opposition—something he so far has not been subjected to. Obama’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep.

Second of all, I don’t know even know what polls you’re referring to, but all of America doesn’t happen to share the views of Democratic primary voters. For all of the talk about how Obama supposedly appeals to Republicans, there is little evidence to back it up except the occasional person claiming to be a Republican at an Obama rally-while the latest Pew poll showed that 14% of DEMOCRATS would vote for McCain over Obama.

You seem to admitting yourself that McCain has actually accomplished things in the area of campaign finance while Obama just has “a perception of doing so.” The facts WILL come out. The polls will follow. And then you’ll be looking at a new “reality.” Whether you’ll acknowledge it as such is what remains to be seen.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 3, 2008 10:40 PM

That is, the nation doesn’t ONLY need a new president.

It also needs a responsible Congress too!

Will the voters remember that?

Based on history, it doesn’t look good.

Most voters are likely to still blindly pull the party-lever and reward and empower the very same incumbent politicians that have been using and abusing them for 30+ years.

Nope. Nothing will change if the voters continue to blindly and repeatedly reward corrupt, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 3, 2008 10:42 PM

Your statements assume first of all that “psychology and perception” can hide from facts, logic, and “what should be” indefinitely.

They can; for a long, long time. Posted by: d.a.n at March 3, 2008 10:44 PM

Loyal Opposition, voters can be influenced and controlled. However, there is one built-in self-correction mechanism: pain and misery.

Not facts and logic.
Pain and misery are what finally make people realistically look at the facts and logic (if ever).

… more about human nature …

Posted by: d.a.n at March 3, 2008 11:00 PM

Dan, you’re talking about this (and it would be very hard to miss as one of your main themes) as it relates to voters being manipulated in general and not waking up to large-scale governmental abuses, etc.

I’m talking about it as it relates to a specific candidates fortunes at the polls—which are not, as David wants to believe because he doesn’t like John McCain—set in stone.

Hillary Clinton was once supposed to be not only the Democratic nominee according to the polls but President. Guliani was supposed to be the Republican nominee, and he spent nearly a year beating everybody in the polls by very large margins.

Honeymoons in the polls don’t last forever. And even if they did, McCain is actually beating Obama in some current polls. Does that mean that it’s a “reality” that McCain is going to win because you can find polls that say it?

It seems ridiculous to say that polls are “reality”, and that the “reality” is that people trust Obama the most to clean up government—when he’s not even winning in some of them. And not even winning before we have even BEGUN to examine his record.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 3, 2008 11:18 PM

Loyal Opp, you are missing d.a.n.’s very poignant argument. One which I have already presented to you previously. Obviously, you wish to dismiss this bit of reality in order to further your own drothers. That’s fine. But, don’t expect rational people to go along with you.

Republicans screwed the Pooch. Voters have had enough of Republicans. McCain is a Republican through and through, many say a Bush double in many respects and quite correctly. McCain himself admits to be deft on economics.

These facts against Obama’s message of hope and change, barring Obama falling on his face in a stupid way, mean a McCain win is not in the cards.
I am sure anecdotes can be found, but the statistics show Republicans leaving the GOP for Independent registered voter status and not vice versa for Dems. In addition, Obama is rallying Independent voters in a way McCain can only fantasize about.

But if you want to stay loyal to the Obama opposition, we understand. But that position has been a smaller minority one by the week for quite some time now. One can argue with absolute statistical numbers, but not with statistical trends when they are reflected by all polling firm’s results over time.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 4, 2008 02:19 AM

LO, and btw, the facts about McCain have been out for years, and hotly debated and amply covered by the media. There is no news their. Obama is new News. McCain is Old News, as in Dinosaur politically speaking. He would be the oldest president on record. We don’t need another President requiring naps in the oval office in order to get a few thoughts straight as was the case with R. Reagan.

McCain already looks and sounds tired to his bones when he speaks. And the general election hasn’t even begun. One has to wonder if McCain could even be awakened at 3AM if the Red Phone rang. I am of course speaking figuratively, as in perceptions. McCain stands for all things old, like Trickle Down economics, war as the means to peace, and world hegemony as the best defense, and state’s rights to under educate their young to keep incumbents in power at the State level. McCain stands for much the American people know must change if America is to have a future to look forward to.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 4, 2008 02:26 AM

Excellent points, David! As soon as people find out McCain is a Republican, they’ll stop favoring him over Obama in the polls as they do now! Amazing that McCain has been able to keep this from voters for so long.

After that, when they see how tired and withered he looks they’ll dislike him even more. Up until now, they have only heard his voice on the radio. Nobody actually has seen or heard him in person. What’s more, being tortured for five years by the Viet Cong has made him very ugly to look at it. Americans choose their presidents by looks. As they should! Keep running with this stuff. It’s a winner.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 4, 2008 07:10 AM

LO

David presents valid points. You say Obama is young and inexperienced. In comparison to McCain that is true.

David says McCain is old and looks very tired. That is true compared to Obama who rarely looks tired. If you compare Bush to his appearance before he took the job, it looks as though he has aged 20 years in 7 years. I think one has to take this into serious consideration. I heard a short while back that he is refusing to release his medical records. It is fair to say that this does raise suspicions of health related issues.

David says that McCain represents old school politics. Trickle down economics etc. This also is true. I and the majority of people I talk to recognize this form of governance as no longer being effective. Old politicians like any older employee bring with them stagnate, outdated and often ineffective policy and operating procedures. There comes a time when change is necessary to allow the process of evolution. It is clear to most that old school politics are no longer the best approach to what ails our country. While I do admire McCain to a degree he is a senior member of that good ol’ boys club. He does represent what has proven to be nothing more than obstacles to progress in this country. The main obstacle being a republican party that refuses to work with anyone who opposes their agenda.

Posted by: RickIL at March 4, 2008 08:36 AM

Loyal Opposition wrote: d.a.n, you’re talking about this (and it would be very hard to miss as one of your main themes) as it relates to voters being manipulated in general and not waking up to large-scale governmental abuses, etc.

Not true.

It applies either way, including the specific candidates.
Obama has capitalized on the CHANGE message, but does his voting record really show CHANGE?
Hillary is doing quite well all things considered, but how well would she be doing if she wasn’t a former president’s spouse?
McCain is trying to capitalize on the evangelical base, pro-Iraq-occupationists, and Republican loyalists.

Loyal Opposition wrote: I’m talking about it as it relates to a specific candidates fortunes at the polls—which are not, as David wants to believe because he doesn’t like John McCain—set in stone.

Me too. Specifically, and in genaral. It still applies.

By the way, I have no pony in this race. I don’t like any of the candidates, because all of them refuse to address illegal immigration, refuse to enforce existing laws, and choose to despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for proftis and votes. Also, I haven’t heard any of them talking seriously about reducing federal spending, addressing the massive debt, or reducing the pork-barrel, waste, graft, or the size of the severely bloated federal government. In my opinion, all three (McCain, Obama and Hillary) have lousy voting records on illegal immigration (one of the top issues). McCain and Hillary both voted to use force in Iraq (based on flawed intelligence), and Obama has an edge with most Americans because he opposed it. And since the ECONOMY is at the top of the list, and if it weren’t for Hillary’s and McCain’s pathetic positions on illegal immigration, both could be hammering away at Obama on the economic impact of illegal immigration (e.g. an estimated $70 Billion to $338; i.e. $1.4 Billion to $6.8 Billion per state in annual net losses; that could pay for a lot of health care, eh?). But, since all 3 have pathetic voting records on that major issue, all 3 have to scramble for other things. The problem is, they are all more similar, than dissimilar.

Loyal Opposition wrote: Your [David] statements assume first of all that “psychology and perception” can hide from facts, logic, and “what should be” indefinitely.

And I responded …

d.a.n wrote: They can; for a long, long time. Loyal Opposition, voters can be influenced and controlled. However, there is one built-in self-correction mechanism: pain and misery. Not facts and logic. Pain and misery are what finally make people realistically look at the facts and logic (if ever).

And that is true not only in general, but specifically t o the candidates.

For example, there is nothing logical about most voters giving Do-Nothing Congress dismally low 11%-to-18% approval ratings (www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1844140220070919), and then the voters repeatedly rewarding those same irresponsible, corrupt, do-nothing incumbent politicians in Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates (one-simple-idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm).

Loyal Opposition wrote: Hillary Clinton was once supposed to be not only the Democratic nominee according to the polls but President. Guliani was supposed to be the Republican nominee, and he spent nearly a year beating everybody in the polls by very large margins. Honeymoons in the polls don’t last forever. And even if they did, McCain is actually beating Obama in some current polls. Does that mean that it’s a “reality” that McCain is going to win because you can find polls that say it?

True. No one has a crystal ball, and a lot can happen in the next 8 months.

None of us know for cetain what will happen between now and election day, 4-Nov-2008.
However, at this point in time, regardless of whether Hillary or Obama are the Democrat nominee, McCain’s chances are truly dismal.
For example, when one of the most staunch and partisanly loyal supporters of John McCain, such as the self-proclaimed Mighty Sicilian Eagle (in the red column) writes:

Sicilian Eagle wrote: When I hold my nose and vote for McCain, …

… you know John McCain’s chances are dismal.

And if that isn’t enough, just look at the money flow. If the money is any indication of John McCain’s popularity, then John McCain’s chances of winning the election are dismal …

Federal Campaign Donations:

Candidate’s ___ # $200+ _ %Donors __ # $2,300+ _ %Donors _ # $4,600 _ %Donors

Name: ________ Donors __ upto $200 _ Donors ____ $2300+ __ Donors ___ $4,600

________________ ________ ___________ __________ _________ ________ _______

Clinton, Hillary ___ 57,975 ___ 12% ___ 19,949 _____ 63% _____ 7,411 ______ 33%

Obama, Barack __ 69,628 ___ 26% ___ 16,259 _____ 43% _____ 1,964 ______ 10%

McCain, John ____ 27,205 ___ 22% ____ 6,183 _____ 45% ______ 731 _______ 9%

John McCain’s chances are dismal, unless voter sentiments change drastically between now and 4-NOV-2008, because:

• (1) most voter donations (of all sizes) are not going to John McCain.


• (2) Most (vastly more) of the largest donations (of $4,600) are going to to BOTH Democrat candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.


• (3) John McCain’s share of the $4,600 donations is a tiny 7.8%


• (4) John McCain’s share of the $2,300+ donations is a dismal 14.6%


• (5) John McCain’s share of the smaller $200 (or less) donations is only 17.6%


• (6) John McCain has alienated many in his conservative base on many issues (e.g. one-simple-idea.com/VotingRecords1.htm#JohnMcCain) illegal immigration, McCain-Feingold campaign finance, Iraq, taxation, economic issues (admitted lack of understanding in that area), etc., just to name a few).

And John McCain has been in Congress a long, long time (since year 1982). What has he done in all that time to reduce these other abuses and pressing problems (one-simple-idea.com/CongressToDoList.htm), growing in number and severity?

John McCain also loses points on the issue of economic, since most voters place the ECONOMY at the top of their list of issues, and John McCain freely admits that economics is not his strong suit, and John McCain defers and dodges questions on economics, and avoids discussion of the monetary-system, the falling U.S. Dollar (one-simple-idea.com/USD_Falling.gif), massive trade deficits, fair trade, massive federal debt, $9.3 Trillion National Debt, $20 trillion personal nation-wide debt, and $48 Trillion nation-wide debt, etc. And how will John McCain continue to occupy Iraq and maintain hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops worldwide if the economy tanks and the government and Federal Reserve can not print, borrow, or tax enough to fund it?

Also, a lot of Republicans are angry with the Republicans in Congress, and many say the Republican party has abandoned their values.

Loyal Opposition wrote: It seems ridiculous to say that polls are “reality”, and that the “reality” is that people trust Obama the most to clean up government—when he’s not even winning in some of them. And not even winning before we have even BEGUN to examine his record.

Again, no one knows the future, no one knows what will happen in the next 8 months, and no one knows (yet) who the next president will be.

However, reality and perceptions are currently in-synch (at the moment).
Barack Obama has the lead.
But that could change before 4-Nov-2008, but would require a drastic shift in sentiments.
It still would not be hard to show some other numbers and statistics to prove that McCain’s chances (at this moment) are dismal, regardless of who the Democrat nominee is; McCain’s chances are still dismal (i.e. see the money flow above; what is that telling you?).
The reality of the moment is that McCain’s chances (regardless of the Democrat nominee) are dismal.
A lot of Republican voters admit that they will be holding their nose when they vote for McCain.
McCain has alienated his base (especially on the illegal immigration issue and the SHAMNESTY BILL that he voted for; visit ALIPAC.US to see the huge number of enraged voters).
Therefore, many Republican voters are likely to stay at home, or vote for Obama.
There ain’t nearly as many Republicans that would vote for Hillary.

At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 4, 2008 09:38 AM

Thanks, LO, I will. Because it has currency in readily available and verifiable perception.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 4, 2008 11:23 AM

From Rasmussen:

Looking to the general election, John McCain has a slight lead over both Democrats. McCain now leads Obama 47% to 44% and Clinton 47% to 46% (see recent daily results). Obama is viewed favorably by 51% and unfavorably by 48%. McCain’s numbers are 55% favorable, 43% unfavorable. Clinton earns positive reviews from 49% of Likely Voters nationwide and negative assessments from 48% (see recent daily results). Obama is trusted more than McCain on the issues of health care and education. McCain has the edge on negotiating trade agreements. Last week, a separate survey found that McCain is trusted more than Obama when it comes to National Security, the War in Iraq, and the Economy. Obama is trusted more on the issue of Reducing Government Corruption.

I’m not sure what perception is being discussed, but the reality is that it is way too far away to be declaring a victor, not just in the general election, but in the democratic nomination process as well as Obama is less than a percentage point ahead of Hillary in Texas and way way behind in Ohio…

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Hillary Clinton barely ahead of Barack Obama nationally for the second straight day. In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination nationally, Clinton now holds a two-point edge over Obama, 46% to 44%. Prior to these past two days, Clinton had trailed every day for three weeks (see recent daily results). Clinton’s modest rebound nationally corresponds to a similar rebound in late polling for the key states of Ohio and Texas.

A week ago, it seemed likely that today would mark the end of Hillary Clinton’s presidential dreams. With her recent bounce, however, there is now a good chance her campaign will continue at least until April 22 when voters in Pennsylvania have their say. Contrary to much recent discussion among the chattering class, the popular vote matters more in Texas and Ohio than the delegate count.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 4, 2008 02:18 PM

Rhinehold, while Rassmussen poll shows McCain ahead, I’ve seen more polls that:

• (a) show Obama ahead with the lead over McCain,


• (b) and Obamas leads over McCain are larger too (i.e. double-digits leads in some cases for Obama over McCain).

From Head-to-Head polls (realclearpolitics.com): John McCain (R) vs. Barack Obama (D)_______
Poll ________________ Date ____________ McCain (R) ___ Obama (D)
RCP Average _________ 02/20 to 03/02 __ 42.7% ________ 47.3%
Cook/RT Strategies ___ 02/28 - 03/02 ___ 38.0% ________ 47.0%
AP-Ipsos ____________ 02/22 - 02/24 ___ 41.0% ________ 51.0%
CBS News/NY Times ___ 02/20 - 02/24 ___ 38%.0 ________ 50.0%
Pew Research ________ 02/20 - 02/24 ___ 43.0% ________ 50.0%

The polls are closer for McCain and Hillary. What is that telling us?

Also, there’s the money issue too, which can not be ignored too much, since 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money.

Name _______ Total Raised __ Total Spent __ Cash on Hand __ Debt (as of JAN-2008)
Obama ______ $138,231,595 __ $113,291,435 _ $24,940,159 ___ $1,104,693
Hillary _______ $134,536,488 __ $105,350,147 _ $29,186,341 ___ $7,576,700
McCain ______ $53,717,085 ___ $48,518,664 __ $5,198,421 ____ $5,535,452

If money is the only measure, McCain’s chances are dismal.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 4, 2008 03:42 PM

Also, there’s a difference between a poll and people actually getting out to vote.
I suspect many Republicans, alienated by McCain, will stay home, vote for someone else, or hold their nose while voting for McCain.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 4, 2008 03:47 PM

d.a.n.

That’s all well and good, but my point is that it is not as clear cut and there is a lot of time for this to all shake out, the notion that it is all over but the crying is a bit premature.

As for the polls, Rasmussen has been proven to be the most accurate over the past several election cycles, even when all of the others were wrong… but like I said, we’re still *10* months away from the general election …

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 4, 2008 04:08 PM

d.a.n, quite right. Heard the Zogby report that 8% of Democratic Early Voting turnout was Republicans switching parties or registering Independent and the very large majority of those were voting in the Dem. primary for Obama.

Texas early voter turnout is double what it was 4 years ago, estimated in this primary at 26%. If today’s attendance at the polls approximates that doubling, it gives a strong edge to Obama as the majority of new voters are younger and the majority of those are voting for Obama.

Republican early voting was 1/3 of 4 years ago. That pretty much says it all about the General Election if nothing significant changes tween now and then. GOP electorate is disappointed in their Party, their candidates, and their losses in the Congress and Governorships and now many local races as well.

Rhinehold doesn’t want to look into the future based on current signs of what is coming, which preserves his credibility in saying it ain’t over until its over. But, it will be over and barring a terrorist attack, meteor collision and martial law, or invasion by the Chinese, Democrats, for better or worse, will have full control of two branches of government and will take control of the third in less than 3 years.

Then, I think, we will see the rise of a true moderate pragmatic Independent Party rise up to knock both the Asses and Elephant Parties on their keesters in 2014 and 2016. It’s in the cards. They just need to be dealt.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 4, 2008 04:19 PM

Rhinehold, look at the averages of all the major polls. They paint a different picture. The margins of errors exceed the differences you are reporting as significant. They aren’t significant precisely because the differences are less than the margin of error which is at least 3.4% due to such small sampling size.

Also, I would advise you to look into the methodology of the Rasmussen Poll and see if they are polling Cell Phone numbers. I suspect they aren’t. Which means their numbers are skewed away from the youth vote turnout (youth use cell phones in much larger numbers than their parents) which has made so many of the polls this season into Dewey Beats Truman cat box liners.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 4, 2008 04:22 PM

It would be nice if more young people got involved. As I understand it, none of the major polling outfits call cell numbers, so if Rasmussen is skewed then all of them are. I’d say tho that every four years we seem to hear about what a big deal the youth is gonna be and then it never materializes. This was the case in 04 when the Dems claimed to have a huge and energized youth base and the exact same point was raised about undercounting them in polls because of cell phones. And then they basically didn’t show up on election day.

Anybody who thinks they know how an Obama-McCain contest would turn out is projecting their own wishes into it at this stage. After the conventions we’ll have a clearer idea, but right now it’s anybody’s guess.

Polls have always, and I mean always, swung wildly. Both McCain and Obama if Obama gets nominated are going to take hits we don’t even know about yet. At this stage of the election cycle, Dukakis was beating George HW Bush by around 15 points in polls. And Kerry was 5-10 points above Bush.

It also doesn’t make sense to say that well, McCain is a republican and people don’t like the GOP, therefore he must lose. If that were the case, McCain’s poll numbers would look like George W Bush’s approval ratings. The fact is that they don’t, so obviously a lot of people who disapprove of Bush are willing to vote for McCain. And Obama?
He has already been coming down in polls from where he was a couple weeks ago. Will he rise again in the polls? Will he crash?

Anything is still possible. The race hasn’t even really started yet.

Posted by: Liam at March 4, 2008 04:52 PM

Another thing about the polls. The reason Rasmussen is the best is that they poll daily, have a formula for rolling their results over a three day period, weigh their results very tightly by party identification (which means, nowadays, that Democrats are more heavily weighted since there’s more who identify themselves as Democrats now) and also offer results which show “likely voters” instead of just registered voters or citizens.

What they do just seems to work, and in recent history they’ve been by far the best at predicting actual election outcomes. Getting it shockingly close time after time. What they say now is that McCain is up over Obama by 3 points and above Clinton by 1. In 04, they were the only ones to get the Bush-Kerry results right—by about a half percentage point.

Posted by: Liam at March 4, 2008 05:13 PM

Jingle your pocket. Hear the clinking sound? That is the change that the Democratic and Republican candidates are talking about.

I am sick of voting for the same old, same old, where change means a little tweak to the left or a tweak to the right. This fall, I am going to vote for the only candidate who truely represents change. I am voting for Ralph Nadar. He doesn’t have a chance of winning and even if he did, it is unlikely that he would be effective considering that he would have a hostile Congress, but, at least I will have the satisfaction of voting for real change.

Posted by: jlw at March 4, 2008 05:27 PM

Ok, so I know I usually don’t write politically based blogs, they are usually focused on scriptural points and experiences that I have. However, this time I am blogging about political aspects. I was listening to Mike Church on the radio the other day and I have to say that he was cracking Sam and I up on our way home from Tennessee. He was so hard core on his beliefs that it was amusing because for the most part we agreed with everything he was saying. I think I have come to the point in my life that the only way for Christians to vote is to do exactly what God said to do. He said, “If my people who are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways then I will hear from Heaven and I will heal their land.”

Sounds simple enough doesn’t it? I mean how much wickedness in a Christians life can there possibly be; for Him not to hear us? I wonder how many Christians actually think they have arrived at holiness. I wonder how the “BODY OF CHRIST” expects our country to be united and stand as the UNITED STATES when the church next door won’t even sup with the Pastor across the street whose denomination is different from his. I cannot sit idly by and twiddle my thumbs and watch the devastation of this country come to pass because the church is destroying it. People say you can’t mix church and state….well you know what, you are right. You also can’t mix homosexuality and church, or fornication and church, or blasphemy and church but it’s done all the time. People say you can’t bring religion into politics, that’s funny because politics has destroyed religion and by the way religion is a set way of doing things. So I would say that our whole country is religious and it’s widespread. It’s called desensitized segregation and mediatroversity and that is my word of the day. You know I wonder what it was like back in the day when our government officials didn’t read off of scripts written by someone with totally different views then them. I wonder what it was like when our government officials would sit on wooden benches with their grey hair pulled back deliberating over choices, choices they would make for the nation, for a people of pride and integrity yet at the same time people of honest reproach and humbleness. For days at a time they discuss the future of the American people until they came to an agreement starting each deliberation with prayer.

Today you have men in the office and men and women running for office whose only goal is to tear the other one down as much as they possibly can to win the hoopla and praises of the people. Who gives the best speech? Who gives the best performance? Who puts the smack down on the other the hardest? Who is going to end the war in Iraq so that our soldiers can come home safely and then we can get bombarded by terrorist? Who is going to stop immigration after millions of dollars has been spent on a virtual wall that was built that the National Guard did not even know about and now doesn’t work? Who is going to stop gas prices from raising so freaking high! Come on give me a break. American’s don’t know how good we have it and that is what started everything to begin with. It all boils down to greed, “I WANT IT MY WAY”. All of it! From prayer being taken out of school to homosexuals standing in pulpits preaching, to women running for president! Why in the world would a homosexual (practicing) want to preach anyway? Why in the world would someone want to take prayer out of school, regardless if they don’t pray or not why would that offend them? Why in the world would a woman want to be the President of a Nation except to PROVE SHE COULD! I used to be proud to be an American now I just pray that America loses her pride. I now can only say that I am humbled to be washed in the blood of Christ because the more and more I see happening in our country today the more and more relevant the Word of God becomes and the more and more I realize just HOW FAR OFF CHRISTIANS in America are.

People say that Obama is going to be the next president and though we don’t know what is going to happen for certain may I suggest that if you are reading this that you really need to start reading your Bible and preparing for the times that are quickly approaching. Even though the foundation of the Bible may be found void in many different religious groups and beliefs and traditions of men, the Word of God will not return void and God will stand firm on His promises. None of us are promised the breath of tomorrow and none of us know how things are going to unfold from one day to the next so it’s best to know that our standing ground on this Earth is temporal but our Eternal standing place is forever. I pray that the Christians of this once accountable nation come together in unity and fall upon our knees and repent and turn from our wicked ways. It’s time we fall as one on our faces before God and pray that He guide this country and that He positions the person in leadership of our Nation whose main focus is not cutting gas prices but about turning our Nation back to being ONE NATION UNDER GOD.

Can we turn back to being The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave instead of the Land of Do Whatever You Want and Home of Unfortunate Consequences? I don’t know who I am going to vote for, but I can guarantee one thing, they won’t stop me from serving the God of America who is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!

Posted by: Tina Leonard at March 4, 2008 05:42 PM

jlw, And don’t forget Congress. Who ever the next president is, what good (if any) can the next president accomplish if saddled with the same, corrupt, FOR-SALE, Do-Nothing Congress, that refuses to end these abuses that did not all come about by mere coincidence during the last 30+ years?

You may be right about Ralph Nader. If I were to list the candidates in the order of least unacceptable to most unacceptable (since all have lousy voting records/positions on illegal immigration), this would be it (as of 03-MAR-2008):

• (1) Ralph Nader (least unlikable); (ontheissues.org/Ralph_Nader.htm#Immigration)


• (2) Barack Obama ; (ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm#Immigration)


• (3) John McCain ; (ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm#Immigration)


• (4) Hillary Clinton (most unlikable) ; (ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm#Immigration)

I don’t think any of those 4 will get my vote, but I will definitely be voting on 4-NOV-2008 to vote out some irresponsible incumbent politicians (in BOTH parties).

Posted by: d.a.n at March 4, 2008 05:56 PM

Liam wrote: Another thing about the polls. The reason Rasmussen is the best is that they poll daily, …

Maybe.

But relying only on one single poll too much is probably not a good approach.
In fact, all of the polls could be off for one or more reasons.
It’s probably not wise to put to much faith in any of the polls.
Too much faith in polls could conceivably even lead to manipulation of elections?
No one knows the future, and there are still 8 months to go, and a lot can happen in 8 months.

However, there is a huge disconnect in:

• (a) the Rasmussen poll giving the lead to McCain,


• (b) and the money flow (below), showing both Obama and Hillary with MUCH more money than McCain.

What is that telling us?

It is not helping the credibility of the Rasmussen poll, is it?
That is, McCain’s money raising abilities are not even half of Obama’s or Hillary’s.
And since 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money, it is a mistake to ignore this fact, regardless of what the Rasmussen poll says.

Name _______ Total Raised __ Total Spent __ Cash on Hand __ Debt (as of JAN-2008)
Obama ______ $138,231,595 __ $113,291,435 _ $24,940,159 ___ $1,104,693
Hillary _______ $134,536,488 __ $105,350,147 _ $29,186,341 ___ $7,576,700
McCain ______ $53,717,085 ___ $48,518,664 __ $5,198,421 ____ $5,535,452

Therefore, the money situation does not bode well for McCain.
And, again, there is a big difference between a poll (telephone call) and people actually getting out to vote.
And David raised a good point about polling Cell Phone numbers.
Younger voters (such as my son and wife) only have cell phones, and have no listed land-line telephone numbers.
Also, many Republicans alienated by McCain, will probably stay home, vote for someone else, or hold their nose while voting for McCain.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 4, 2008 06:27 PM

Interesting results coming out of Texas now, 20% reporting and it is 49% / 49% with the majority of delegates looking to go towards Clinton atm (12 - 9 superdelegates), still waaaaaay too early to call.

One thing they mentioned though was that the african american vote is actually lower this year than it was in 2004, while the hispanic vote is way up, mostly going for Clinton.

Maybe its not just all about ‘change’…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 4, 2008 10:45 PM

and the money flow (below), showing both Obama and Hillary with MUCH more money than McCain. What is that telling us?Basically, since McCain has it ‘sewn up’ there is no need to be pulling in donations, or at least reporting them for spending, until after the convention.

And, just another update, the vote total is now less than 600 votes between Clinton and Obama…

WOW

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 4, 2008 10:46 PM

Tina thanks for your thoughts. I disagree with most of their direction, but, it is good to have another perspective.

What is freedom and liberty if not the freedom and liberty to choose what one wants to do when one wants to do it provided it harms not others nor violates laws set to protect oneself and others? Separation of Church and State is necessary to insure religious freedom for all religions and all citizens.

I have to say, I don’t think you are very versed in political history, because many of todays elections and deliberations in government are tame by standards set in the late 1700’s and 1800’s. Read up a bit on the Andrew Jackson period of government. Make’s today’s government sound tame by comparison and far more civil.

That’s the problem with America’s education system, we lack in general an understanding and appreciation for how much things have actually improved over the last 2 centuries, and get lost in the divisions of the day without such an historical context and reality to assess how we are doing, in fact, compared to times past. Too many look on the old days as good, but, a close look at history demonstrates the old days were rarely good, and never better than today save for the Convention that resulted in our Constitution.

US Government has always been subject to corruption at all levels, and politicians have always included amongst them scoundrels and persons of low ethical and moral character. That has neither improved nor gotten worse over time. The ultimate check against such bad apples is the voters. But, then as now, voters vote for their team instead of individual performance, having little time, education, or interest in following the actual performance of their representatives.

Something to work on, don’t you think?

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 4, 2008 10:49 PM

Clinton is now pulling ahead now, with 36% in, up by nearly 30,000 votes, still VERY close.

It’s the close races like this that make it interesting, I may not get much sleep tonight… Reminds me of the lack of sleep I got in the fall/winter of 2000!

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 4, 2008 10:58 PM

I think it’s fairly shocking. Here everybody, including me, has been assuming that it’s Mccain vs Obama, but now it all seems to be in doubt again. Whew. Whatever else happens, it’s clear that Clinton and Obama are going to keep hammering each other for a couple months. As they attack each other, they’ll drive each other’s negatives up and create divisions among Democrats which will be harder to heal. It seems to me that this is a very good thing for McCain’s November prospects.

Posted by: Liam at March 5, 2008 12:03 AM

Well, ‘they’ finally called Texas for Clinton, she did start pulling away…

But, that really doesn’t mean as much as you would think. In order to win outright she will have to win 60% of the voters from now until the end. It is then that the superdelegates get interesting…

However, it does speak to the divide and varied issues involved in those who are voting, not as simple as has been made to be. In fact, there was a PEW poll that showed the double digits of democrats will rather vote for McCain than Obama and will make the switch if it turns out that way. I imagine a similar percentage, or possibly greater, speaks to the other result.

It also leads credence to the notion that at this point in time, McCain would win a general election against either of them. It will get nastier as well…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 5, 2008 01:04 AM

Rhinehold, Clinton won Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas (primary vote), but it makes little difference. She would need to win every state from now to Pennsylvania with double digit wins to compete with Obama for delegates, and it is the delegates who will nominate. Put another way, if, and it appears entirely likely, Obama is capable of maintaining his 100 plus pledged delegate lead, and given that 60% of all Democrats say super delegates should vote in accord with pledged delegates, Obama wins the nomination.

This is how the Democrats set up their rules, and the Party will suffer the loss of much of their incredible gains in the General election if they nominate a candidate who did not get the clear majority vote of the pledged delegates, apportioned according to voters in the Primaries and Caucuses.

Which leaves only one unlocked door for Clinton at this point, seating the Michigan and Florida delegates in her favor. That won’t wash well either with party supporters, and the Dem. Party can ill afford to lose its base against McCain, most especially if Clinton is the nominee since as many as 10% of Democrats polled indicate they will stay home if the only choices are Clinton and McCain compared to only 3% if I recall correctly staying home if Obama is the candidate.

Assuming McCain will draw some Independent voters if Clinton is the nominee but less if Obama is the nominee, it seems clear the Super Delegates by a majority will recognize what is best for the Party and vote with the Pledged delegate majority.

No other calculus escapes damage to the Party so severe as to open the prospect up for a McCain presidency in 2009.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 5, 2008 01:40 AM

David,

While I agree that Clinton will probably not win outright, neither will Obama most likely. It will go to the convention and in the hands of the superdelegates will have to take a lot of things into account. Like, who is winning in the states that the democrats need to win in order to win in the general. Right now, that appears to be Hillary. And how has the resume? Again, that appears to be Hillary. Finally, who has the momentum? Right now, that appears to be Hillary, but there is still time to go. Philadelphia is going to be important…

As for the 3% you mention, the newest PEW poll I mentioned earlier says it is now double-digits. A lot of people are not happy with the actions of Obama over the past two weeks and he has lost some of his tarnish. Whether he gets it back or not is something that we will find over the next few weeks, however the real issue is that while Hillary and Obama duke it out all the way to Denver, they are going to be doing the work of McCain who will be relatively unscathed and most likley helped, as he was with Hillary’s 3am commercial and the NY TIme’s outrageous attacks.

It all leads up to a very interesting and very divisive general election this year IMO. Unfortunately that bodes ill for the third party candidates as they will be avoided as people work to vote against someone instead of for them again, as they have felt they had to do for the past two elections…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 5, 2008 02:14 AM

David

Not sticking with Nader?

Posted by: Jack at March 5, 2008 02:27 AM

David R. the figures I heard were, if Clinton gets the nomination, 10% of the Democrats will either stay home or vote for McCain. If Obama gets the nomination, 25% of the Democrats will stay home or vote for McCain. Either way, it looks like McCain can go on vacation till the fall while the Democrats engage in self destruction.

By the way, Ohio voters might not be the most informed voters and we may have had a problem with Ken Blackwell’s Diebold machines and his hanging chads, but we still believe in one man one vote, unlike Texas which has adopted the philosophy of vote early and then vote again. What kind of message is Texas going to send if Clinton wins the popular vote but, Obama gets more delegates because of a few thousand caucus goers.

Posted by: jlw at March 5, 2008 03:22 AM

What kind of message is Texas going to send if Clinton wins the popular vote but, Obama gets more delegates because of a few thousand caucus goers.

Good point. I see Obama’s delegate numbers rising (now 1520 to 1424) as of 12 Noon, 3/5/2008.

Perhaps the problem is electile dysfunction because all of the choices (and their voting records) stink?

It seems very unlikely that Congress, after 30+ years of ignoring the nation’s pressing problems and these abuses, will suddenly stop those abuses, and start being irresponsible and unaccountable.

Especially when voters continue to repeatedly reward incumbent politicians in Congress with 93%-to-99% re-election rates?

If government spending is not cut significantly (and soon), it may not matter, with $48 Trillion (mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm) of nation-wide debt, the U.S. borrowing $3 Billion per day, inflation and the U.S. Dollar falling fast against all international currencies (one-simple-idea.com/USD_Falling.gif), massive trade deficits, falling incomes since 1967 (one-simple-idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#Income), and 80% of the U.S. only owns 17% of all wealth in the U.S.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 5, 2008 01:13 PM

jlw, what it would say is that voters are disaffected and uninvolved when it comes to exercising the power of their vote. Nothing new there. Most voters who showed up during the day to vote but didn’t show up for the caucus simply lacked the motivation to insure their vote counted. It is simple as that.

The practical consequence is that those voters deferred to the other voters who did show up for the caucus as either having better judgment, more information, or at the very least, more motivation to select the nominee. The power to choose still resided with the voters, whether they elected to exercise that power or not.

It is nonsense to blame the system when the power to choose always resided with the voters themselves.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 5, 2008 03:52 PM

Isn’t that the same arguement that those in the Democratic part have been fighting for decades? They say that bringing a freely provided photo id to vote is a disenfranchisement, but having to vote twice at two different times of the day isn’t?

Seems a bit hypocritical to me, but nothing new from the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 5, 2008 04:40 PM

… but having to vote twice at two different times of the day isn’t?

Funny.

I think the whole thing was overly complicated for nefarious reasons that back-fired.

Perhaps McCain does have a chance, as the Democrats spend all of their money tearing each other down?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 5, 2008 07:33 PM

There’s already talk now of eliminating the Texas two-step.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 5, 2008 10:08 PM

The Texas two-step is bad enough.

But what’s truly crazy is this proportional allotment scheme that is supposedly more democratic than a winner-takes-all system. The idea being that delegate numbers reflect the actual vote totals so people’s votes all get represented at the convention.

Thing is, the general election doesn’t work like that. It doesn’t matter if five million people vote for a candidate if five million and one vote for the other candidate. The winner gets all the votes for the electoral college.

What this supposedly more democratic system translates into is the most undemocratic thing you can imagine. Superdelegates, which have nothing to do with the vote totals, end up being the deciding factor.

It’s straight out of Orwell. We aim for equality, but some people are more equal than others.

Posted by: Liam at March 5, 2008 10:24 PM

Mrs. Clinton has shown again that she is undefeatable. After all of the pressure from the left wing of the Democratic Party, continuous media bias, free air support from scores of political pundits, continuous manipulations of the polls (always on Obama’s favor), etc… she is pretty much alive & a viable political candidate.
Obama can not defeat McCain just with the left wingers & Blacks! To win, you need to have the centrists, women, Latinos & Asians. Hillary has them all. She will win! Our country needs her.

Posted by: ARBEN Camaj at March 6, 2008 02:01 AM

David Remer: When a state holds a caucaus in which those who were in charge of each individual caucaus were under no obligation to certify or even report the results of the caucaus while designating one third of the delegates based on those results, that state then leaves the door wide open for fraudulant abuse of the system and the disenfranchisement of many of the voters who were motivated enough to attend the caucaus.

We have enough of a problem motivating the people to vote in this country now. When the laborer busts his behind all day and at the end of the day he is tired, dirty and hungry, all he wants to do is go home, eat and rest up for the next day. Yet, he is motivated enough to stop on the way home and vote in the primary. The next day, he finds out that his candidate won the primary but the other candidate got more delegates because a few voters showed up at a caucaus and nulified his vote. He realizes that he should have just gone home and not bothered to vote.

We bemoan the fact that half the people don’t bother to vote and yet, some states are determined to make the voting process even more complicated.

Posted by: jlw at March 6, 2008 12:10 PM

jlw, I don’t know what caucus you are talking about but it sure isn’t Texas. The Caucus Chair and Secretary BOTH must sign an affidavit to be mailed within 3 days of the caucus providing the raw numbers, and percentage results of the caucus attendees votes for one candidate or the other, and how that percentage breaks out for the total delegates allotted for that precinct.

I have been a precinct Chair in Texas, I know this for a fact. So, what state are you referring to?

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 6, 2008 01:09 PM

Arben, love your optimism, but, the fact remains, despite Tuesdays wins, Obama maintains more than 100 delegate lead over Clinton, and he has more states to win coming up such as Wyoming and Mississippi.

Whether Clinton even has a chance at winning now hinges upon the Mi./Fla. debacle and whether, and how those delegates are determined and seated, and perhaps on a margin of the super delegates. There is no arithmetic way she can win the delegate lead in the rest of the primaries and caucuses. That is a mathematical certainty, unless Obama dropped out of the race entirely.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 6, 2008 01:15 PM

Liam, you are absolutely correct. Democrats have chosen a REPUBLICan scheme for electing delegates. The SuperDelegates are representatives chosen to insure the popular will does not apply should the popular will not coincide with the choice of the party elites. One would think the Democratic Party would lean more toward a direct democracy approach. But, when it comes to systemic politics, there really isn’t much difference between the two Oligopoly Parties anymore, they will make up whatever rules they want to in order to give themselves the best control and chances for power regardless of ethics, philosophy, or will of the people.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 6, 2008 01:20 PM

David, the traditional way of electing delegates could be considered a republican scheme, but how is the Democratic system any more of a republican scheme? If anything, it’s less of one.

In a republic, the representatives are first directly elected by the people. This is similar to how delegates have traditionally operated at the conventions.

Some superdelegates used to be elected officials, and some are chosen by elections, but those elections do not reflect the popular will of the people when it comes to choosing their candidates.

If anything, the Democrats have a system more like that of the Soviet Empire where elections were held to keep up appearances of following the popular will but party insiders were the ones making all of the actual decisions.

Posted by: Liam at March 6, 2008 02:28 PM

Mrs. Clinton has shown again that she is undefeatable. … She will win! Our country needs her.

Hmmmm … you may have a point there.

Some say that things can’t get better until they get much worse.

Using that logic, I agree.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 6, 2008 03:39 PM

Liam, you are overlooking the glaring point I made between direct democracy and representative decision making, which is the difference between a direct democracy and a republican form of government.

You are addressing a separate point regarding how super delegates get to be superdelegates. I agree with your point. But, it is not the point I was making.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 6, 2008 05:06 PM

The more Mrs. Clinton gets closer to her big nomination the more desperate Obamanatic followers become. It reminds me of the British comedy “The Life of Brian” Can you imagine what would have happened if Obama was really leading the country? This country doesn’t need whining preachers, but it does need leaders with knowledge, experience and devotion. The Obamanatics forget that most of these advisers that are being so disrespectful towards Mrs. Clinton were unknown in the middle of nowhere, until Bill Clinton gave them the chance to be somebody during his reign of eight years. During those years the economy flourished and politically we were very much respected abroad. Everyone knows that Hillary was a very active part of Bill Clinton’s policies.
Do not forget, no other democrat nominee in thirty plus years, was able to defeat the republicans with the left wing rhetoric. I agree it is all about judgments. Obama is backed by a bunch of left wingers like Kerry etc that are trying to kidnap the leadership of the Democratic Party, despite the fact that they were directly responsible for the badly lost elections. On the other side, Hillary is backed by one of the most successful democrats in the history of the democrats, Bill Clinton. Trying to deform and distort the facts of that success is so shameful of these people that associate themselves with the Democratic Party. She is a blessing for our country. She represents a broad support base that includes women, Latinos, Asians, independents, even republicans, top brass from army & other services, recognized and highly respected around the world, etc.
So, do we really want to take a chance with Obama?!

Posted by: ARBEN Camaj at March 8, 2008 01:58 AM

… hook, line, and sinker …

Posted by: d.a.n at March 8, 2008 12:46 PM

Arben, I think you meant to say the longer Obama maintains his delegate lead, the more desperate become the Hillary campaign tactics.

So it was her person telling Canada to ignore what she is saying about NAFTA, not Obama’s. That was interesting. And it was Hillary claiming McCain would be a more qualified Commander in Chief than that Democrat named Obama. Certainly sounds desperate to me.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 8, 2008 05:40 PM