Third Party & Independents Archives

Like d.a.n says:

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 7, 2008 04:57 PM

She already has damaged Obama, David. Her own words are being used against him by the RNC. This is the main reason she has to disappear for a while, as long as she stays visible her words will have much more power.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 7, 2008 05:01 PM

this speech highlights how her campaign has immeasurably matured her public speaking and speech making abilities. This speech was anchored in realities facing her audience, its meter was attuned to the audience retaining control and management of audience responses, and her voice was solid and confident.

Whatever other criticisms can be launched at Hillary Clinton, this speech is not one of them.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 7, 2008 05:07 PM

make no mistake about it she still wants to be president, and believes she could beat mc cain. don’t kid yourself david she’ll derail obamas campaign first chance she gets, thats how the clintons play. obama loses, and she runs against mc cain 2012. obamas only chance could lie with the running mate he chooses otherwise he loses bigtime.

Posted by: dbs at June 7, 2008 05:12 PM

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 7, 2008 05:21 PM

Rhinehold, that is absurd. As if the GOP and their Swiftboaters needed Hillary’s leadership to devise and invent stuff to use against Obama. Absurd.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2008 06:08 PM

dbs, your comment demonstrates a true lack of understanding about how politics work. If Hillary does not give her absolute best to get Obama elected, her name will be Mudd in the Democratic Party and she will have no political future.

It is in her own self-interest now to insure Obama is elected. As well as in the interest of her and Democratic supporters. Her future in politics rests on his winning over McCain. Failing that, she will be blamed for his losing.

It couldn’t be anymore more black and white, no pun intended.

Your reasoning however is dead on right regarding Hilliary Clinton as VP to Obama. Even if she didn’t sabotage Obama, he would have to questioning her motives at every word and action.

One does not marry someone one knows has been coveting one’s wealth. It would be the height of folly for Obama to select Hillary who has coveted the very seat he will hold.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2008 06:12 PM

WW, that is true as it has been since universal suffrage, that the voters will have the government they vote for or against as a majority (electoral college excepted). That is why voting out incumbents is also the kind of change America needs regarding the Congress.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2008 06:16 PM

I’m sorry David, I forgot. Only those less educated of us aren’t smart enough to support Obama already, therefore his opponents must invent things to bring up to be concerned about. After all, He Can Do No Wrong…

I apologize for being Absurd.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 7, 2008 06:20 PM

So, what happened before universal suffrage?

Posted by: womanmarine at June 7, 2008 06:21 PM

womanmarine, the state legislators elected Federal Senators and the President either directly or by proxy. Only the House of Rep. was designed to be elected by the people at the founding of this country, and then only by white, male, landowners.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2008 06:27 PM

I guess I had better get in touch with Juan williams, let him know he is being Absurd as well…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121270934203350365.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

To deal with this controversy effectively, Mr. Obama needs to give another speech. This time he has to admit to sins of using race for political expediency – by knowingly buying into divisive, mean messages being delivered from the pulpit. He has to say that, as a biracial young man with no community roots, attaching himself to Rev. Wright and the Trinity congregation was a shortcut to move up the ladder in the Chicago political scene. He has to call race-baiting what it is, whether it comes from a pulpit or calls itself progressive politics. And he has to challenge his supporters, especially his black base, to be honest about real problems at the heart of today’s racial divide – including out-of-wedlock births, crime, drugs and a culture that devalues education while glorifying the gangster life.

Mr. Obama also has to raise the bar for how political criticism is handled in his camp. Step one is to acknowledge that not every critic is a racist. His very liberal record and his limited experience, like his association with Rev. Wright, is a fact, not the work of white racists. Just as he calls for the GOP not to engage in the politics of fear over terrorism, Mr. Obama needs to declare that he will refrain from playing the racial victim, because he understands such tactics will paralyze political debate and damage race relations.

Only by admitting to his own sins can Mr. Obama credibly claim that he has seen the promise of our country, in which Americans of all colors work together. Only then can he convince dubious white voters that he is ready to move beyond racial antagonism and be their president.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 7, 2008 06:28 PM

Rhinehold, another absurd comment. The simple fact and truth for all to see is that the GOP and their 527 supporting PACs would have lambasted Obama regardless of whether Obama had competition for the nomination or not.

What a preoccupation with Obama’s victory. Do you read Obama’s walking on water into everyone’s comments about Hillary Clinton? That could be a serious condition and breach with reality, there Rhinehold!

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2008 06:31 PM

Wow! Rhinehold. Didn’t know you had your own Wright’s to call on for insane guidance and advice. This will make debating your comments easy.

Obama NEVER played the racial victim. From the beginning of this campaign he has recounted his blessings in being born an American. Not a Black American, not a White American, an American.

Your penchant for falling for these arguments of guilt by association with others of different opinions very nearly makes you a Republican. And here I thought you were a libertarian standing up for truth and judging a person by their own actions and words, not their pastor’s, shoemakers, or babysitters.

My mistake, eh?

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2008 06:37 PM

Man, you can smell the fear from the comments in here already !! Can’t wait to read a “Red Column” thread.

Posted by: janedoe at June 7, 2008 06:45 PM

David -

I disagree. The conservatives can still win. For one thing, they have shown little compunction about using election fraud - check out rawstory.com’s investigative series. What’s more, as was stated above, they have no problem with making up stuff e.g. swiftboaters and “Obama’s an Arab!”.

And unfortunately, there’s millions of Americans who don’t have enough intellectual curiosity to check the veracity of such claims.

That’s why I sincerely hope Obama choose Hillary as his running mate, for two reasons: one, she’ll bring all her ardent supporters with her (and more than a few females who are tired of voting as their Republican husbands demand) and almost ensure a Democratic victory, and two, it would minimize the possibility that some neo-con would assassinate Obama, for any neo-con would know that he would then be responsible for making Hillary president…and we’ve all heard them refer to her as ‘the antiChrist’ of all things(!).

But my greatest political wish for now is that Bush doesn’t decide to implement Executive Order 51 and plunge us into the depths of despotism. I don’t like to sound alarmist, and I certainly don’t consider myself one who buys into conspiracy theories, but…let’s just say I’ll be a happy camper if I’m wrong and next January someone other than Bush/Cheney are in power, even if it’s McCain. I’ll be very glad to have been mistaken in my suspicions about Bush/Cheney’s motives.

But of course I would much prefer Obama and Hillary.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 7, 2008 07:20 PM

Rhinehold, another absurd comment. The simple fact and truth for all to see is that the GOP and their 527 supporting PACs would have lambasted Obama regardless of whether Obama had competition for the nomination or not.

Sorry, but there is some weight behind fellow Democrats saying these things about their candidate than just having the GOP say them, David. I’m not sure why you don’t see that, I’ll have to leave that up to you and the other readers to determine.

Hillary, and others, have given the GOP much ammunition to use. I’m sure that they will be glad to repeat those criticisms that were valid when spoken by a Democrat. I wonder if they will suddenly have no meaning when spoken by a Republican? Most likely they will be labelled raicst…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 7, 2008 07:21 PM

Obama NEVER played the racial victim. From the beginning of this campaign he has recounted his blessings in being born an American. Not a Black American, not a White American, an American.

First, those weren’t my words but those of Juan Williams. I had thought the ‘quoteblocks’ around the comments would hint that to you, but apparently not.

Second, Obama had his campaign do it. You saw it (and said it was OK) and now say it never happened?

Or is he not responsible for the conduct of his campaign now? McCain is somehow responsible for 527s, who by law he can have no connection with, but Obama is free to have his own campaign using the race card?

*shrug*

My point, which of course you missed, was that there are valid criticisms of Obama that are not steeped in racism or irrationality. Obama has not, obviously, done enough to answer themm, in fact much of what he has done has made it worse in the minds of those who are not already sold on an Obama election.

And that is the truth, no matter how much you want to say it isn’t. I don’t think it is I who is blinded here…

And I have not once suggested anything close to ‘guilt by association’, I’ve even defended Obama against those criticisms in the past and still do today. But thre are other aspects of the Wright (and others) issues that are not about applying their views to Obama, but speaks more to the judgement he has used in keeping ties with those people until it was politically expedient to do so. And your attempt to suggest that those concerns are invalid are hollow.

So, please, continue to belittle anyone who dares disagree with you David. It just shows how hollow those views are and how grounded in reality they aren’t.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 7, 2008 07:29 PM

David. I’m not sure why you don’t see that

It’s because he has his own agenda. He doesn’t belong in the Independent column. His loyalties lie with the the Democratic Party! Just like Stephen Daugherty’s loyalties lie with the Democratic Party.

Think about it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 7, 2008 07:32 PM

Glenn,

Assassination and election fraud? You’re really that heavy into conspiracy theories, aren’t you?

That said, I can only imagine the shrillness from the left if Obama loses… It is likely to cause them to attempt to leave the union again. Heaven forbid there be any actual acceptance that the Democrats just plain lost an election in the last 8 years.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 7, 2008 07:33 PM

WW,

I would not say that about David, he has issues with the Democratic Party. There are other reasons as well, that I don’t thnk are relevant to discuss here. Suffice it to say that I think David is a statist, not a Democrat, though this year the lines between the two are being blurred a bit.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 7, 2008 07:36 PM

HRC gave the required speech. I hope she has no further involvement with her opponent. The VP spot on a losing ticket is a bad career move. She should look after her own interests, which would be a more secure and Lieberman proof majority in the Senate.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 7, 2008 07:45 PM

Rhinehold -

No, I’m NOT heavily into conspiracy theories. Bush had nothing to do with 9/11, the FBI had nothing to do with the JFK assassination, and Jimmy Hoffa is not secretly Ann Coulter (though since she opposes women’s sufferage, she may indeed have an Adam’s apple).

Please note I never said Bush/Cheney WOULD implement Executive Order 51 - I’ve always said they might. Bush’s statement and both Bush/Cheney’s actions indicate that such is not beyond the pale of their intentions. I DO hope that if they do, that they did not manufacture an atrocity to justify it.

I would agree with you that the reaction from the Democrats would be shrill indeed if Obama loses. Check out rawstory.com’s investigative series on election fraud by the Republicans (including Karl Rove) if you don’t think this has happened before, and recently.

AND you should be aware of the use of caging lists by Republicans (which is illegal and the Republican party has a restraining order from doing so since the mid-90’s) that disenfranchised nearly two thousand Floridians, many of whom were servicemen and -women who were thus DISENFRANCHISED by the Republicans’ efforts.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/25/explaining-caging/

Not only that, but the poorly-designed ‘butterfly ballot’ also cost Gore the election.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/palmbeach.recount/

But you know what? I’m GRATEFUL that Bush won the election. Why? That’s in my blog.

But back to current events. If Obama chooses the wrong running mate, he will lose. Hopefully he’ll choose Hillary and capture the female vote. Failing that, I hope he’ll choose my former boss Jim Webb, the former Vietnam veteran Marine infantry officer that Reagan appointed as Secretary of the Navy.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 7, 2008 08:14 PM

I Agree with mr carter This time, HRC would be a bad VP choice and she better not be thinking about the majority senate Seat Harry has both barrels clicked ,anyhow a 30 million dollar debt paid off and a long career in the senate or possibly a Supreme court Justice seat ain’t hay.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 7, 2008 09:48 PM

It’s a funny thing to be mentioned in a thread before you even have a chance to comment within it. ;-)

Seriously, though, I thought she did a magnificent job. If she had been more dynamic like this on the early campaign trail, I’d probably be writing on her behalf right now, with Obama having conceded.

But that’s the past. She did herself and the rest of her party a huge favor today, and I think most of the reasonable supporters of hers will unite with Obama’s.

It’s a relief to say the least. Personally, the eighteen million cracks in the glass ceiling line is my favorite, because it embodies the sentiment that I talked about in my earlier thread, that promise that minorities and women of all races could participate on a level playing field with the men, the white guys who have long dominated American politics to their exclusion. I also liked what she said about the fact that it will no longer be remarkable that a woman or a black man has won a state primary. While I don’t believe prejudice will ever completely go away, I do think there will come a point where people stop caring so damn much.

And that will be good, because then the political climate will be dominated by more of the forces that it should be dominated by.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2008 10:48 PM

David R. Remer wrote: Sen. Clinton left absolutely no doubt, that Hillary Clinton is not going to be an impediment, but, a major asset to the Obama campaign to get there.

Maybe.

I really don’t think Hillary Clinton hurt Obama too much; not nearly as much as Obama hurt himself (a couple of times).
If anything, it was good practice for Obama.
Obama can win this election, if he doesn’t shoot himself in the foot anymore.

So, now that Hillary is no longer in the running, what do we have?

• (01) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[x], All[_]: Economy; stop these 10 abuses
;

• (02) McCain[_], Nader[x], Obama[x], None[_], All[_]: War in Iraq; bring troops home;


• (03) McCain[_], Nader[x], Obama[x], None[_], All[_]: Health care; eliminate middle men, fraud, waste;


• (04) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[x], All[_]: Terrorism, Homeland Security; secure our borders and existing laws and immigration laws;


• (05) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[x], All[_]: Illegal Immigration; enforce existing laws; not another shamnesty;


• (06) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Social Security (stop plundering surpluses);


• (07) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Education;


• (08) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Energy;


• (09) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Environment;


• (10) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Free (and fair) trade;


• (11) McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Taxation; make fair, simpler, non-regressive;

McCain’s position on Iraq will probably lose it for him.

Obama will get votes for promoting healthcare for more (or all) Americans, and bringing U.S. troops home.

Obama will hopefully make the tax system non-regressive?

Neither McCain or Obama have a good record on illegal immigration.

McCain voted for the first amnesty in 1986, which quadrupled the problem, and McCain supported and Obama voted for the second Dream Act attempted in 2007.
But now, after 26 years in Congress, McCain says he now gets it. Funny how these revelations suddenly occur when someone is running for office.

Barack Obama wants to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens (as he stated in an earlier debate).
Thus, how can Obama score well on Homeland Security?
Has Obama forgotten that the 18 of the 19 perpetrators of 11-SEP-2001 (some who were illegal aliens and/or had violated several immigration laws), possessed 13 state-issued drivers’ licenses and/or 21 ID cards (source: www.9-11pdp.org/press/2004-12-03_factsheet.pdf), and all 19 hijackers had obtained Social Security numbers (some real, some fake; source: www.cis.org/articles/2002/back1202.html). The terrorists very simply tapped into an enormous market for fraudulent documents that exists because tens of millions of illegal aliens have successfully breached our borders and now reside here illegally; anonymously; spawnning widespread document and identity fraud that threatens our ability to distinguish illegal aliens from U.S. citizens and legal foreign residents; and giving rise to the fastest growing crime in America: identity theft.

So, who should I vote for (i.e. for El Presidenté)?
The choices still aren’t very good.
I’m not sure I can vote for anyone who wants another amnesty (like the one that quadrupled the problem in 1986, which McCain voted for), and refuses to stop the the illegal employers, refuses to take border security seriously, refuses to enforce existing laws, and chooses to (despicably) continue to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes.

Obama and Nader (in my opinion) are better choices.
Of course, many are going to say Nader can’t win.
So what?
Wasn’t the point of voting supposed to be voting for the most qualified candidate?
If it weren’t for the media and countless polls, perhaps the media wouldn’t have such a strangle-hold on the process?
Still, I think people should ignore the polls and vote for the most qualified candidate.

Regardless of who becomes the next El Presidenté, what are the chances that the next president will be able to get anything accomplished when most voters repeatedly reward the same corrupt, irresponsible, do-nothing incumbent politicians in the same do-nothing Congress with perpetual re-election?

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 7, 2008 11:24 PM

Weary Willie … Thanks!

Posted by: d.a.n at June 7, 2008 11:28 PM

Rhinehold and Weary Willie,

Sorry, Rhinehold, but WW is right on this one: David is not an independent. He is clearly a Democrat. That may change in the future, but right now, blue as blue can be.
Consider this: let us suppose that David got his fondest wish, and we voted out all the incumbents in congress this fall. Assuming that any incumbent who runs is replaced, and assuming further that they are not replaced by third party candidates (afer all, we can only carry this fantasy so far), and assuming further still that where no incumbent runs it is equally likely that the seat will be won by a Rebublican or a Democrat, then we would end up with a Republican House and a Republican Senate. We would stand a 50-50 chance of having a Republican president, as well.
Do you think David would approve of this outcome? NOT! No, David may say he wants us to vote out the incumbents, but he doesn’t really mean it.
Given the pitiful approval rating of both houses of Congress (half as good as that of the President’s), and given that Congress has done very little of what they promised they would do (I know, I know, its GWB’s fault…but, really, didn’t the Democrats know that he would still be president in 2006? They promised us the world anyway), nobody could argue that this is not the time to vote out the incumbents because they have done such a good job. They haven’t, and nobody thinks they have.
I agree with WW that it is time to chase the Democrats out of the Independent column and over the the Democratic column, where they belong.

Posted by: Steve at June 8, 2008 01:29 AM

If Obama picks Hillary as his VP, he better get a food taster.

What fun it would be for late night comedians having Bill wandering around the Whitehouse, in his t-shirt- giving advice.

John McCain has challenge Obama to do three things:

1. Keep his promise use public financing for the election.
2. Agree to engage in a series of town hall debates
3. Visit Iraq so that he understands what he is talking about.

So far Obama has chickened out on all three.

Posted by: Jack at June 8, 2008 04:41 AM

David,
Why Hillary did a lot to show that her support for the Democratic Party is more important than her own personal gains (A Good Thing). However, Obama and her have a lot of work to do if they want to unite the American Public behind his message of change.

Because in My Personal Opinion neither the Democratic or Republican Leadership running for the Office of President has the Courage of Conviction to take me on over the Debate for the need of Change.

For why Jack points out the 3 challenges set forth by Senator McCain toward Senator Obama, let me demonstrate what My Personal answers would be to the Republican Party.

1. Why I hold the financial advantage over My Republican Candidate unlike President Bush who refused to accept public finance in 2000 and 2004 I will accept the Senior Senators’ Challenge based on the following conditions to unsure fairness.

2. Instead of just 10 town hall meetings, having just finished a 50 plus State Primary. I request that we board a Change for a Better World Train and take on the 48 Continental States over the next 100 days. Call it the 1800’s met the 21st Century, but by making several stops a day (to be worked out) in the Hallows, Towns, Cities, and Major Events along the way. And why Alaska and Hawaii may seem left out, I do believe that at lest a week would have to be set aside for those vists.

3. Now, after and only after both of us has traveled across the United States of America and visited Every 50 State than we can take the American People to Iraq with us as a Nation and a Society so that America can speak with the Troops , the Citizens of Iraq, and the Government of Iraq.

However, I do after some thought believe that between Hillary and Senator Biden provided some Members of the House keeps quit can provide Senator McCain and the Talking Heads of the Republican Party with more than enough headaches in the Senate while the House continues looking for Rove over the same time frame.

Note: Thanks Jack!

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at June 8, 2008 05:18 AM

I have to remark on this reasoning by some here that if a person supports an individual of a Party, not that Party, that person must be for that Party as well. It is completely flawed logic.

I used to be a Democrat, and my views lie closer on more issues with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party philosophically, as Rhinehold correctly pointed out. But, not by any means all. My views on fiscal policy have always been closer to Republican philosophy than Democrats.

But, my reasons for adopting Obama as my choice for president over Nader, McEnulty, Clinton, or McCain (whom I wrote I would support here at one time) have NOTHING to do with the fact that he is a Democrat.

As I have written several times, Obama’s alludes to the Vote Out Incumbents agenda for politicians who stand in the way of America solving the problems facing her, in his speeches. That, is vision and turning point for my moving to support Obama.

Some of you prejudge others with the greatest of ease, and that says volumes more about you, than about the people your prejudgments are aimed at. And I am fine with that.

Obama, as I have also written, is not going to be America’s savior, he won’t walk on water, or turn diminshing resources into plenty to eradicate our national debt. He is a human being, with flaws, make no mistake. His position on immigration so far shows contempt for fellow Americans. His position on guns, shows contempt for the 100 million law abiding responsible gun owners of which I am one.

On balance, among all the candidates, however, it is my judgment that he can elevate the rules of governance and politics, and help Americans demand more and better from their representatives in solving our fiscal tragedy looming on the horizon, and change our foreign policy such that we strengthen our alliances and weaken the rationale of our enemies.

If others here believe and think differently, that is fine. But, my writings here for years have stood in condemnation of both of the Democratic and Republican Parties and anyone trying to take issue with that fact is either unable or unwilling to read with comprehension or playing ostrich with the truth about David R. Remer’s writings and positions. That of course, includes Weary Willie who sees only what he wants to see and myopically blackens out all the rest.

Thank you WW for the opportunity to set you and others straight on this, whether your commentary is capable of being straight or not.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2008 09:33 AM

BHO would be very foolish to give publicity to JMcC by participating in any meetings with people who don’t support him. That is something he might do if he can no longer afford to buy advertising, since that comes with free air time as a bonus whenever he makes a speech, and the good will of the media talking heads who promote him.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 8, 2008 09:43 AM

Rhinehold, I don’t think anyone ever said I was a statist before, but, on reflection, and compared to Libertarians, I have to agree with your statement. I do believe our government and economic system systems have a significant role to play in our personal, social or economic matters.

The judicial system is absolutely necessary in mediating differences of a legal nature between individuals at the personal level.

Our legislative system has a role to play in our social lives regarding enslavement of each other, abuse of each other, child protective services, and insuring freedom of religion and association and political membership, all social context issues.

And there is no question in my mind that our economic system requires oversight and management as opposed to anarchic liberty which would not create or enforce any rules regarding fair economic behavior and trade practices.

Yes, my views are much more statist than a Libertarian. Thanks for the accurate label. I as a person however, reserve the right to be me, more complex and nuanced than any label could accurately define me as. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2008 09:47 AM

ohrealy,
Are you saying that BHO should be afraid of Senator McCain about the change need in America while taking the stance that he is willing to talk to the Leaders of Nations not friendly to the United States?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at June 8, 2008 09:51 AM

Henry said: “However, Obama and her have a lot of work to do if they want to unite the American Public behind his message of change.”

Why the however, Henry?

Did I not already write: “This speech alone will not unify the Democratic Party nor bring a majority of Independent voters to the Democratic Party’s choice for president. Much more effort and creativity and exposure are required to get to that point.”

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2008 09:54 AM

Jack’s comments play sophist GOP talking spin games again. Is it because Jack’s comments intentionally seek to deceive readers here, or because his comments accept unquestioningly the talking points of his own candidate of choice, McCain? Only Jack can answer this. Jack said:

1. Keep his [Obama’s] promise use public financing for the election.

Obama never made a promise or pledge to go with public financing. As Politico reports:

I asked McCain’s aides today for evidence of the “pledge,” and they sent over a March 2 Times article reporting a “deal” between McCain and Obama.

There don’t seem to be any direct quotes from Obama or his aides committing him to the pledge — though they come awful close.

The manager of Mr. McCain’s campaign, Terry Nelson, said he welcomed the decision.

“Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same,” Mr. Nelson said.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Bill Burton, said, “We hope that each of the Republican candidates pledges to do the same.”

Mr. Burton added that if nominated Mr. Obama would “aggressively pursue an agreement” with whoever was his opponent.

I think Jack would agree that a candidate would be a damned fool unworthy of being president if they knowingly chose to “engage in a series of town hall debates”, which they surmised would advantage their opponent. Would you want the President to engage in behaviors he/she knew would advantage al-Queda? Whether a candidate chooses to engage in public debates, one or many, has to be assessed by that candidate both strategically and tactically. You would expect our president be capable of strategic and tactical thinking, would you not?

Jack said: “Visit Iraq so that he understands what he is talking about.”

Obama has visited Iraq previously. Given the very unsafe environment in Iraq, it is no surprise to learn that none of our political presidential or congressional leaders who have been to Iraq have visited unsecured areas of Iraq.

Therefore, what is to be learned by visiting Iraq if politicians visit only the secured and fairly safe Green Zone to talk to our commanders, when a phone conversation would accomplish EXACTLY the same thing as VASTLY less cost to taxpayers. Politicians visiting Iraq is all about Photo Op election material, and has NOTHING to do with getting more information from a visit than could be obtained by talking to the Pentagon or Gen. Petraeus in a Committee hearing or his staff by phone.

You confuse Jack, election photo ops with intelligence gathering, and politicians going to Iraq are not going to acquire any intelligence they can’t acquire from behind their desks in D.C. That should be abundantly obvious. Obama has visited Iraq, at tax payer expense, already. Seems to me your fiscal conservativism would demand he not go again just for an election photo op at the tax payer’s 10’s of thousand dollars expense.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2008 10:18 AM

Steve inaccurately and fallaciously said: “Consider this: let us suppose that David got his fondest wish, and we voted out all the incumbents in congress this fall.”

Never has David R. Remer on the Vote Out Incumbent’s web site or anywhere else advocated replacing all of congress’s incumbents in one fell swoop. In fact, Remer has argued quite the opposite, that this would be both disastrous and impossible given the realities of our current political environment. I suggest you research your remarks Steve before exposing such a lack of informed research in public venue.

Your intimation that I am a liar by saying: “David may say he wants us to vote out the incumbents, but he doesn’t really mean it.” is critiquing the messenger, not the message. Besides being presumptuous as to know Remer’s mind better than he does and based on faulty or absent research on the topic in the first place.

Steve said: “I agree with WW that it is time to chase the Democrats out of the Independent column and over the the Democratic column, where they belong.”

You will be chasing no writer from any column on this web site, Steve. By WatchBlog’s rules, if you have concerns over how WatchBlog is managed, you are obligated by those rules to send those concerns to the manager via private email, and also obligated to refrain from using this comments section for such purposes. I hope I am making this point about compliance with WatchBlog’s rules ABUNDANTLY clear, Steve. You consented to those rules when you left your comment. You have been given fair warning.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2008 10:37 AM

I have read several comments here that David appears as a democrat. This strikes me as a bit strange. I will agree that he has been advocating for Obama for awhile now. But I do not see how that can specifically make him a dem. Is it not the purpose of claiming ones position as independent to allow one to go any direction in good conscience as they see fit? I consider myself a person of moderately liberal views yet have voted in which ever direction seemed appropriate in the past. I do not recall David having been sided 100% dem in the past.

I have thought about this situation some to myself in the recent past and have come to the conclusion that he is simply disgusted with irresponsible republican rule and sees no particular benefit in allowing a continuance of such careless governance. I realize I can not speak for him but I do understand his disgust with the last congress and our current executive. There is no value in allowing much of our current policy to continue unchecked. That surely is what would happen should McCain be allowed to step into the leadership role. The GOP had their chance to do well by this country. They did not. Logic says their demise in lieu of reform is a no brainer. Logic also says it is what would be best for this country at this time. The GOP has carelessly led us into some dangerously perilous times. They have proved incapable of leading us out of them. As I see it who in good conscience could allow a party so weak on policy and diplomacy to continue to set policy. To do so may very well be guaranteeing unforeseen travesties.

I would refrain from labeling David a dem. I would call him a citizen acting in good conscience to do what he feels is best for this country. Sometimes it is smarter to put labels aside. Doing so tends to make the view a little clearer.

%

Posted by: RickIL at June 8, 2008 01:27 PM

RickIL,

I believe he also shares the country’s disgust with the CURRENT congress. Being that the Dems have broken just about every promise that they ran on doesn’t help.

And don’t give me that ‘they don’t have a supermajority’ crap, neither did the Republicans in their control of congress and they don’t get a pass, neither to the Dems.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 8, 2008 01:30 PM

Rhinehold

I knew I should have stated that he also has held no particular admiration for the current congress. Nor do I or apparently much of anyone for that matter. However an obstructionist president with a veto pen carries a lot of weight. You can not fairly claim that obstructionism has not played a role in the inadequacies of this congress.

Posted by: RickIL at June 8, 2008 01:43 PM

Then the obstructionism of the Dems the previous 6 years should be accepted by you to have played a role into the situations we have now. Are you willing to say that, RickIL?

You can’t have it both ways, I’m afraid.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 8, 2008 02:18 PM

For once I agree with Clinton. We CANNOT afford 4 more years like the last 8 years. The problem is that we CANNOT afford 4 years of Obama either. Because the next 4 be just like the last eight.
If either party wanted my vote in November they lost any chance of it, slim as it was, with their choices of candidates. The only change Obama and McCain offer is the name of the person in the White House. As I see it the Independents need to find a third party candidate they can support and vote for him/her and let the Democrats and Republicans fend for themselves.
I didn’t hear or see anything about Clinton’s speech yesterday. But at least she’s doing what needs to done in the best interest of her party. For that she gets a +.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 8, 2008 02:27 PM

d.a.n said: Obama will hopefully make the tax system non-regressive?

Doing a little wishful thinking there are we?

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 8, 2008 02:33 PM

david

“your comment demonstrates a true lack of understanding about how politics work. If Hillary does not give her absolute best to get Obama elected, her name will be Mudd in the Democratic Party and she will have no political future.”

and yours lacks a true understanding of what true scumbags the clintons are, and what they’re are capable of at any given moment. thier political careers should have been over years ago with all the baggage they carry. i never suggested that they would openly try to derail obamas campaign, but you can bet your ass they will try to do it behind the scenes and then make it look like a republican smear job.

“It is in her own self-interest now to insure Obama is elected. As well as in the interest of her and Democratic supporters. Her future in politics rests on his winning over McCain. Failing that, she will be blamed for his losing.”

it is in her own self interest to see that he loses. that will set her up to try again in 2012. IMO regardless of who is elected this time they will ony serve one term. both mc cain, and obama are IMO weak candidates, and could be easily defeated in the next election cycle by a stronger one. as for her being blamed for his losing i disagree. the republicans will be blamed, and conspiracy theories will abound.

Posted by: dbs at June 8, 2008 02:47 PM

Ron

i think both candidates suck. that being said the one consideration you should think about before voting for an independant is what kind of judges will the next president appoint, especially to the supreme court if a vacancy should arrise. if you want more like ginsberg then help obama win, however if you want judges that will strictly interpret the constitution, IMO i think we have a better shot with mc cain.

Posted by: dbs at June 8, 2008 02:54 PM

David R.

I listened to excerpts from Clintons speech and interviews with Clinton supporters outside afterwards. It is true, Obama and the Democratic Party are going to have to throw a lot more I feel your pain BS at the people to be sure of winning.

I have swallowed just about all the Democratic BS for many years now. So much that I have finally become saturated and the thought of swallowing more just makes me nauseous.

I get several emails from the Democratic Party and representatives of the candidates each week. Today, I opened one from Howard Dean, big changes in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is not going to represent lobbyists and special interest groups anymore. From now on the Democratic Party is going to represent ordinary people. Send us a contribution unless you are a lobbyist or a PAC because the Democratic Party won’t accept your money anymore.

That was just a bunch of misleading BS. So what if the Democratic Party isn’t going to accept PAC or lobbyist money anymore. The Democratic Congressional candidates sure are going to accept their money. Obama might not accept donations from PAC’s but, what about $2000 personal checks wink,wink, nod, nod, tap, tap, from the PAC’s office staff or a lobbyist?

The Democratic Party is going to represent ordinary people from now on. Wouldn’t that be wonderful if they were really going to do that?

A majority of ordinary people want the employers of illegal immigrants arrested and prosecuted for violating the law. They want the illegals sent home. The Democratic Party is not going to do that are they? As a matter of fact, If we take Obama at is word, he is going to give those employers a tax break for creating even more jobs for the immigrants.

The Party is not going to represent the ordinary people on this issue, The Democrats are going to legalize the whole mess and bring even more low skilled immigrants in. Of course the Democrats will protect the college educated’s jobs but, they aren’t the ordinary.

Illegal immigration ceased to be an issue after the field of candidates was weeded down to three corporate candidates and the ordinary people aren’t going to hear another word about it until Obama signs the bill. Hell, they might not hear about it then unless they catch the thirty second sound bite from the MSM.

The ordinary people want their manufacturing jobs back from China and other countries. They want those tech telephone jobs they were promised in the 1990’s but, most of them went overseas to. You want to book a flight from Cleveland to Orlando, call India. You need tech support for your computer, call Bob Gandi or Karen Rashashani in India. The Democratic party is not going to represent the ordinary people on this issue either. They might take some of the toxicity out of those not so cheap imports though.

So, just how will the Democrats represent ordinary people? More government handouts? Another raise in the minimum wage that will be inflated out of existance before the workers get a dime of it in their pocket?

Even the word ordinary is meaningless without context. A worker might think that means her instead of the conservative contractor that replaced his workforce with illegals or the liberal coffee shop owner that has illegals making the coffee in the back. It is just another politically correct word, selected by a committee, like universal healthcare that isn’t universal and leaves the middle man in charge, or globalization as a replacement for New World Order.

I believe in open borders and a world government. I know that change is inevitable. However, the world is no where near accepting a world government, especially if the corporations are going to own it. The pain caused by change is almost always felt by the ordinary workers. This time, change means holding down the wages of American workers until the third world workers catch up so that all the workers will be third world workers.

If the Democratic Party is truly going to represent the ordinary workers, they will force capital and their corporations to absorb the pain and provide full employment with decent wages so that the workers can afford many of the things that the Democratic Party counts on to make them dependent on the Party.

Posted by: jlw at June 8, 2008 04:47 PM

Jack wrote: John McCain has challenged Obama to do three things: … 3. Visit Iraq so that he understands what he is talking about.

“understands” ?

Perhaps John McCain should first try to understand what he is talking about?
John McCain said 3 (or more) times that Iran is assisting Al-Qaeda.
That’s false.
Why does he do that? Do you think it is an honest mistake?
And John McCain said General David Petraus was driving about Baghdad in an unarmored/unarmed humvee?

• On 26-Mar-2007, Wolf Blitzer said: “Everything we hear, that if you leave the so-called Green Zone, the international zone, and you go outside of that secure area, relatively speaking, you’re in trouble if you’re an American.”


• John McCain said: “You know, that’s where you ought to catch up on things, Wolf. General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in a non-armed Humvee. I think you ought to catch up. You see, you are giving the old line of three months ago. I understand it. You certainly don’t get it through the filter of some of the media.”

What is it Obama needs to understand about Iraq?

• (01) Is continuing to put U.S. Troops in harm’s way in Iraq making the U.S. safer.


• (02) Aren’t there many better ways to make the U.S. safer?


• (03) Which country has more terrorsts? Afghanistan or Iraq? Afghanistan is slipping away.
  
• (04) If Iran is making trouble in Iraq, why not secure the 250 mile border (which is less than one-third the 830 mile border between Texas and Mexico)? Put 12,500 troops on that 250 Iran/Iraq border and that would be 50 troops per mile (on average, a soldier ever 105 feet); . 12,500 is only 8.3% of the 150,000 U.S. Troops in Iraq. Better yet, put Iraqi troops on the borders too.
  
• (05) Should U.S. troops be used for nation-building and policing civil wars if it is not making the U.S. safer?


• (06) If the U.S. troops are making the U.S. safer, how? Aren’t there still better ways to make the U.S. safer?
  
• (07) There are not many Al-Qaeda left within Iraq (about 1,300). Why can’t 27.5 million Iraqis deal with it? Why does the Iraqi government instead take 1-to-2 month vacations?


• (08) Haven’t the Iraqis had enough time to get it together? Will the Iraqis ever (sufficiently) step up to the plate if U.S. troops continue to do too much for the Iraqis?


• (09) Why aren’t other nations being asked (or allowed) to help out with the situation? Why have most other nations now left Iraq? Perhaps those other nations also feel like the Iraqis have had long more than enough time to get their act together? Or perhaps they realize that it is quite possible that the Iraqis will never get their act together. As of May 2007, only 6,000 Iraqi troops were trained and able to function independently of U.S. Forces. That is not not nearly good enough for a nation that has 27.5 million people. Should U.S. troops be used to continue trying? How long is too long?


• (10) Regardless of the humanitarian argument, the highest priority is still: Should U.S. troops be used to continue nation-building and policing the Iraqis? Another priority is the monetary cost. Already, as of May-2008, about $600 Billion has already been spent. Another $200 Billion was requested for year 2008. The cost of deploying one U.S. soldier in Iraq for one year is about $390,000. $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces is missing (source: www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/06/iraq/main3584247.shtml). Feb-2007 Congressional hears say $10 Billion was lost due to mismanagement and waste in Iraq. Halliburton overcharges classified by the Pentagon as unreasonable-and-unsupported were $1.4 billion (or more) in year 2007. KBR, a former Halliburton division, tasked to supply the U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items received - $20 billion, $3.2 Billion of which the Pentagon auditors deem “questionable-or-unsupportable”. There are 180,000 orivate contractors in Iraq, working in support of U.S. Army Troops (as of August 2007; source: www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/engelhardt). How can the U.S. continue to fund all of this when the U.S. has $53.2 Trillion of nation-wide debt, rising inflation (i.e. excessive money creation), and numerous pressing problems, growing in number and severity? Can the U.S. afford to be the world police?


• (11) If terrorism is the issue, why not focus on existing immigration laws and border security? After all, 18 of the 19 perpetrators of the WTC attacks on 11-SEP-2001 (some who were illegal aliens and/or had violated several immigration laws), possessed 13 state-issued drivers’ licenses and/or 21 ID cards (source: www.9-11pdp.org/press/2004-12-03_factsheet.pdf), and all 19 hijackers had obtained Social Security numbers (some real, some fake; source: www.cis.org/articles/2002/back1202.html). The terrorists very simply tapped into an enormous market for fraudulent documents that exists because tens of millions of illegal aliens have successfully breached our borders and now reside here illegally; anonymously; spawnning widespread document and identity fraud that threatens our ability to distinguish illegal aliens from U.S. citizens and legal foreign residents; and giving rise to the fastest growing crime in America: identity theft.


• (12) Bottom-line: Should U.S. troops have to risk life and limb for any mission that is not making the U.S. safer? Especially when there are better ways to make the U.S. safer. By the way, 60% of Americans want U.S. troops out of Iraq (MAR-2008 source: www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-12-warpoll_N.htm ; MAR-2008 source: www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/28/opinion/polls/main2619034.shtml ; MAY-2008 source: www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002257.html).

Regardless of who the next president is, what can the next president accomplish if sabotaged and saddled with the same irrsponsible and corrupt Congress?
Perhaps enough voters will vote more responsibly when enough of them are jobless, homeless, hungry, or worse?

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 8, 2008 06:17 PM

Rhinehold

You can’t have it both ways, I’m afraid.

I never asked for it both ways. The republicans had unfettered control of policy for 6 of the last seven years. The dems did not have the numbers of legislators needed or the unquestioned backing of a purely partisan president with no idea of the meaning of the word compromise to raise any serious obstruction to policy. Two entirely different situations.

Posted by: RickIL at June 8, 2008 09:58 PM

Dan; Excelent points on Iraq and the illegal immigrant issue. If Bush had set time tables and started pulling troops out of Iraq, it would have greatly improved Republican prospects in the fall. I believe that his stuborn refusal to do so and his and McCains continued promotion of the occupation has everything to do with who controls Iraq’s oil, us or them. The Iraqi’s seemed determined to wait him out and continue to refuse to sign the Cheney oil bill.

Illegal immigration is one of the primary issues that the American people are concerned about and yet, their is not one trace of it on Obama’s websites. Liberals with all their supposed education and intelligence stubbornly refuse to see any of the negative aspects of this wholesale importation into our country. There are thousands of people coming into this country from Mexico and other countries for the sole purpose of setting up crime rings to prey on Americans. A couple months ago, I watched a special on identity theft. They showed illegal immigrants, I believe from Nigeria, who upon their arrival, were going straight into a class room to learn the business of fake documents and identity theft.

Literally tons of illegal drugs are pooring across our borders. Coyotes charge thousands to escort illegals across the border and force them to carry backpacks filled with drugs, then abandon many of them in the desert after retrieving the drugs and raping the women. On Obamas website, he says that he wants to provide more money for law enforcement to fight illegal drugs, especially methamphetamine, which are devastating American communities, especially the innercities and rural communities. It makes great political propaganda but, it’s just a cruel joke.

I see the damage being done in my community every day, primarily by Meth and prescription pain pills. I know people who drive from Ohio to Florida and Virginia once a month to visit doctors. Each person brings back pain pills which yield about 3000 dollars in profits when sold on the streets. I was offered the opportunity to do this, but refused the offer.

American pharmaceutical companies are legally shipping tons of the ingredients for meth to Mexico for profits. The meth is manufactured and carried back across the border.

That is only half the story. People should take a look at what the money going back across the border is doing to Mexico. It has been turned into the largest drug cartel in the world. In communities all across Mexico, whole police departments are being forced to resign or die. Half the Mexican army are drug dealers, smugglers or benefiting from it. The Mexican government is holed up in Mexico City and is turning a blind eye to what is going on because the wealthy are getting filthy rich off of the situation. So to are many of our politicians for the same reason.

Liberals can claim altruism all they want but, this is all about wealth and greed. As far as I am concerned, this issue alone, makes both Barrak Obama and John McCain unfit to be president of the United States. For these two men, the people in this country who are backing this for greed overshadows their concerns for the American people and the people of Mexico. Both have conspired to make this a nonissue in the fall.

Posted by: jlw at June 8, 2008 10:13 PM

jlw, get some perspective. In a sea of more than than 240 million dollars received by the Obama campaign, do you really believe $2000.00 is going to buy his office after election, or his favors before election?

Simply not going to happen, jlw. This is a revolution in American politics and all you can see is your previous prejudgments. Obama is not your typical Democrat, his campaign has not been a typical duopoly party campaign, and Obama has intimated a number of times now that it is up to the voters to help make the changes that need to happen and their vote is the way to do that. Short of saying the political suicidal statement, ‘Folks you need to pressure Congress with your vote in November’, he has done more than anyone could have expected already to change the corrupt politics that has got us where we are.

I urge you to listen to the man himself, not as a Democrat, or presidential candidate in the old mode of seeking power for himself. Listen to the man, and remain skeptical and analytical, yet unprejudiced, and then decide whether he is for positive changes that need to be made, or not.

No candidate is going to represent all the policy positions I or any other voter is going to prefer. But, Obama, so far is speaking to the priorities at the top of my list, (save for illegal immigration), and that is how he won my support over any of the other candidates. If he lives up to his words, there will be improvements coming from his White House. And if the voters live up to his intimations that they need to reshape Congress for their purposes, our entire political system and governance stands a chance for vast improvement.

I am hopeful, but ever skeptical. I encourage others to find that place for themselves as well, regardless of whether they lean toward Obama or McCain, or previously toward Clinton. There is much power in self-fulfilling prophecy. If the people expect better government and become hopeful for it and vote accordingly, it could actually result in a more hopeful and better future for America that what we are headed toward at this moment.

JFK created that self-fulfilling prophecy regarding the man on the moon, from a place where we were far behind the Russians in rocketry and space technology. The power of the self-fulfilling prophecy can be overwhelming of obstacles and challenges in the way.

Skpetical, but hopeful. If Obama fails his words, I will be among the first to see it and critique it. If he fails to correct, he will not get my vote a second time. Missourians have the right idea, Show Me and I will believe. Obama has shown a better campaign and politics than what we have witnessed in the past. Obama has lived up to grass roots campaign financing from the individual people of America. I want to believe he will continue to live up to his words after elected.

The alternative is McCain whose only claim of being different is to dramatically cut domestic spending programs across the board. He says he will continue our Billion’s a month deficit spending in Iraq indefinitely, for as long as it takes.

This from a man who in all his time of legislating in the Senate never thought in necessary to pick up an Economics book and learn even the basics. No wonder he thinks a national sales tax might be a good idea to replace corporate, capital gains, income, and estate taxes. He’s married to a multi-millionaire, such changes won’t harm his wealth status, it will increase it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2008 10:30 PM

RickIL: I to defended the Democrats on that issue for quite a while. While it is true that they didn’t have the political power to stop the Republicans, they could have done more than nothing but complain. I would have been prowd of them if they had walked out of the Capital building in mass, marched to the Whitehouse and staged a sit in for a couple of hours. The whole country would have been glued to their tv sets. Regular citizens who protested barely got a sound bite. The truth is, they were scared because of terrorists, terrorists, terrorists.

They were also payed off. The Republicans gave them more pork barrell spending than they gave themselves, making the Democrats accomplices to the Republican borrow and spend policy which drove up our national debt.

Posted by: jlw at June 8, 2008 10:40 PM

Jack

Obama made no absolute commitment to public financing. It seems to me that the better time to address campaign reform is once we have a new president and congress. Not in the heat of battle. I find it a bit revealing that when the coffers are lacking republicans suddenly want to use what is most convenient for them in spite of no rules dictating that they must do so. Lets effect true reform first then make it so our candidates have no choice.

Please tell us why Obama should accept any proposal by McCain. He is not McCain’s Lackey. You know that these sorts of things are subject to negotiation. I seriously doubt that Obama will be foolish enough to fall for old republican tactics. I would be disappointed if Obama were to allow McCain to dictate anything to him. As I have said before the election is Obama’s to lose. Not McCain’s to win. The support of Clinton will make winning exponentially more difficult for McCain.

No one with half a brain takes those staged trips that the neocon mucky mucks have taken to Iraq seriously. It is a form of deception staged to convince the citizens of this country that all is going well. We know better. When I see such evidence from a credible non partisan source I will give it serious consideration. Until then it is all just propaganda. You need to remember that the neocons represent the party that has been less than up front with the American people on more than one occasion. Why should we all of a sudden take their word at face value? I would suspect that Obama or someone he considers a credible representative will visit under their terms at some juncture for an unbiased uncloaked view of the situation. At that point I would expect an assessment of the situation as seen through the eyes of Obama’s people. Perhaps even an assessment we can all have some faith in.

Posted by: RickIL at June 8, 2008 10:42 PM

jlw

They were also payed off. The Republicans gave them more pork barrel spending than they gave themselves, making the Democrats accomplices to the Republican borrow and spend policy which drove up our national debt.

You will find no bigger supporter of reform in government than myself. I see corruption and collusion as the most serious issues facing our nation today. The influences of wealth, greed and power have made it all but impossible for our government to function in a productive matter. It is an affliction which affects both of the major parties. Unfortunately for the republicans they took it to a new level and still refuse to acknowledge that they have done anything wrong. And that my friend at this point is the major differences in the two parties. It is called accountability.

Posted by: RickIL at June 8, 2008 10:54 PM

jlw,

“I was offered the opportunity to do this, but refused the offer.”

So, can I assume you turned them in?

Posted by: Rocky at June 8, 2008 10:57 PM

jlw wrote: Dan; Excelent points on Iraq and the illegal immigrant issue. If Bush had set time tables and started pulling troops out of Iraq, it would have greatly improved Republican prospects in the fall. I believe that his stuborn refusal to do so and his and McCains continued promotion of the occupation has everything to do with who controls Iraq’s oil, us or them.

jlw, I agree. I think control of Iraq’s oil has a lot to do with it. If so, all the more despicable is is to use U.S. troops for that goal.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 8, 2008 11:54 PM

David,
The “However” is do to the fact that some of the Hierarchy of Society knows that they can make more money a Individuals when All Citizens achieve Economic Viability and Financial Independence. Yet, if History has shown us anything. Proving that Knowledge and Wisdom to some is almost impossible.

So why Obama may get enough votes to win the Office of President with the help of Hillary. Showing “Big Business” and the Barons of Society why it is in Their Inherent Best Interest to invest in Change has to be described by me as “However.”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at June 9, 2008 12:01 AM

jlw, it is tough enough for an individual citizen to be heard or redress wrongs with our national government. Do you not realize what a world government would mean to individual liberties and rights to justice? Contemplate it for a minute.

The reason our federalist government has worked so well these centuries in perpetual growth and sustainability is that so much of government and justice is administered locally, not nationally.

Rhinehold’s arguments are valid in general that growth of monolithic government is the greatest threat to individual liberty and justice.

I haven’t asked you for details about your view for a world government, so I am responding to my own filling in the blanks when you say you want to see world government. So, I will ask, how do you see a world government protecting individual rights and justice for billions of world citizens? How would that be administered and protected from the undue influence of international corporate interests?

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 9, 2008 12:10 AM

David R. Remer wrote: The reason our federalist government has worked so well …

HHMMMMmmmmmm … worked so well?

OK. Overall, maybe … since 1776.

But not for the last 30 years.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 9, 2008 12:22 AM

d.a.n.
Why David and others will have to explain why My Democratic and Republican 30 years ago elected to maintian the Status Quo. The fact that the Left and Right of Society has not come up with a single Viable Political Solution to any Issue of Man or even seriously argued about it until now is an answer better left up to the Wisdom of Your Grandparents. However, I will say it has something to do with folks like me not being allowed to Rule the World.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at June 9, 2008 02:23 AM

d.a.n, yes, overall.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 9, 2008 10:00 AM

RickIL wrote: I see corruption and collusion as the most serious issues facing our nation today.

That (i.e. corruption) is truly the fundamental problem, arising from some other more fundamental root causes (highlighting the importance of accepting and understanding our human nature, and knowing how to better manage and govern).

The human factor, must be understood and accounted for. Some wise people, through the centuries, understood this very well, and tried to build in checks-and-balances. But, the voters have neglected to maintain sufficient levels of Education, Transparency, and Accountability required to prevent excessive Corruption, and some people (cheaters) that are always striving to circumvent or pervert the rules and laws for self-gain.

That is, in the last 30 years, we have neglected Transparency and Accountability, and we have allowed several basic human traits to get out of control (e.g. greed; apathy and complacency; irrational fears and hatreds; envy; pride; delusion; lust for power; and laziness … i.e. what some call the original 7 deadly sins; NOTE: there is no attempt to attach some religious significance attached to that observation). It’s nothing new. As always, there will be painful consequences for many people.

Thus, as a result (today), lawlessness, Constitutional violations, and other abuses, and other manifestations of moral and fiscal decay are growing in number and severity, making it more and more difficult for the most rosy-minded of the anti-anything-not-rosy crowd to spin things as rosy.

It takes a lot of corruption and degeneration before a country decays into what we have today, and it take a long time to undo the damaage, which is why the sooner we start, the better.
The lack of virtue and Conscience leads to a lack of Transparency and Accountability, which breeds Corruption.
The solution is obvious … we need more Transparency and Accountability.
But that appears to be very elusive too, when the motivation does not yet exist.
But it will; our motivation is already on the way.
We can only hope it arrives in time (otherwise, the U.S. could continue to decay and decline for a very long time).
Unfortuately, it’s a very slow process; 2.00 steps forward, and 1.99 steps backward.

Where there is a lack of virtue and Conscience, there’s only one thing that can substitute for Conscience to provide the much-needed motivation:

• Education … pain and misery can be very effective at providing that much-needed Education.

Responsibility = Power + Conscience + Education + Transparency + Accountability

Corruption = Power - Conscience - Education - Transparency - Accountability

Henry Schlatman wrote: d.a.n. … The fact that the Left and Right of Society has not come up with a single Viable Political Solution to any Issue of Man or even seriously argued about it until now is an answer better left up to the Wisdom of Your Grandparents. However, I will say it has something to do with folks like me not being allowed to Rule the World.

“not being allowed” ?

As long as voters have the right to vote, and get an accurate vote-count (something that is under constant assault), aren’t the voters culpable too ?
The voters only need to choose, and there is a very simple (although extremely elusive), inexpensive, non-partisan, common-sense, no-brainer, peaceful, and responsible solution right there under the voters very own noses. It’s the simple, common-sense, responsible thing the voters were supposed to be doing all along. The first step (not the entire solution) is to quite simply stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election; as occurred in year 1933, in the Great Depression.

As history shows us (see below), we will most likely do that very thing again (eventually), when failing to do so finally becomes too painful (similar to 1933, when voters ousted 206 (i.e. 39%) incumbent politicians from Congress):

During the Great Depression:

• Start_ End _ Congress_ Re-Election_ Party Seat-Retention


• Year _ Year ___ # ____ Rate ______ Rate


• 1927 _ 1929 _ 70 ____ 68.9% ______ 96.4%


• 1929 _ 1931 _ 71 ____ 79.7% ______ 92.5% (Re-Election Rate decreasing)


• 1931 _ 1933 _ 72 ____ 76.8% ______ 88.5% (Re-Election Rate decreasing)


• 1933 _ 1935 _ 73 ____ 61.2% _____ 78.7% (Re-Election Rate decreasing)
(Source: One-Simple-Idea.com/CongessMakeUp_1855_2008.htm)

That won’t fix everything, but it would be a good start. It requires constant vigilance. However, main-party partisan loyalists hate to hear this, and will try to tell you it won’t work … all the while trying to tell you that you should not vote for incumbent politicians in the OTHER party … as if there was really any vast difference. The fact is, too many incumbent politicians in BOTH parties are so irresponsible, corrupt, and incompetent, any political differences they have are truly insignificant. Yes, the IN-PARTY is usually more corrupt. The Republicans proved that, and that is why so many have been ousted (and rightfully so), but too many voters are still failing to follow through, if they believe rewarding Democrat politicians with re-election is going to improve anything. Voters would be wise to never reward any irresponsible and corrupt politicians (regardless of their party affiliation) with re-election. But, we know that’s not going to happen anytime soon, because lazy and blind partisan loyalties trump everything … at least, until that becomes too painful … and it will. Already, we are beginning to see some of the painful consequences of so many problems and abuses, being allowed to grow in number and severity for 30+ years.

Until voters learn to constantly pay much closer attention (via Education, Transparency, and Accountability) to the politicians they elect to wield power over them, the voters can expect that power to be abused. Corruption is always looking for a place to take root and grow; especially where Power and opportunity exists. That lesson, as simple as it sounds, is too often forgotten … at least, until pain and misery provides the much-needed motivation to re-learn that lesson.

There are also many tactics used to over-complicate, obfuscate, and distract voters from these simple axioms.
The petty partisan warfare is one of the incumbent politicians best inventions.
It is extremely effective at distracting and dividing the voters, so that a majority is extremely difficult to organize to oust the incumbent politicians from office.
On top of that, incumbent politicians have create many unfair advantages to make their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies more secure:

• (a) Perk$ of Office: Incumbent politicians have more party support and resources to draw upon. Hillary knows this, and that is why she won’t consider running as an independent. However, if she really believes she is the best candidate, why not? The answer is simple: It’s more about the “Party” than giving the voters more choices. Anyway, each member of Congress has an office budget allowance (provided by tax-payers). That allowance is large enough to employ a sizable staff both in Washington, D.C. and in their home states or districts. This staff provides a huge advantage, and tax-payers fund it. In addition, members of Congress also have travel allowances for trips between Washington and their constituencies, and also for trips inside their states or districts. Also, House and Senate members can use the United Stated Postal Service for free for informational letters or announcements to their constituents.


• (b) Time: Members of Congress and their staffers not only get paid (by the tax-payers) while campaigning and raising money for their campaign war-chest, but they have the time (as part of what they are supposed to do within their job description). But challenging candidates are not provided the time or money by the tax-payers. In contrast, a candidate challenging an incumbent is not paid to do those things, but must determine how to fund it. Many candidates go into debt.


• (c) Visibility and Access to News Media: Members of Congress have visibility by virtue of being elected, have easy access to the news media, make appearances on television, radio, and are frequently mentioned in newspaper articles and editorials.


• (d) Campaign Organization: Members of Congress have the advantage of the experience of having managed a campaign organization (and winning), and already have a volunteer campaign organization in place.


• (e) Money: The biggest advantage that incumbents have is the ability to raise large contributions. Big-money-donors prefer predictability. Incumbents that refuse to cater to their big-money-donors are not likely to receive more big-money contributions. 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money (usually, the incumbent politician). Unfortunately, government is FOR-SALE. Hence, incumbents have many unfair advantages (some funded by the tax-payers). 99.7% of all 220 million eligible U.S. voters are vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more in 2002). What chance does the remaining 99.7% of all eligible U.S. voters have against that? Thus, government is FOR-SALE. Too many incumbent politicians spend too much of their time campaigning, peddling influence, filling their campaign war-chest$, voting themselves cu$hy perk$ and rai$e$ (e.g. 9 times between 1997 and 2007), and other irresponsible behavior, instead of solving the nation’s most pressing problems that are growing in number and severity, threatening the future and security of the nation.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 9, 2008 10:53 AM

dbs said: i think both candidates suck. that being said the one consideration you should think about before voting for an independant is what kind of judges will the next president appoint, especially to the supreme court if a vacancy should arrise. if you want more like ginsberg then help obama win, however if you want judges that will strictly interpret the constitution, IMO i think we have a better shot with mc cain

Good point. The kind of justice that a candidate will appoint to the Supreme Court as President is important to consider. And I know the kind of justice either major party candidate will appoint. Just look back over the last 35 to 40 years and you’ll know too. Obama will appoint extreme far left activist justices. McCain will appoint not so far left activist justices. I don’t see neither breaking the pattern.
We need justices on the Supreme Court that will interpret the Constitution and not rewrite it like they’ve been doing over the 35 to 40 years.
As I see it when it comes to President from a political party, a Constitution Party President is the only one that will appoint justices that will actually interpret the Constitution. Haven’t had time research any of the Independent candidates yet. I’ve been pretty busy lately but I need to take time to research them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 9, 2008 12:49 PM

David R. Remer,
I Shouldn’t have specifically called you a Democrat. It also appears others wouldn’t charactorize you as a Democrat.
But I couldn’t help notice your posts resemble the pack mentality of the MSM. MSM favors the Democratic Party perspective, your posts resemble the MSM content. Ergo, Remer favors the Democratic Party perspective.

Where is the support for third party candidates in the third party column? I don’t see any support, and hardly any discussion of third party candidates in the third party column. And that mimics the MSM, as well.

And how is a third party to be considered if it isn’t started locally? Ron Brown is an elected official in his local schoolboard. Henry http://independentpundit.com/Schlatman is a presidential candidate. I saw a list of over 200 candidates for office of the U.S. President. Why did we only receive ad nauseum, less than 20 candidates from only 2 parties? Even here on Watchblog, we have been following the MSM. What choice do we have? Why are only 2 candidates being considered months before this election? Perhaps, you would say something like:

“if any of those candidates would have made an impression the MSM would have heard about it!”
(Someone else said that here at Watchblog.)

The MSM HEARD ABOUT IT! We didn’t!

The MSM media doesn’t care about constructive local media. I’m sure the MSM couldn’t make an honest dollar off of a child’s grade of F in social studies. Instead it shows us the child getting an F in a social environement. That’s no way to entertain, certainly no way to educate. Why are we listening to the MSM when we also have a local choice?

To answer that:
Look at your check stub deduction column.

Would Obama or McCain endorse a reversal of the taxes paid via. payroll? Will either candidate endorse a plan based on the local government collecting the FICA and MEDFICA, and the FEDWTH and the Federal government collecting the equivilant of my Indiana Payroll tax and my Starke County Payroll tax?

Would Obama or Clinton, or McCain or any of the hundreds of candidates submitting applications to the position support a flip-flop of the payroll tax structure?

Would the MSM support this? Would David R. Remer?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 9, 2008 07:08 PM

Weary Willie,
Thanks, but in order to keep a promise made to My Creator, Country, and Grandparents I am unable to even seek the Office of Dog Catcher thanks to the Founding Fathers of America and the Ancient Ones of Songs found in the Upanishads of Sanskrit. However, limited to My Personal Opinion of the Founding Documents of America and Humanity and able to hold my own in a Court of Law I am driven by the same Promise made to Every Child of the 70’s and Beyond.

For why it is the sworn Duty and Responsibility of the Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders to build a “Better World” as an American Layman I can tell you first hand that it is the Duty and Responsibility of “We the People” in the 21st Century to reset the Political Agenda for Washington by showing the Elders and Powers-that-Be of Man what for the most part has always been known.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at June 9, 2008 10:00 PM

David R. Remer,

I’m going to go way out on a limb here and make some crazy predictions.

If Obama wins and Democrats gain a substantial number of seats in the House and Senate we’ll see a national health care plan come into being. That plan will do nothing to cut out the middle man and will be as disastrous as Bush’s Medicare part D plan to the economy.

Once you factor in the need to tap the non-existant Social Security trust fund in just a couple of years the only option will be to raise everyone’s taxes! A LOT!

The result will be seeing that political pendulum swing back to the right once more …….. only even further right ………. and back-n-forth she’ll go until we suffer a total collapse!

OTOH Nader has it right! We must eliminate the middle man! Which means going to a true single payer system. Of course that does have it’s own downsides ……….. a lot of insurance company employees are going to need new jobs!

Many similar situations will play out with increased regulation of the financial markets, etc. The bottom line is that a McCain presidency will result in pushing more of the true working class of the USA to the left, while an Obama presidency will initially cause a great deal of financial pain which will push a vast majority to move further right.

Only Nader truly addresses it all. Of course you don’t see or hear Nader unless you WANT to because the MSM shuts him out! I just wish I’d seen Nader’s wisdom years sooner!

And I’m fully aware that I once told you that your vote for Nader amounted to a vote for Bush. Well, I was wrong! My vote for Nader will not be a protest vote!

It’ll simply be an American voting his true conscience.

BTW, I believe we are on the verge of total financial collapse!

Posted by: KansasDem at June 10, 2008 01:05 AM

KansasDem wrote: It’ll simply be an American voting his true conscience.

The nation would be much better off now if more voters did the same, regardless of who the Main Stream Media (MSM) and their incessant polls tells them who can, or can’t win.

I also think Ralph Nader may be a better choice too.
Hard to say, since he doesn’t have a voting record to analyze.
However, in the short time that Barack Obama has been in the Senate, it’s not a very good voting record, and neither is John McCain’s voting record.

Unfortunately, too many voters refuse to consider Ralph Nader for the simple reason that too many voters don’t think he can win (largely due to the MSM).
Is that a good reason to NOT vote for the best and most qualified candidate?
Were voters ever supposed to NOT vote for the best candidate merely because they think that canidate can’t win?
Were voters ever supposed to NOT vote for the best candidate simply because the MSM and their endless polls are telling the voters who will win ?

If so, then the MSM is controlling our elections … along with the extremely tiny 0.3% of all 220 million voters that make most (83% !) of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more), vastly out-spending the remaining 99.7% of all 200 million voters.

That sort of herd mentality is part of what is wrong in the U.S., and why people are so upset by the influence of the MSM, the unfairness of visibility and access to MSM; essentially influencing our elections.

The fact is, the MSM is influencing our elections, and as a result, many candidates who may be better and more qualified candidates, are being unfairly ignored and disqualified by the MSM.

Once again, the voters are culpable too, since too many voters allow themselves to be influenced by the MSM.

Too many voters refuse to consider candidates that may truly be the best and most qualified, merely because the candidate isn’t part of the two-party duopoly and/or treated equally and fairly by the MSM.

Bad voting habits = Bad politicians = Dysfunctional government

Thus, I’m considering voting for Nader, regardless of who the MSM is telling me will win or lose.

Also, regardless of who the next El Presidenté is, what are the chances do-nothing Congress will start working on the growing list of pressing problems facing the nation, if the next president is saddled with the same irresponsible, FOR-SALE, do-nothing Congress ?

Lastly, here we are again, with choices of candidates that really are not that great, at a time when the nation’s problems are growing in number and severity, and the potential for economic instability is increasing almost daily. Combine that with a do-nothing Congress, and the severely bloated and wasteful federal government, it is not only dysfunctional, but destructive and dangerous (invading Iraq based on false intelligence (i.e. no WMD) is probably a good example).

KansasDem wrote: BTW, I believe we are on the verge of total financial collapse!

That is not far fetched, considering these 17+ economic conditions that are now worse than ever and/or since the 1930s and 1940s. The painful consequences of 30+ years of fiscal and moral bankruptcy are only now becoming painfully evident, and it’s quite likely to get much worse, and last for quite some time.

You are actually in good company, among the very few that are willing to not remain silent about that possibility.
The former U.S. Comptroller/Head of the Genaral Accounting Office (David Walker) has been warning us for several years.
Why are so many politicians and economists silent (excluding David Walker, former U.S. Comptroller), and unwilling to deal with the frightening consequences ?

• Glen Beck/David Walker: www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-16u9x3tfE


• David Walker - America’s future - Part 1: www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIgrxpp97OQ&feature=related


• David Walker - America’s future - Part 2: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXr_Ga_n0pY&feature=related


• David Walker - Leading to Bankruptcy: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXr_Ga_n0pY&feature=related

To make matters worse, we are transferring huge amounts of our wealth from the U.S. to oil producing nations (many that don’t like us); it’s a bad situation, and we were warned repeatedly.

And the financial/fiscal situation is alarming too.
The total nation-wide debt of $53.2 Trillion is not a trivial matter:

• Total Domestic Financial Sector Debt = $15.8 Trillion


• Total Household Debt = $13.88 Trillion


• Total Business Debt = $10.16 Trillion


• Total Other Private Sector Foreign Debt = $1.8 Trillion


• Total Federal Government National Debt = $9.4 Trillion


• Total State and Local Government Debt = $2.2 Trillion


• __________________________________________________


• Total = $53.2 Trillion


• Including the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching, the total is $66 Trillion! (over $216K per person).

Another alarming issue is that no one can tell say where the money will come from to pay only the interest on $53.2 Trillion, much less the money to reduce the principal $53.2 Trillion of nation-wide debt (e.g. DEBT=PRINCIPAL+INTEREST); especially disturbing when that money does not yet exist, 80% of Americans only own 17% of all wealth in the U.S. (a disparity gap that has been growing worse since 1976 due to 10+ abuses, and has never been larger since the Great Depression).
Get ready for much more inflation, because that is quite simply the only option left … to create more money out of thin air, which has already drastically eroded the U.S. Dollar against all major international currencies (in the last 5 years):

• $1 U.S. Dollar fell 34% from 0.98 EURO to 0.645 EURO between Jan-2003 and Jun-2008


• $1 U.S. Dollar fell 21% from 0.64 British Pound (GBP) to 0.511 GBP between Jan-2003 and Jun-2008


• $1 U.S. Dollar fell 34% from 1.57 Canadian (CAD) to 1.03 CAD between Jan-2003 and Jun-2008


• $1 U.S. Dollar fell 40% from 1.78 Austrailian (AUD) to 1.07 AUD between Jan-2003 and Jun-20087


• $1 U.S. Dollar fell 29% from 1.46 Swiss Franc (CHF) to 1.04 CHF between Jan-2003 and Jun-2008


• $1 U.S. Dollar fell 17% from 8.29 Chinese Yuan (CNY) to 6.92 CNY between Jan-2003 and Jun-20087


• $1 U.S. Dollar fell 42% from 2.83 Brazilian Real (GBP) to 1.63 GBP between Jan-2003 and Jun-2008


• $1 U.S. Dollar fell 13% from 3.51 Argentine Peso (ARS) to 3.07 ARS between Jan-2003 and Jun-2008


• $1 U.S. Dollar fell 26% from 31.8 Russian Roubles (RUB) to 23.6 RUB between Jan-2003 and Jun-2008

The federal government and U.S. will not be able to:

• spend our way out of debt.


• immigrate our way out of our fiscal problems.


• procreate our way out of our fiscal problems.


• grow (i.e. GDP) our way out of our fiscal problems.


• tax (or un-tax) our way out of our fiscal problems.

Thus, what’s left to do?
ANSWER: Create more money out of thin air (which is what they have been doing for many years now).
The next shoe to drop will be double-digit inflation and more drastic erosion of the U.S. Dollar (and higher oil prices too; oil futures are predicted to reach $173 per barrel by the end of year 2008).

The consequences of 30+ years of abuses and other manifestations of moral and fiscal decay, growing in number and severity, is making it more and more difficult for the most rosy-minded of the anti-anything-not-rosy crowd to spin things as rosy.
Some of the staunchest and most partisan loyalists are now saying “vote out incumbents”, but the numbers of those voters is still much too small … at least until things become more painful, when enough voters will finally do what they did in the Great Depression (1933), and ousted 206 members of Congress (39%).

Thus, voters will most likely get around to it (i.e. ousting irresponsible incumbent politicians) eventually, when failing to do so finally becomes too painful.
Eventually, when things are painful enough, enough voters will probably finally question the wisdom of repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election rates.
However, sooner would be better than later, because the longer the voters wait, the worse, more dangerous, and more painful it will get later. So, why wait?
The painful consequences of the abuses of the last 30+ years that we are feeling now is almost certainly only the tip of the iceberg.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 10, 2008 06:52 AM

d.a.n, I just read that Nader polled 6% in an AP poll nationwide, and he has only just begun to campaign. There is an interest in his political agenda to clean things up and send the duopoly Parties another big message. His campaign however, is very scrapped for money and contributions.

David Walker is a person to be listened to. Regardless of what one might think his agenda is, his data is real and alarming to say the least.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 10, 2008 09:32 AM

Kansas Dem said: “OTOH Nader has it right! We must eliminate the middle man! Which means going to a true single payer system.”

Couldn’t agree more!

Nader continues to have an appropriate agenda. Nader continues to fail to attract the kind of audience for change that someone like Obama can. I respect very much your vote for Nader. I would vote for him too if I thought he had a chance of winning.

I may yet support his campaign though, while voting for Obama, in order support his influence on this election year’s policy agenda. Nader has helped shape the political debate in this country and helped make millions of Americans move from Dem or Rep. to Independent voter status. Nader is still a very important player in American politics.

Having watched what I knew would be a disaster in 2000 and 2004, despite my votes to the contrary, with Bush’s election and reelection, I can’t allow McCain to get even one more vote that could put him in office.

McCain’s position on Iraq, printing and exporting enormous sums of tax dollars to foreign countries, and highly regressive tax plans and support for corporations with tax dollars, simply must not be allowed to dominate the political agenda creating gridlock with a Democratic Congress.

This country MUST adopt solutions for the money pit called Iraq, and Medicare and health care’s spiraling inflation, our dependence on fossil fuels, and shoring up the failing education system in America. Even less than perfect solutions in these areas would be better than no solutions that would result from gridlock.

A drop in the Congressional reelection rate from 92% to 80% or less would be just what the political doctor ordered, but, I see no signs of that happening, yet.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 10, 2008 09:50 AM

Weary Willie, it appears to me you are simply projecting your labeling.

There is nothing in my article that even suggests supporting the Democratic Party. This article I wrote was an objective assessment as to what Clinton’s speech meant for the Democratic Party and what it spoke to, in contradiction to what the MS Media was saying about her motives and goals.

I run into your reaction a lot, of course. If I say a Republican or Democrat did something that well or successfully to fulfill their goal or agenda, I, me, the writer, am branded as that Republican’s or Democrat’s supporter. Prejudice is something any objective writer gets used to. And it is prejudice that judges objectivity as partisan and biased. Which is why a lot of the media gets branded as partisan, even when it isn’t.

Weary Willie said: “Where is the support for third party candidates in the third party column? I don’t see any support, and hardly any discussion of third party candidates in the third party column.”

That’s because your own prejudices blind you to it. Jeff Wyans did a great article on third party and independent candidates just in the last week or so. I continue to reiterate the vote out Democratic and Republican incumbents for Congress every opportunity I get in my comments.

Shan-Ul-Hai’s article on education was COMPLETELY non-partisan which is of course an Independent perspective. Joel Hirshchorn’s article on June 3, condemns both the duopoly Parties for the Plutocracy ignored in this election.

I can’t for the life of me understand why you would think this column does not live up to its name except for prejudicial filters in reading this column.

My article telling the MS Media to back the hell off and give Hillary a few days, was absolutely dead on right prophetic writing. Despite the media, it was obvious to me with a Psychology background, what was happening on Clinton’s end regarding her accepting Obama’s delegate count victory. That article predicted that she would act in her own and the Party’s interests as soon as she had some sleep, and time to gather her disappointed wits. I was absolutely right.

If being right about my objective assessments of what is going on, makes me seem partisan to you, the problem is not mine but yours. I have not supported and would not support Hillary Clinton anymore than I would support McCain. Their ties to PAC and lobbyist money condemn them to the status quo in my view.

But, if and when McCain or Clinton do something right or correctly, or when they display the better part of their political natures, I will acknowledge that as well in my writings. Doesn’t mean I support them. It means I work hard to remain objective about what is going on and to insure my writings are objective in their assessment of current political events.

On May 16 I began an article saying: “OK, now that the GOP is out, how can voters protect themselves from the Democratic Party?”

How could you possibly have missed that article? It certainly was not partisan in favor of Democrats, despite my personal choice for Obama as the best of the, then 3, candidates with the money and campaigns to potentially win the White House.

Weary Willie, you seem to argue for a different system than we have, a process of elimination through democratic elections. That process has played out, for better or worse. Most Americans believe though flawed, our system is the best of any in the world. I tend to agree with that regarding this elimination process through elections.

You argue against its flaws. That is well and good. But, until you come up with a better system, your arguments read like one who wishes to set up the government according to your own personal design. That, I would oppose with every fiber of my being and so would most Americans.

I want to change the corruption of our government through bribery and blackmail inherent in our election financing system which diverts politicians from acting in the best interests of the nation and populace as a whole. Money talks and walks in our system. There is no getting around the need for money to conduct a political election campaign. But, the money can be made dramatically less corrupting.

Obama argues that money necessary to launch a presidential campaign should come from the individual Americans exercising their free choice of candidates and support. I agree with that, even though it too has its potential weakness that would evidence itself occasionally in the elections over time.

By my way of thinking, we should all be working to improve the political parties, our election and campaign financing systems, and forcing politicians to place the preservation of our nation and the welfare of her people as their top and exclusive priority in their government decisions. I will go with whichever candidate from any party that has a chance of making some of those improvements. It doesn’t make me partisan, not even by a little bit.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 10, 2008 10:38 AM

David R. Remer wrote: A drop in the Congressional reelection rate from 92% to 80% or less would be just what the political doctor ordered, but, I see no signs of that happening, yet.

The re-election rates fell slightly in the 7-NOV-2006 election (from 88.6% to 84.9%), in which 80 incumbent politicians were ousted (mostly Republicans):

• Start_ End _ Congress_ Re-Election
• Year _ Year ___ # ____ Rate
• 1989 _ 1991 _ 101 ___ 90.1%
• 1991 _ 1993 _ 102 ___ 87.7%
• 1993 _ 1995 _ 103 ___ 73.5%
• 1995 _ 1997 _ 104 ___ 79.8%
• 1997 _ 1999 _ 105 ___ 77.4%
• 1999 _ 2001 _ 106 ___ 89.2%
• 2001 _ 2003 _ 107 ___ 89.2%
• 2003 _ 2005 _ 108 ___ 87.9%
• 2005 _ 2007 _ 109 ___ 88.6% (Re-Election Rate decreasing)
• 2007 _ 2009 _ 110 ___ 84.9% (Re-Election Rate decreasing)
• 2009 _ 2011 _ 111 ___ ??.?%
You are probably right.

The re-election rate will probably fall only a few percent at most; probably from the last 84.9% down to about an 83.0% re-election rate.
At least one would think so with record low approval ratings for do-nothing Congress (as low as 11%-to-18%).

By the way, look at NOV-1992 election (i.e. the 103th Congress).
The voters were not happy in NOV-1992 when the voters ousted 141 Congress persons!)?

That is what is needed.
That’s really the ONLY thing that voters have left to do.
Asking “pretty please” doesn’t work.
Too many incumbent politicians are FOR-SALE (i.e. 99.7% of all 220 million voters are vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.3% who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more).
A lot of bad politians do not deserve re-election.
That’s what we need again so that the next president isn’t saddled with another do-nothing Congress, is do what the voters did in year 1933 (during the Great Depression), in which 206 incumbent politicians (39% of 531 Congress persons; 44% of the 467 Congress persons up for re-election in 1933) were ousted from Congress.


• Start_ End _ Congress_ Re-Election


• Year _ Year ___ # ____ Rate


• 1927 _ 1929 _ 70 ____ 68.9%


• 1929 _ 1931 _ 71 ____ 79.7% (Re-Election Rate decreasing)


• 1931 _ 1933 _ 72 ____ 76.8% (Re-Election Rate decreasing)


• 1933 _ 1935 _ 73 ____ 61.2% (Re-Election Rate decreasing)

But that is probably years away still (if ever) … when enough voters finally are sufficiently motivated and educated by the painful consequences of repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 10, 2008 01:18 PM

d.a.n, thanks for the stats. Even an 83% reelection rate that saw those deposed roughly equally deposed from BOTH sides of the aisle, would give the Party’s statisticians reason to report to the Party’s that they have a serious problem.

I tend to diminish somewhat the 2006 election outcome because the public’s ousting of one party’s Congressional component reveals that the public does not yet truly grasp the source of the problem or how to deal with it. Campaign financing laws and corporate special interest influence upon campaign financing and legislation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 10, 2008 01:28 PM

David, It’s also another good reason to decrease the dangers in the event John McCain wins the presidency (i.e. don’t saddle the next president with another bad Congress).

After all, in case a lot of Democrats haven’t noticed, there’s an awful lot of Democrats that have gone along with the status quo for years.

David R. Remer wrote: … the public does not yet truly grasp the source of the problem or how to deal with it.

True.

But the voters are getting there (slowly).
However, perhaps not fast enough?

The voters may not have the luxury to take so long to get their education (or re-education), and stopping the abuses and undoing the damage of 30+ years of abuses will not be easy to remedy.

As you can see, the re-election rates are falling (as they did between 1927 and 1935).

The fail-safe (i.e. self-correction mechanism) is pain. Enough voters will eventually grasp the source of the problem when enough of the voters are jobless, homeless, and hungry.
It’s 2.00 steps forward, and 1.99 steps backward.

After all, the 220 million elibible voters are part of the problem, and they have the power to change it … just as soon as they also have the much-needed motivation and education.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 10, 2008 01:44 PM

David Remer: I will address the world government statement first. I often do a very poor job of expressing my opinions. In principle, I believe in the ideal of one world government for one primary reason in particular. War is conducted by governments against other governments (the Iraq War) with the people often being nothing more than pawns.

I don’t believe that a one world government is possible in a world where humans are incapable of governing themselves. The United States is an example of this. We are incapable of living up to the ideal of government of, by and for the people. Because of this, we settle for representitive government. These representatives are composed primarily of the elite or educated class. The elites are divided into two main camps, the conservative or laissez faire capitalists and the liberal or regulated capitalists.

Both groups make promises or present ideas in an effort to gain support (votes) from a majority of half (26% variable) of the people who are eligible to vote. Both groups, when in power, represent the people with a we know what is best for you attitude which, in most cases, benefits the ruling group more than it does the people as a whole. When the voters become disillusioned with the group in power, their only alternative is to vote the other group into power. Many believe that this has served our country well however, while this may be true, this does not dismiss the fact that we could do better in many ways.

If there ever comes a time when the people of this nation are able to put aside their fears, prejudices, and their partly self induced, partly misinformed ignorance and rule themselves, I would be encouraged to believe that a world government could be possible. It certainly is not going to happen in my lifetime.

“This is a Revolution in American politics and all you can see is your previous prejudgements.”

The only prejudging of Barrak Obama that I participated in before the Ohio primary was in reguards to his possible lack of experience, his debating skills and the nearly messianic portrait presented by his followers.

In the week leading up to the Ohio primary, I became convinced that I would not vote for Obama. His political propaganda presented to the voters of Ohio was about one subject which the people here are deeply concerned about, NAFTA. In it, he told a truth, a lie, a misrepresentation of the problem and a totally ineffectual solution.

That political propaganda said that Hillary Clinton was for NAFTA. That is true. It said that Barrak Obama is against NAFTA. That is a lie. It misrepresented the problem that NAFTA is causing in Ohio. While it is true that Ohio has lost a few jobs because of NAFTA, primarily in the auto industry, with a few jobs going mostly to Canada, Most of our manufacturing jobs have gone to China.

The main problem is NAFTA imports, specifically illegally imported low skilled, low wage workers. It is not because they are taking minimum wage jobs, we have enough minimum wage jobs, especially when you get outside of the large metropolitan areas, to employ perhaps all but ten percent of the people at the bottom.

The problem is that contractors and other business interests are using these workers to turn bluecollar middleclass jobs into minimum wage jobs, specifically in construction and maintenance. Economic and trade policy is directly responsible for this and both the Democratic and Republican Parties are guilty of complicity. Hurray for the NEW WORLD ORDER.

Obama’s solution to the problem, provide tax breaks to employers who create jobs in America. That is fine, more minimum wage jobs.

“Folks you need to pressure Congress with your vote in November.”

David, I see how you believe that this is a revolutionary statement, especially considering your involvement with VOID but, I believe that this statement went zing, over the heads of most of his supporters. I don’t believe that they will waste a single moment deciding wheither their favorite liberal politician is or is not part of the corrupt government establishment. Example, John Kerry has been a member of Congress for many years. He has a long history of voting for liberal causes. He also is a full fleged member of the Senate good old boy club of porkbarrel and the tit for tat, I’ll help give your friend a government contract if you’ll help give my friend one, corruption.

Which do you think his constituents will take into consideration when they vote, his voting record or his involvement in the corruption club?
What I’ve been hearing some saying is that what they need is Obama as President, control of the House and a filibusterless Senate.

“No candidate is going to represent all the policy positions that I or any other voter is going to prefer”

This is a statement of the obvious but, illegal immigration is not some minor issue that a few voters are concerned about.

When the Republicans thought they had a mandate from the voters after 2004, they decided to use that mandate to privatize Social Security. The people overwhelming said no and the Republicans backed down. The Democrats cheered.

When a majority of the people said we’ve had enough of this, bring the troops home. The Republicans refused and the Democrats cried foul.

When a majority of the people said we want this illegal immigration stopped, we want the illegals sent home and we want our laws obeyed, both the Democrats and Republicans refused. Rather than obey the law, they are going to have comprehensive immigration reform, both parties have conspired to keep this from being an issue in the election, and there is not a damned think the people can do about it because both parties have also conspired with each other to ensure that no third party has an equal opportunity to challenge them.

I am a lifelong Democrat. I have faithfully voted the Democratic ticket for 40 years. I have long thought that liberalism was an instrument of revolution in the sense that it would lead to a less centralized, more mixed economy and a more equitable society.

I have watched as liberalism, as manifested within the Democratic party, has embraced globalization and corporationism in a way that, in my opinion, will result in a more consolidated three class system, with the wealthy at the top, the professionals and the franchise owners in the middle and the workers lumped together into the lower class.

I watched as the Demcratic party sanctioned the removal of much of the manufacturing base from this country. I’ve seen a little hissy fit thrown about the possible loss of military industrial complex jobs but, even there they seem more interested in protecting engineering jobs than assembly plant workers.

I have watched as the Democratic party, especially the liberal professional wing has embraced the wholesale importation of low skilled, low wage workers, while at the same time protecting themselves from an equal importation of professionals. I need no more proof, I have lost my faith. I now see liberalism as the road block used to protect corporate capitalism and the ensuing world market.

I envision a time when liberalism will lose the power to regulate and eventually the share of wealth going to the professional class will begin to dwindle. Perhaps then they will try to rekindle their alliance with the working class.

A word of advice to those who wish to obtain a victory for Obama in the fall. I would advise you to council your candidate to stop making derogatory remarks about small town hicks behind the closed doors of private fund raising events, those things have a way of finding an outlet to the public.

Posted by: jlw at June 10, 2008 07:01 PM

Rocky: There is no need for me to turn informant on these people. The thieves are more than willing to do that when they are caught, it’s their ticket back to the street to prey on more citizens.

The authorities are aware of who these people are and what they are doing. Most of them have been through the revolving door of the county jail and the prisons, There will be a few busts in the fall when the prosecuting attorney needs a couple of show trials to enhance his reelection bid.

The reality is that the economy of this rural county (largest city-20,000) would dry up and blow away if not for welfare and the drug trade. Most of the money finds it’s way into the pockets of the chamber of commerce and they really could care less where the money comes from.

Posted by: jlw at June 10, 2008 07:52 PM

Because in My Personal Opinion neither the Democratic or Republican Leadership running for the Office of President has the Courage of Conviction to take me on over the Debate for the need of Change. Posted by: Henry Schlatman at June 8, 2008 05:18 AM

This line made me think you were a presidential candidate. It made an image of you standing with the candidates, asking for a debate.

Add my mistake to the list of many.

The “sitting next to” thing didn’t work this week at all. I sit at a table to hear a woman telling the others at this table that I have A.I.D.S. and I gave it to another!

This happened last weekend. This woman was over 40 years old, a resident of Knox, Starke County, Indiana, U.S.A. and she operates with a third grade mentality, IN PUBLIC!

I am a life long resident of Knox, Starke County, Indiana, U.S.A. I will not be the next Junior Vincent. Not with lies and ignorance. Not by a third grade mentality.

If I see this woman in the grocery store and point out to everyone around her that she is fat, I would be arrested.
But she is fat, and it is obvious, it is true. But she can lie to everyone around her and in Knox, Starke County, Indiana, U.S.A. ya’ gotta know! If ya hear it more than twice! IT’S GOTTA BE TRUE!!

Knox, Starke County, Indiana has a plethera of flaws. You guys are talking about Hinduism and sitting to get instruction and I’m trying to say, Mr. Remer! My government has been 110% Democratic Party in my Knox, Starke County, Indiana for my entire life.

I’m living my life getting accosted by ignorant, fat, women with a third grade mentality, and a police force to back them up.

What do I do when someone tells my date: “He’s weard!” while I’m in the bathroom?

What would you do if someone said you had A.I.D.S in a public environment? What could you do?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 10, 2008 08:56 PM

jlw,

“The reality is that the economy of this rural county (largest city-20,000) would dry up and blow away if not for welfare and the drug trade. Most of the money finds it’s way into the pockets of the chamber of commerce and they really could care less where the money comes from.”

The reality is that you are quite willing to rail against McCain and Obama for what you see is a crime against this country, but when it happens in your own back yard, and you yourself have the opportunity to do something about it, well, it’s no big deal, it’s just business as usual.

The problem with our politicians is that we don’t expect enough of ourselves.

How can we possibly expect more from our candidates than we expect from ourselves?

Posted by: Rocky at June 10, 2008 10:48 PM

Weary Willie,
Why the Historians and Scholars of Society will have to explain the difference between an American Laymans’ Personal Point of View and that of Our Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders of America. The Cold Hard Fact that all are bound to the same Debate of Enlightenment (i.e. A Better World) should be something anyone over the age of 50 should be able to tell you about the Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights of “We the People.”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at June 11, 2008 03:53 AM

Rocky said: “The problem with our politicians is that we don’t expect enough of ourselves.”

I am going to steal that line, Rocky. Well put, succinct and to the bloody point.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 11, 2008 01:06 PM

David,

Thanks for the compliment, you can use it anytime you want;)

Posted by: Rocky at June 11, 2008 06:55 PM

Rocky: I confess, I am guilty of caring more about the safety of me and mine than I am about dropping a dime on a pill pusher that might or might not put him off the street temporarily.

It’s ok, you can believe that I am more guilty than Obama and yourself.

We should all set an example to help our politicians find their way.

Posted by: jlw at June 11, 2008 07:15 PM

jlw,

“It’s ok, you can believe that I am more guilty than Obama and yourself.”

Why is always so black or white?

I belive that Americans, as a people, are rather duplicitous.
They want things to be the way they want them, or the way they believe they should be, not the way they are.
Americans don’t seem even to agree on how things should be, and give them even a gentle nudge, and they take personally.

I don’t get it, and I don’t know if I want to.

Posted by: Rocky at June 11, 2008 08:27 PM

Rocky: It is my fault that we got off on this tangent. I would have much prefered to hear an address of the issues that I was trying to present, the negative affects that illegal immigration is having on the the U.S. and Mexico, and the fact that it will be a non issue in the election.

Instead, I foolishly injected a personal experience in to the discussion which moved it off track.

Posted by: jlw at June 11, 2008 10:04 PM

For the record it was mrs. Herbert hoover who dodged bullets while in china.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 12, 2008 01:42 AM

Ron Brown wrote:

d.a.n said: Obama will hopefully make the tax system non-regressive?

Doing a little wishful thinking there are we?

Yes, perhaps.

On the other hand, I have ZERO hope of John McCain (Mr. Economics - NOT!) making the tax system less regressive and unfair. There’s a discussion of that now in this other thread.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 12, 2008 06:00 AM

jlw,

My intention wasn’t to declare you guilty for your actions/inactions, but to point out how humans, and Americans in particular get drawn up into the hyperbole.
We all bitch about the conditions we have to live with every day, and how the “politicians” aren’t doing anything about it, yet we all are responsible for those conditions.

Companies hire illegals because they affect the bottom line, and homeowners hire illegals to mow their lawns, clean their houses and babysit their kids.
What’s the difference? It’s all about the money.

We all are just as guilty as our elected officials for not doing anything about the illegal situation, yet we put the blame solely on the shoulders of the politicians when nothing of substance gets done.

We all see the day laborers waiting around Home Depot, and some us of hire them to do our odd jobs, and by doing so we contribute to the problem.
How many “sanctuary cities” are there in this country?
How many states ignore the laws that already on the books about hiring illegals?
Why aren’t the cities, and states that actually arrest illegals compensated for doing so?

It’s all about the money.

Posted by: Rocky at June 13, 2008 10:10 AM

jlw,

I will be on the road this weekend so I probably won’t be able to respond.

To go back to our original discussion.

Would you turn in your neighbor for hiring illegals to do his yard work?
Would you do the same if you saw him hiring day laborers at Home Depot?

Now don’t take this personal, but if not you are just as guilty as you say our government is.

How is this any different than a corporation doing the same?

I actually have to admire these folks for doing the same thing we all would be doing if the roles were reversed.
That said how many white faces do you see queuing up for day work outside the Home Depot?
I don’t think I need to go too far out on a limb when I say none.

The illegals aren’t the problem, they are merely a symptom.
We Americans are the problem.

Our politicians are not to blame, they have done their job. They have passed the laws that should deal with the problem.
It is through our complacency that these laws aren’t enforced.

Posted by: Rocky at June 13, 2008 11:04 AM

d.a.n Said, “On the other hand, I have ZERO hope of John McCain (Mr. Economics - NOT!)” I tend to agree with you d.a.n , I’m Thinking and not being a tea leaf reader that McCain might just use that to choose Mitt Romney as VP.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 14, 2008 12:52 AM

OBAMAS VICTORY NOT ASSURED.
Obamas personal history, let alone his ultra liberalism, raises questions that when pushed will bring him down. Afterall, considering the facts below, why is anyone comfortable with having him driving us into our future?

He has admitted to teen drug use but won’t specify if he ever sold drugs or stole for them.
His wife has not been proud of her country until very recently. THEREFORE HE LOSES THE TOUGH ON CRIME VOTE.
He bought land & a home from his friend Tom Rezko who’s under investigation for demanding kickbacks from companies wanting to do government business in IL. HE POSES AN INDICTMENT RISK ALA BILL CLINTON
He thinks small town Americans are bitter frustrated people who cling to guns, religion, antipathy to people unlike them and are anti immigrant and anti free trade. TALK ABOUT MAKING THE CROSSOVER VOTER NERVOUS
He has lived abroad during his formative years. NOT A NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF HIS POLITICAL CAREER BUT THOSE BLUE COLLAR HILLARY VOTERS ADD THIS TO HIS “EXOTIC” NAME AND AN EXLECTION SUPRISE COULD BE IN STORE
His mentor and friend is on record as being anti Jewish, anti woman, anti Caucasian and apparently anti American. BUT FOR THE LIBERAL MEDIA HE WOULD HAVE BEEN GONE ALREADY BUT THIS STILL PLAYS WELL WITH THE FENCE SITTERS.
He counts 2 former Weather Underground members as friends who planted bombs and robbed banks. I CAN’T MAKE STUFF UP LIKE THIS.
Barack Obama is unsafe at any deed. His election is not guaranteed and thats why Hillary did not pledge her delegates to him. She will pull a swifty at the convention, wait and see. One slip and she will pull an Alexander Haig.

Posted by: eddie johnson at June 15, 2008 12:41 AM

eddie johnson, your name might well have been Goebbels, 70 years ago. What propaganda. The only true and factual statement is that he admitted to using drugs when he was young. So did I, and about 45 million other voters in this country. So what?

His wife’s comment is pure propaganda. In context, it was entirely innocuous.

Tom Rezko’s legal troubles have nothing to do with Obama then or now, nor did they intersect in ANY way with Obama’s positions or campaigns. Again, pure Nazi style propaganda.

His comment about rural Americans was dead on right. Their frustration with the economy, which is what he was talking about, left them holding on to the issues they can still count on and do something about like 2nd Amendment rights and their freedom of religion.

Your wishful thinking that the Aryan nation types might link his name with living abroad is probably correct. Do you count yourself among these?

My father is on record as having believed the world would be a better place if Adolph Hitler had won. What does that make me? An opponent of such views. That is what that makes me. Obama has never endorsed nor does ANY part of his behavior as an adult reflect the views Pastor Wright. More Goebbels type propaganda and Nazi type guilt by association. Your doing really well revealing your skills so far.

What is Weather underground? Is that NOAA for salt and coal mines. I bet they are never wrong in their forecasts. It will be damp and dark today, tonight, and forever. Now you don’t know what you are talking about, at all.

Obama is not safe. Guess that’s why he kept getting reelected in Illinois and won the U.S. Senate seat, because Americans are NASCAR daredevils, right? You give absurdity new bounds.

Your wishful thinking about Hillary is just that. And displays an incredible ignorance of American politics. Hillary is not about to ruin her future in politics by undermining Obama. Quite the opposite for the benefit of your education.

Thanks for the reminder though that Goebbels is still well respected and learned from by folks with comments like yours.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 15, 2008 01:05 AM

David R, RE Hillary I’m sure quite a few of the rural folks would like to see Hillary pull a Ted kennedy at the convention and her using that stragedy would be political Sucide and she knows it, being somewhat transplanted in the finger lake region although i was born there I’m amazed at there attraction for her she has done nothing for the area in seven and a half years as senator. Senator schumer has promoted and helped the area ten fold compared to hillary, Even ex Governor spitzer was in area four times from september 07 to january to promote business and labor and health care.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 15, 2008 07:58 PM

oops Strategy !

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 15, 2008 09:13 PM